“THERE’S A PLACE in the world for the angry young man,” wrote Billy Joel almost 50 years ago. Unfortunately, that place seems to have expanded in our public square (for both men and women), creating echo chambers of primal screaming on both the right and left, leaving the large majority of us wondering where all the middle ground went.

For much of the past year, I’ve been writing a series of issue briefs for CommonWealth Beacon on a variety of controversial policy topics (see below), providing evidence-based arguments pro and con, in contrast to the bumper stickers from the left and right that too often pass for civic discourse.

There are two main points to the series.

First, even though almost every policy issue has ethical and philosophical dimensions, there are also complicated practical and technical aspects that make many, if not most, decisions closer calls, involving real-world trade-offs and unintended consequences.

Second, when you don’t view the opposing side as morally bankrupt or just plain ignorant, there may actually be opportunities for finding common or higher ground, maybe not to reach a final consensus, but at least to take a step forward together.

The tendency towards reductionism in most policy debates these days often makes a meeting of the minds next to impossible and compromise equivalent to surrender.

Should Boston enact rent control? Activists in favor say affordable housing is a fundamental human right, while advocates on the other side say free markets and private property stand between us and big-government tyranny.

Should the state stop prison construction? The left says prisons are inhumane centers of mass incarceration, while the right says “lock ‘em up.”

Should Massachusetts adopt voter ID requirements? The right says, “stop the steal,” while the left cries “voter suppression.”

Should the Commonwealth pay reparations to descendants of slaves? Advocates in favor say it’s a matter of overdue social justice, while opponents claim it’s just a performative “woke” hand out.

Should school librarians make final decisions about which books to stock on the shelves? The left warns against book bans, while the right defends parents’ rights.

It turns out in all these controversies the facts aren’t always so clear or one-sided, and reasonable people can disagree. Even when it seems like there is no common ground at all, we need to have enough self-awareness of our own fallibility and respect for the honestly held beliefs of others, no matter how misguided we may think they are, to hold on loosely to our own positions so we can view the other side as temporary opponents, rather than permanent enemies.

Deciding which side you’re on should at least require an open-minded consideration of the opposing arguments.

Think the cost of housing in Boston is outrageously high? Consider whether price controls would suppress the supply of new rental apartments.

Think prisons keep our communities safe? Consider the extent to which former prisoners continue to commit crimes after finishing their sentences.

Think voter ID laws are inherently discriminatory? Consider the high rates of minority voter turnout in states that already have such requirements.

Think reparations are unjustified? Consider the enormity of the Black-White wealth gap, 160 years after the end of slavery and 60 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Think school library book bans are threatening free speech and inclusivity? Consider how few communities in Massachusetts have actually removed books from the shelves.

There’s no doubt that these debates are fraught with serious differences in values and world views, and righteous rage (as Billy Joel might say) can indeed prick the conscience and spur action. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t dial down the rhetoric and personal attacks in order to get on with the more prosaic and pragmatic business of policymaking.

The goal is not to confuse or paralyze, but to acknowledge and clarify the inescapable choices in public policy, while encouraging humility, civility, and even empathy in our public discourse.

As a matter of long-term self-interest, if nothing else, we need to keep in mind that even if “our side” wins this round, the wheel will inevitably turn, and the balance of forces will no longer be in your favor. Total victory today leads to hard feelings and long memories that can become total defeat tomorrow. As fellow citizens, this is an unsustainable pattern that can only end in calamity, not just for some, but for all.

As we enter another polarized election season, let’s look forward to the coming year as a time to get off our high horses and embrace the complexity of the real world in hopes of restoring some semblance of common cause, as well as common sense.

# # # # #

The premise of the series of essays, outlined here and here, was that many important public policy issues are more complicated than the most fervent adherents to either side usually acknowledge, a dynamic that often hinders our ability to engage in thoughtful debate. The series addressed proposals for free community college; free MBTA service; right-to-shelter;  rent control; supervised injection sites; approval of school library books; reparations; voter ID requirements; a moratorium on prison construction; limiting investments in natural gas infrastructure; universal basic income; and the state’s 2024 gun control law.

James Peyser was Massachusetts secretary of education from 2015 through 2022.