Ayn Rand's greatest error was her statement, "Each issue has a right side and a wrong side, but the middle is always evil." In fact in many situations it is possible to arrive at what I call the positive middle path that combines the benefits of each side and addresses the underlying interests in an ethical and compassionate way.
In many cases the different sides of any given issue reflect the interests of the parties involved. There are businessmen, and there are workers, and the two have different interests. A positive solution would look at the interests of both the businessman and the worker and arrive at a state of affairs that works for both the businessman and the worker. Whereas taking the side of either the one or the other at the expense of its complementary is destructive. Both the businessman and the worker have legitimate interests, and both the businessman and the worker need each other; and real leadership will consider the interests of both the businessman and the worker and negotiate something that works for both.
We see the same thing with nature and civilization. Some think that either the one or the other (and in some cases both) are evil. Neither is true. Both nature and civilization are essential to human life. Nature is the world from which people come and that they have not created; civilization is the world that people have created for their convenience. A positive direction will see efforts made to make sure that both worlds are in the best shape that they can be. The result will be both nature and civilization enduring, and people being able to have the benefits of both worlds.
Likewise with private sector and public sector. Both exist to serve people's demand: One in the marketplace and the other at the poll booth. Wanting to do away with either is violation of people's will. Private sector produces prosperity; public sector puts into place the infrastructure, the policing, the education, and the military protection that makes prosperity possible. The positive middle path will see both the private sector and the public sector do their job and then collaborate in matters where such collaboration can produce what either the public sector or the private sector cannot produce by itself.
With science and spirituality, thinking and feeling, men and women, we also see the same thing. Neither men nor women are good or evil; and it makes sense to support neither men nor women at the expense of each other, but rather positive interactions between the two. Neither thinking nor feeling is good or evil; and it makes sense to support neither one at the expense of the other, but being able to do both and through this combination arrive faster at wisdom than through either path working alone. With science and spirituality, the positive middle will allow both pursuits to continue, and for people to be able to reap the benefits of both.
One would see the middle as evil if one is an extremist; and the problem with extremists - both of the Communist type and of the Ayn Rand type - is that they see only one side of the issue, which they then claim to be the definition of good. To make things work, it is necessary to see the situation of all parties involved and then to negotiate arrangements that work for all parties. And that is nowhere close to being evil. In fact I would dare to say that this approach, when applied to leadership, is true good.