A recent Lewiston Sun Journal Letter to the Editor grabbed my attention, because it so articulately expressed a popular view that is so dangerously wrong.

The writer compared our era to the pre-Civil War period of the late 1850s, when the country was “exhausted from failed compromises” and when “North and South looked across an unbridgeable chasm … , one which had pretended we could be two kinds of country: slave-holding and free.”

In 2012, the writer argued, “Right and Left look at each other across a similarly unbridgeable chasm,… . For too long, we, too, pretended we could be two kinds of country: capitalist and socialist, free market and state-controlled, libertarian and highly regulated.”

The letter ended with what sounded suspiciously like a battle cry, “The time for compromise is ended.”

Those who believe we are locked in a Manichean struggle between the forces of capitalism and socialism (as surrogates for good and evil), instead of engaged in a legitimate debate about where to draw pragmatic lines in a mixed economy, are either woefully ignorant of economics or in the thrall of a mass mental delusion known as ideology.

Worse, they are spoiling for a society-shattering fight which would undercut the fundamental consensus that has given rise to a century-and-a-half of stability, prosperity and security since the Civil War. Without that consensus, even the combined strength of our entire armed forces and police agencies couldn’t maintain law and order.

The consensus is a kind of invisible connective tissue, consisting of a common allegiance to national symbols like the flag, and common core beliefs, traditions and interests. It outweighs our differences and inclines us towards compromise rather than conflict. Examples of countries where the opposite is true include Syria, Iraq and Somalia.

I play trumpet in the Auburn Community Concert Band’s weekly summer concert series at Festival Plaza. Each concert opens the same way, with members of the audience standing, removing their hats and singing along with our rendition of the national anthem, “The Star Spangled Banner.” Each concert closes with the same folks standing and singing “God Bless America.”

Our conductor never asks whether the participants are capitalist or socialist. It’s irrelevant. Their common allegiance to the country is demonstrated by a simple act of respect.

With the exception of the Civil War, the U.S. has survived every tumultuous transition without tearing apart at the seams, and it has done so by employing compromise.

The issues of taxation and government spending and regulation are hardly as morally compelling as that of slavery. The guiding principle in resolving these issues should be: What will work best?

Like Goldilocks and the Three Bears, it’s a matter of finding the right mix that is: “Not too hot, not too cold, but just right.”

Ideology is the enemy of compromise. It tries to fit the complexities of the world into a simple, one-size-fits-all template, which may contain elements of truth but is inadequate to either explain current reality or predict future developments. The adherents of an ideology assume it to be absolutely true and make no allowance for dissent.

Notable examples can be found in the antithetical ideologies of two iconic political philosophers: 1. On the left, Karl Marx exalted the wealth-creating capacity of labor and vilified capitalism as a dying exploitative force, which “vampire like, lives only by sucking living labor.” 2. On the right, Ayn Rand exalted capitalist greed, characterized money as “the barometer of a society’s virtue.” They couldn’t both have been completely right.

The U.S. economy is so complex that any attempt to define it by slapping on an ideological label is futile. It encompasses robust market forces, substantial government spending, and an extensive system of public regulatory controls, all of which are inter-dependent and necessary for its success. The only question is how to achieve the proper balance among these factors.

The right balance between public spending and taxation, for instance, can’t be found in an ideological tract and certainly shouldn’t be determined by the “pledge” forced upon legislators by Americans for Tax Reform (a lobby group headed by right-wing ideologue Gordon Norquist).

A recent televised C-Span conference of “supply side” Bush-era policy advisers, chaired by Karl Rove, brought home this point to me.

One panelist, a respected economist, felt that both conservative and liberal economists could agree on a Goldilocks range for the top marginal income tax rate – a number high enough to yield sufficient revenues for vital governmental services, but low enough to maximize revenues, ensure compliance, and encourage economic growth. He pegged the range at between 25% and 40% and felt that serious disagreement between the two sides would be limited to figures within that range.

I suspect he’s right, particularly if the tax code is reformed and most current tax loopholes plugged. Moreover, I suspect that the Goldilocks rate will need to be adjusted over time, depending upon whether the economy is in recession and needs a boost through tax cuts or is overheated and needs a tax hike to hold down inflation.

Where to draw the line on government regulation and public subsidies and benefits is also a subject that requires detached analysis of reliable data, not reliance on ideology. The goal should be to seek the most effective ways of promoting economic growth and fostering individual responsibility, while simultaneously protecting public health and safety, preserving environmental quality and aiding society’s most vulnerable members. .

Even the Obama administration’s much maligned Affordable Care Act is based, in large part, upon expanding private insurance coverage, not on imposing a socialist medical system. . Therefore, attacking the ACA as socialist is nonsense. Taking the position that parts of it are unworkable and in need of restructuring makes far more sense.

Finding the right mix for the U.S. will require a lot of careful study, serious debate, national introspection and, most of all, willingness to listen and compromise.

So here’s my own battle cry, “The time for compromise has just begun.”

Elliott L. Epstein,a local attorney, is founder of Museum L-Aand an adjunct history instructor at Central Maine Community College. He is the author of “Lucifer’s Child,”a recently published book about the 1984 oven-death murder of Angela Palmer. He may be reached  at [email protected].