When is Relativism Okay?

I understand the political argument regarding the size of government moderately well from both sides. I understand that the republican party wants a very hands-off approach of the government, they want a free-market economy, one that will drive the economy and that will enable individuals to act for themselves. The other side of the spectrum wants more government action, they want institutions set in place to protect those who simply cannot get on their feet and protection for the unexpected by making as much as possible regulated. Clearly, this is an overgeneralization, but I hope I'm hitting all of the main points.

My problem with politics is this: where is the middle ground? When is it necessary to say, okay, even though I am a stalwart republican, I think that a more regulated health care is okay because there are just too many problems with the system we have now. When is it necessary for a democrat to say, well, this didn't work lets try it your way. I think that these opportunities arise all the time, we are just to blind or too steeped in our own circle of society to realize it.

During the progressive era, I think that we saw this kind of melding of political ideals out of necessity. The circumstances were amazingly bad. Workers in factories were being paid less than it took them to survive, and thats if they were lucky enough to get a job. Farmers couldn't function because of devastating monetary deflation and the unregulated high prices of shipping. The middle class was farther than ever away from the top rung of society because of the rampant and exorbitant fortunes of a few people like the Rockefeller's and the Carnegie's at the expense of everyone underneath them.

Though these conditions were poor throughout the industrial revolution, it wasn't until the early 1900s that they got any attention. Writers like Lincoln Steffens and Ida Tarbell led the muckrakers, the people who were brave enough (and well off enough) to speak out against the big businesses that were monopolizing society. With the publication and resulting horror of The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, people who had never seen the problem or who had been shielded from it were able to participate in fixing it. Through the flow of information, changes were recognized, but it wasn't until the political tides turned that we saw any real changes. The openness of information and the lack of censorship enabled people to individual start making a difference.

With the Teddy Roosevelt in office, one of the youngest presidents at that time, and certainly one of the most revolutionary for his time, came up to the plate and reversed the standard practice of a very republican government. He instituted programs that held the monopolies in check. He helped the labor unions gain recognition. With his square deal, he created checks on he food industry and workers rights. Clearly all of these regulations fall under the democratic political subheading, but weren't they needed? Yes, the country was seriously in debt after these regulations, but the economy was moving. People were on their feet again, immigrants were able to begin fulfilling that American Dream.

So when is the middle okay? In this case, it was okay years before the conditions of the country got so bad. Major corporations should have been limited before they decimated the economy and the living standards of so many, but they weren't, so the pendulum was forced to swing even farther to the left. George Washington warned again the polarization of parties, and I think that I understand more of what that means. But how can we help that now? How can we as a population function under the umbrella of neither the right or the left, and think about only the best interest of the country?