Bridging the Divide: Understanding Liberals, Conservatives, and the American Middle

By: Rebecca Witherspoon

The ideological divide between the left and the right in American society often feels as wide as the Grand Canyon. At its core, the difference lies in how each side views the role of government, authority, and individual liberty. Understanding the motivations behind both perspectives is essential if we ever hope to find a path forward together as a nation.

Those on the left (liberals) tend to see government as a force for good—a necessary tool for solving social problems, advancing equality, and protecting the vulnerable. This belief often stems from an overconfidence and belief in the infallibility of institutions and experts. From their perspective, government intervention is not just helpful, but often necessary to correct what they view as historical injustices, regulate powerful interests, and provide services they feel the private sector neglects. For many liberals, trusting government and the experts means trusting the people and systems they believe have the knowledge and experience to lead effectively. Some liberals (not all) have a tendency to dismiss the views and values of those with whom they disagree, and in the more extreme cases to support the suppression of personal freedoms so long as that suppression advances what they believe to be noble goals.

On the other hand, those on the right (conservatives) tend to view government with a healthy dose of skepticism. They recognize that while government can do good, it also has a strong tendency to overreach. Conservatives often cite overregulation, excessive taxation, and bureaucratic inefficiency as evidence that government must be limited and held in check. They emphasize personal responsibility, individual liberty, and the idea that too much central control can erode freedoms. When government steps out of bounds, conservatives believe it should be held accountable—regardless of which party is in power. Like some liberals, some conservatives (not all) have a tendency to dismiss the views and values of of those with whom they disagree, and in the more extreme cases to support the suppression of certain activities so long as that suppression advances what they believe to be noble goals.

In both cases, the extremes tend to be the loudest and rarely represent the majority of those who fall within their particular political beliefs.

Then there people like me, the centrists—those who live in the space between who may lean a little left in some areas and a little right in others. Many, but not all, centrists tend to be socially liberal (allowing people to live how they choose, as long as they aren’t harming others) and fiscally conservative (being cautious with money and government intervention in the economy). Most of us support personal freedoms and civil rights, including LGBTQ equality, bodily and medical autonomy, parental rights, the right to protect themselves and their families, and freedom of speech and thought, while also championing balanced budgets, leaner and more efficient bureaucracies, and pragmatic, results-driven governance.

Centrists don’t necessarily want more government or less government—we want better government. We prefer that the state stay out of our private lives while making sure that the basics of society—public safety, infrastructure, economic stability—are handled efficiently and responsibly. In other words, we want solutions, not slogans or ideology.

What sets centrists apart is our general preference for a hands-off relationship with government—so long as things are running relatively smoothly. We don’t want to feel like watchdogs, constantly on alert for corruption, mismanagement, or overreach—after all, that’s what we have elected representatives for. As a result, when government seems to be functioning “well enough,” many centrists simply go about their lives without voting in every election.

But when the system starts to feel like it’s spinning out of control—whether through economic instability, failing education standards, parental rights ignored and/or infringed upon, rising crime, the justice system used to suppress rather than uphold individual rights, governmental overreach and overregulation, political extremism, etc.—centrists tend to wake up. That’s when you will see centrists begin to engage, speak out, and turn out to vote. The downside? This intermittent engagement leads to inconsistent voter turnout and, consequently, inconsistent accountability for elected officials.

This can create a troubling feedback loop: when the middle checks out, then the extremes will dominate. Without the stabilizing influence of the pragmatic center, political discourse becomes more polarized, and government becomes more reactionary. Ironically, by not showing up consistently, centrists can unintentionally contribute to the very dysfunction that finally brings them back to the polls.

So how do we bridge this ideological divide?

First, we all need to foster a culture of civic responsibility—one where participation isn’t driven only by crises but by commitment to a functioning democracy. That includes engaging moderates and centrists in a way that respects their independence but also encourages consistent involvement.

Second, we must always demand integrity from all sides. Abuse of power, whether from the left or the right, should be condemned and corrected—not excused because of political loyalty and ideology.

Finally, we must refocus on our shared values: freedom, opportunity, justice, accountability, and efficiency. These aren’t partisan ideals—they’re American ones. By recognizing that each group brings something valuable to the table—like compassion, caution, and common sense—we can begin to stitch back together the social fabric that has frayed in recent years.

Division may define the present moment, but it doesn’t have to shape our future. The bridge between the so-called left and and the so-called right—and the very essential middle—begins with each of us offering mutual respect, seeking out our shared goals, and renewing a belief that our differences don’t have to make us enemies.