Mixing Things

We mix a lot of things.

For example, I like Jack* mixed with ice or what is called “Jack on the Rocks.” Sometimes I prefer Jack with some bitters and Maraschino cherries, sometimes called an Old Fashioned. On special occasions I have a dry martini which means you mix a nice dry gin with a little bit of white vermouth. Shake it in a metal tumbler with some ice until your hand freezes. Add olives. 

Basketball teams mix tall people with short people and often times mix people of color with whites. A “mixer” is often used to describe a social event or a dance that mixes the sexes. A cake mix mixes together a bunch of ingredients. And what about a pizza? Wow.

We apparently love to mix. Mixing in the above and many more ways suggests that things don’t always have to stand alone. It does not have to be one or the other. For example, Jack is fine straight up out of the bottle. And Maraschino cherries – wow, they are wonderful alone. Most French fries don’t even need a hint of catsup.

Yet, despite the wonderfulness of things alone, we often find that combining them produces better outcomes. Straight Jack might be too strong for some people. Gin is not only strong but it has a specific flavor related to the juniper berry that some people prefer with some sort of embellishment. Some people are much better single while others can barely exist without a continuous partner.

All the above got me thinking about people on the ideological extremes. Like a good ounce of bourbon, a liberal progressive has some very clear and important characteristics. A conservative makes some points so true and tasty that even pommes frites eaten in a Maastricht square could not compete.

But isn’t it interesting that even though liberals and conservatives each have very important beliefs and messages, they don’t see the benefit of mixing? Sure, we have people called centrists and moderates who blend these ideas, but isn’t it interesting that the moderates don’t seem to have much sway these days.

Economic conservatives love motivation and the idea of creating incentives to get people to do things that are good for themselves and for society. For example, a financial conservative might favor giving a company a tax break so that it might hire more people and produce more goods.

A liberal worries that incentive is not enough or that it might be wasted. A liberal might prefer a more direct approach as in a regulation or a penalty that might drive a firm to hire more people.

The conservative retorts that liberal regulations can be misspent and ineffective; the liberal believes the same of the tax incentive.

This is just one example of the differences between conservatives and liberals. The point is that they both have good ideas. As in gin & tonic or a Bloody Mary, why can’t liberals and conservatives see the beauty in each other’s approaches? In the above example, perhaps some mixing of incentives and regulations might be better than the extreme or purely ideological approaches. Giving a firm incentives to grow, while at the same time putting some parameters around how the incentives are spent, might work. Paying close attention to the unintended effects of tax cuts and/or regulations suggests getting the most out of policies.

Yet as reasonable as all that sounds, we see moderates drowned out by extremism on the left and right. Has our world always been that way? Do we lack so much in entertainment or in so much heart-felt emotion, that we have to fume and scream at each other when we know that mixing might be better than extreme policies? Is it simply more fun to scream at people who see the world a little differently? Must Jack on the Rockers scream at Old-Fashioners?

I don’t know about you, but I am getting pretty thirsty. A French fry wouldn't hurt either.