So every once in a while we get these discussions where obviously both sides are entrenched in their views and have “solid” cases. Iraq though indefensible to me… seems quite a good proposition to some… tax cuts, abortion, etc…
So I wonder… is there a common ground ? Some issues or facts that most smart people can agree upon especially regarding US politics and Bush ? I picked 80% as a good majority (out of my head)… and dopers as smart reference and only sample we have here.
I’ll propose a few I think most “smart” or dopers would agree for starters:
Afghanistan was a legitimate invasion (not discussing if it was well done or not, or legal)
Bush’s international diplomacy was very lacking (even if you think he shouldn’t have gone to the UN or whatever… the diplomacy was shoddy)
De-segregation was a good idea? We probably shouldn’t invade Canada?
Seriously, I’ve been shocked on both sides of many issues with people I normally consider intelligent. I wouldn’t even hazard a guess to what 50 % of the people on the board or IRL think.
Privatising is probably the wrong word. I think you’re looking more for the term ‘Partial Self Direction’. No one is talking about privatising the entire system, are they? I think the pundits suggest some of the withholdings be re-directed.
Even the partial self direction – lovely bit of Orwellian doublespeak, that – is an attack on the system, as it attempts to get funds needed out of Social Security. Whatever you call it, people will see it for what it is, and it will go over like a lead balloon, especially among those OLDER Americans – and they vote.
Pet peeve of mine but Social Security is overused as a term. No one is talking about privatizing social security. The Social Security Administration provides a wide range of welfare services, retirement income is only one of like 20 services the SSA provides.
Some people are talking about privatizing pay-ins on the retirement income scheme that exists within the SSA, not the entire SSA itself.
I know that even politicians don’t make this distinction but it just always struck me as counter-educational because it’s typecast the SSA as a one trick pony in a lot of people’s minds.
I would agree, but a lot of people who live there would violently disagree, no matter how you’re defining “modernization.” And a lot of American Muslims would feel exactly the same way about it – even if they have no interest in moving back to the ME.
Here’s one: Can we all agree that the rising inequality of wealth in American society is a problem? A very bad thing in and of itself, regardless of what causes it or of what might or might not reverse it? If you don’t agree with that, s stated, please tell us why.
I like this idea, and have toyed with it myself. It will be interesting to assemble a list of things that almost all of us can agree on. Here are a couple off the top of my head:
Creationsim should not be taught in science classes in public schools.
Gay couples should be afforded some sort of civil recognition.
From the OP:
that’s way to sujebjective to warrant agreement. “Very lacking”? I don’t know what that means. You’ll never get any group of people to agree that any given administration had the proper amount of diplomacy going.
We do not have a good, effective strategy—other than unilateral military aggression—for international humanitarian intervention in nations suffering under brutal regimes.
Of course, there is great disagreement as to whether unilateral military aggression is in fact a good or effective strategy in such cases, with some conservative hawks saying yes and most liberals and other conservatives saying no. But I think we can pretty much agree that the existing alternatives are inadequate.
Um, well, it seemed as much an “American” issue to me (in the sense of being something that a lot of Americans have political opinions on) as the OP’s examples of “Afghanistan was a legitimate invasion” and “the Middle East needs modernization.” Aren’t those also “international” issues? Is this debate restricted to political issues that Americans can solve by ourselves? If so, I missed that, sorry.
I’m not trying to police this thread, so throw out anything that you think makes sense. Afghanistan was not just some random humanitarian crisis that needed to be solved, but something directly affecting the US. The situation in the Sudan is an example of what I though you were proposing. There isn’t a reason why the US, as opposed to the E…U. or the U.N. needs to tackle it or other situations like it.
What an irenic (yes, I spelled that right) thread you’ve got going here, Rashak Mani! Makes a nice change.