“The Great Middle”
October 1, 2025
“The Great Middle”
By Gregory R. Kim[1]
America has abandoned the middle, and the void continues to grow. From an economic standpoint, the middle class is shrinking. From a political standpoint, the parties are taking extreme positions. Journalists are doing the same, with television and cable news stations taking sides.
It is a cliché that we need to find common ground, “reach across the aisle,” and collaborate. But these words fall empty where there is little to no action that implements these words. So, the empty middle keeps growing.
This phenomenon is not lost when it comes to gun control and gun safety in America. Every time there is a mass shooting, there are loud calls for reasonable gun control measures, but the progress is slow, and major change has not materialized. And, while the shootings have seemed to grow in frequency in recent years, this has been the cycle for decades . . . mass shooting, calls for action, no change. If the definition of insanity is trying to do the same thing and expect a different result, gun control advocates have been practicing insanity.
The politicians who are in office before a mass shooting are the same politicians who are in office after a mass shooting. They are not going to change their voting pattern on gun control unless the voters demand that they do so. That has not happened because the voters themselves have been on the extremes. It was this realization that led to NORA.
It sounds obvious that we should seek the middle ground and compromises. This obviousness leads to apathy and inaction. It sounds boring and not principled. It may be more compelling for politicians to take extreme positions, because that is what their parties want, because it would attract media attention, and the politician can be re-elected and avoid ridicule.
Some of the benefits of a middle ground approach are obvious, such as achieving something rather than nothing. But these benefits can also be viewed as detriments by the stakeholder, for example not achieving more aggressive goals, creating the perception of weakness, and not demonstrating conviction for one’s beliefs and principles.
Seeking the middle ground, contrary to popular belief, IS compelling and is a WIN to be celebrated. By comprising, the stakeholders are understanding and respecting the viewpoints of others, which results in the adjustment of one’s own viewpoints. The middle ground morphs into the perfect approach to balance the needs of the many over the needs of the few. It is an acknowledgement that we do not have all the answers, and that we may have blind spots in our own thinking that cloud the needs of the “other side.” Compromise is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength and confidence that we do not have to stick to our extreme positions but can accept win-win scenarios. When you empathize with the needs of others, in most cases they will have greater empathy with you. If they do not, you are still doing the right thing. [Sen. Inouye and Stevens; Oklahoma in-laws]
[Benefits to the Middle Ground: Middle ground more sustainable, extremes not; middle ground more feasible; something will get done; need to show courage to resist short-term ridicule (good trouble); pushing to extremes to settle on the middle can work but not in politics; need to listen to each other; need empathy (it’s “us” not “me”); does decrease crime; it is a deterrent; get along with people of different views; look at long term]
[How to Achieve the Middle Ground: have courage; Sen. Inouye did with the Alaskan Senator Stevens; in-laws from Oklahoma example; it’s the right thing to do, not wishy washy; see the other side’s point of view and respect it; shoot gun; more measured; people love their guns; people truly believe they need to defend themselves; people may have living conditions that warrant gun ownership]
To effect lasting, we need to pursue the long game, similar to how anti-abortion advocates spend 50 years after Roe v. Wade to do what was necessary to repeal the case and achieve pro-life initiatives. Whether you agree or not with the result, the strategy is effective, but required patience and a long-term view. It will take years, if not decades, to realize the benefits of electing politicians who support reasonable gun control and gun safety regulations. Now is the best time to start.
A challenge with making change through the voting process is that voters may not know the positions of the candidates on gun control. Such information is not well publicized or easy to find. The media covers the voting records of gun rights supporters, much more extensively than gun control supporters. Candidates may try to stay below the radar on their gun control and safety voting records.
NORA grades politicians based on how well they support reasonable gun control measures. NORA examines the politician’s voting records, public statements, and other indications of his or her willingness to support reasonable gun control and safety regulations. Armed with this information, voters can elect candidates who are willing to take action to improve gun control and safety. Taking this approach, there will be no quick fix, but rather long-term improvements. If the voters do not, however, elect politicians who will take action on gun control and safety, then as a country we will have decided to live with gun violence. We trust that most Americans do not feel this way.
Seeking the middle ground is not just for gun control and safety regulations. It can and should be applied to all aspect of politics, lawmaking, and life in general. Hopefully gun control and safety can show the way.
[1] President and Co-Founder, National Organization for the Regulation of Arms.