Why can't we all just get long... w/o hating?

Great Debates
1

Something has been bothering me an awful lot in the modern world, and it’s something which ahs essentuially never changed since humans were around. It seems like groups of uhmans cannot disagree without imputing insanity, smallness of character, gross stupidity, the most flagrant acusations of evil, and . In many of these cases, I think the accuser is either projecting or simply making the worst possible reading.

And yes, that applies both to the “asshole” right and the “pseudo-intellectual” left. This is not a partisanly exclusive problem, although it tends to flow back and forth every 20-30 years. The worst of the worst tend to join one party as it ascends in power, then causes its decline, then some the new jerks go into the other party, dragging it down, and so on.

It seems that often enough the very best we can do for our neighbors is apathy. Which I find sad.

Some examples:

I don’t necessarily like McCain’s overall attitude. Nonethless, I’ll vote for him because I think he’d make the best President of the available candidates. I have strong disagreements with some of his policies in the past. Still, I think he’s a very honest man with strong character.

I won’t vote for Obama because I really have no clue what a President Obama would actually want to do (even his most enthusiastic supproters confuse me with contradictory interpretations) and I have questions about his judgement. Nonetheless, think I’d probably like him personally. He’s a personal man and I think he really cares about those around him. While I do mark him as an elitist, I also think he does genuinely want to help.

Finally Clinton. I don’t think Clinton is a very moral person. In fact, I think she’s pretty scary in some ways. Still, despite this, I admire her toughness. She’s a fighter, and she doesn’t just fold under pressure. I admire that, and I think that’s a fine quality in a President. One of the most important qualities, and not a bad one in anyone else, either.

These are just common political examples. You can find many more right here on this board. If I disagree with something, or someone, it’s because I believe an idea, concept, plan, or desire is wrong or immoral. But the person who espoused it may or may not be a good person independantly. I know a lot of people on the left, and a lot of Obama supporters. And… thry are smart people. I think they’re wrong about who ought to become President, but that doesn’t mean I think they’re bad peple, or stupid, or whatever.

2

I think your political opinions are are moronic and despicable, yet you strike me as an intelligent and decent poster.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s pick what you said about McCain, a candidate for whom I’m having difficulty retaining residual respect.

This is someone who derided Bush’s tax cuts, but now says he wants to retain them. He has also gone back and forth on the subject of teaching creationism in schools. His honesty seems rather malleable to me. Maybe in contrast to some other politicians he’d appear honest.

I’ve heard it said that when McCain does and says things that run counter to positions he’s taken before or represent pandering, he at least has the grace to look embarassed. I’m not sure that’s enough of a character reference for me.

I haven’t ruled out voting for McCain in the general election, depending on who the Democratic nominee is. Still, he’s not making it easy for me to seriously consider his candidacy.

3

Ca’t forget the Keating 5. He voted against torture before he voted for it. He railed against Bushes tax cuts for the wealthy before he decided we should make them permanent. Kerry was catigated for waffling. McCain is an IHOP.

4

I think* I disagree with the general claim that human nature makes civil discourse impossible. It isn’t impossible. Witness the “Shields and Brooks” segment on PBS. Given, they are both pretty moderate, but Brooks generally takes the Republican side and vice versa. They have perfectly dignified conversations about politics that do not devolve into name-calling, etc. They discuss issues of character and process without making sweeping claims about a candidates’ morality.

Most of us have friends of different political opinions with whom we can discuss these things perfectly rationally as well. And you can even find some very civil political discussion on this board.

But you’re right that most of the public discourse, and a lot of the discourse on this message board, doesn’t reflect that. I don’t know what it is exactly, but I think it has something to do with remoteness and a lack of personal context. For example, if someone PMs me with a dissenting opinion, my tone in response is often more respectful than in a public thread. I don’t like that about myself, and I try to be more respectful in open threads, but I think it reflects some kind of real psychological difference between direct communication and the type of public discourse exemplied in message board threads and many cable news shows.

*-My philosophy teacher taught me never to open a sentece with “I think…” because it was redundant, but I think many people read it as a sign of humility, so there you go.

5

I think most decent people can disagree politely and not have problems. However some issues just rise past polite levels. As an example some people think abortion is murder of babies…pure and simple. Others do not see it that way and find overriding a woman’s right to control her own life anathema. The arguments have been done ad nauseum and the two groups are in their corners. At the end of the day there is little room for discourse sans hate.

With things like this I believe it is just self interest and screw the other guy. Polite discourse is all well and fine in a pub over a beer but when the topic has at stake millions of dollars or power and such all bets are off. All too many people will do and say what is necessary to achieve their own ends. The really sad part here is those to whom they are talking seem unable to parse the bullshit and punish the bullshitter. I think that does not happen because too many people have their own self-interests intertwined with the bullshitter and add to the confusion.

I think he used to have strong character and I liked him in 2000. Now I think he has largely sold out his character for political expediency. The most telling example (and there are others), to my mind, is how a man who suffered torture voted to allow the US to continue torture techniques. As soon as he did that he lost all credibility with me. Toeing the Bush line? WTF? And the Bush campaign was particularly brutal to McCain in 2000. How he could line up with that man is appalling.

I think part of the problem you define here, and indeed with Democrats in general, is they are not the sorts to draw sharp lines as republicans do. They are more about the gray areas where conservatives assuredly know right from wrong and good from bad. I personally like this about democrats and Obama in particular. Don’t know what Obama will do? That is probably because even Obama cannot say he is 100% sure. To me he seems a man who will consider various opinions and form a cogent answer rather than bulling forward on his own mission and reality be damned. It is for this reason more than any that I like him. I may not agree with him but it won’t be bullshit from him and his decisions will be well considered ones taking information from all sides to form the best choice.

I think Clinton is smart and savvy and will do good (in a general way) where she can. However I think she is as much a part of the machine that makes Bush so bad. She will cave to special interests and reward her friends nevermind if it makes good policy. To be sure all politicians do this to some degree but clearly some are worse than others (Bush cronyism truly went to new extremes).

6

Crap. They scheduled Nice Day in GD, and nobody bothered to tell me. You guys suck.

7

The assorted pols want to strip me of my capacity to defend myself and my loved ones, take larger chunks of my expected future income to subsidize or bomb people in the Third World, and threaten me with fines or prison for the use of the most effective and accessible pain medication. Whether they possess admirable qualities or not, they are putting the force of the state behind initiatives that run against my immediate interests.

Between the Congressional cockblock and Supreme Court appointments, I’ll probably vote for McCain, but that doesn’t mean that he or the other two deserve a sliver of my respect.

8

I agree. Some issues and behaviors are simply beyond the pale, and don’t deserve an attitude of “we’ll agree to disagree”. For example, since the OP brought up McCain, once he said he’d tolerate torture, that was it for any respect I had for him. Tolerating, much less supporting torture is an evil so great that it overshadows everything else you are, or have done, or will ever do. One of the problems with “lets stop hating each other”, is that some things and some people deserve to be hated. And supporting torture, as far as I’m concerned, puts you in the category of an enemy of humanity; there’s a old legal Latin term I don’t recall, meaning “enemy of mankind in general” or something of the sort, historically used to refer to pirates and such. I think torturers and those who support them fall into that category.

And one problem with “let’s all get along”, is that it requires all sides involved to be willing to do so. I recall what happened when after 9-11, the Democrats tried to be bipartisan - the Republicans just grabbed for everything they could. They clearly aren’t interested in the country as a whole, don’t grasp the concept of good statesmanship, and are as a group firmly in the camp of people who can’t be gotten along with. Either you are strong enough to push them around, or they are strong enough to push them around.

9

I disagree. I started my previous post with, “I think most decent people can disagree politely and not have problems.”

If I dropped the “I think” it would sound like a statement of fact, “Most decent people can disagree politely.”

Adding “I think” makes it more a statement of personal opinion. Or so I see it.

10

But of course, smiling bandit, we could obviously all get along if we’d only agreed with your paternalistic, nationalistic, rah rah USA #1, political outlook – as in supporting the status quo via the shameless McSame. But that’s beyond naive. Stop the wholesale butchering, torturing and invading nations for no other reason than you can, and then we’ll talk civics and morality. You (in the general sense) are really in no position to ask for any sort of universal accord for as long as you act that way.

Meanwhile…no pasarán!

11

The term is hostis humani generis.

12

Most people do not want to get along.

13

smiling bandit, you’re probably not going to like my response but here goes. My opinion is you, as well as many other Americans, have been affected by Obama’s message during this election cycle.

I know, I know. Hear me out.

Obama constantly and consistently speaks about how critically important it is for all Americans to work toward a common purpose. He advises that we can’t work together if we’re not willing to try to understand each other.

We’ve become so cynical that we automatically expect, and have come to accept, the worst in everything and everyone, especially our leaders, so much so that we ridicule idealism and scoff when someone says, with a straight face, that we can be better.

Obama is trying to show us that there can be a better way of achieving what we all want without having to destroy each other. That he’s mocked and denigrated for it says more about us than him, in my opinion. However much people may scoff, I believe the fact that we, and others in America, are having this conversation now is directly attributable to Obama, how he’s conducted his campaign, how he believes he can talk to us like adults, his belief in equity for all, and yes, his unquantifiable message of hope. Everyone may not love his message, nor particularly like him, but he is resonating nationally as well as internationally, and it has us talking, and that’s a good thing.

Obama has broken the heretofore unmalleable conventional wisdom that only through cynicism and destruction can a political candidate be a true contender. Future political campaigns will be Obamafied, perhaps not to the extent of Obama’s current campaign, but the resemblance will be noticed, if not credited.

Yes, folks say he’s naive, that he has an overly simplistic vision, but I have to tell you, I want to live the America Obama sees in his mind’s eye, I really do.

Is Obama the best candidate for President to have come down the pike in the last 30 years? Probably not. But he’s a man for this time. What he desires for this nation is so high-minded and special that I honestly believe it would serve all of America well to give him a shot.

You probably won’t vote for Obama, and that’s fine, but I think he’s right in that regardless of our ideology, regardless of our political affiliation, we all want what’s best for us, our families, and this nation, and this ties us all together regardless of our differences, and it’s not naive or simplistic to eschew the negative and embrace positive methods that are respectful of others to achieve our common goals, as alien a concept as that may currently be.

So, yeah, smiling bandit, I appreciate you starting this topic, because it, for me, is another indication that Obama is getting through to us, in spite of ourselves.

14

Right, many people use “I think” as shorthand for “I currently believe but do not know for sure.” But to be fair to her (my teacher), that isn’t really what it is supposed to mean. It is supposed to mean “I currently believe,” or something similar, which is expressed by the sentence itself.

15

Thank you; my google-fu failed me.

16

I’m not offended, but I have to admit I’m not real interestrf in calls to bipartisanship. I like partisanship. I think it’s a good thing. I just want people to respect the guys across the aisle. They’re your countrymen and your (metaphorical) brethren and sestren.

Errr… I guess I am cynical, but I admit I don’t think Obama is the man to do this. he’s a machine poltiician, and I don’t object to that. But I do object to him calling us to be better people when I don’t think his own personal judgement is that hot. I don’t mind a man who makes mistakes as long as he admits them honestly. It’s one major failing of President Bush.

Sorry. Actually, I think I’ve pulled this a little off-track. I don’t want to turn this into a cheer/roast on specific candidates.

17

:eek:

That just amazes me. Perhaps it is true but in comparison to Clinton or McCain he is far, far, faaaar down that scale (and provably so I would say).

To me it is like we are looking at a sparrow and asked what we see and you answer a duck.

Guess it goes to show where disagreements come in. Two people looking at the same thing and see something completely different. I doubt we’ll hate each other for it (I know I don’t) but this is where it starts.

18

Its worse than that. McCain was a prisoner of war, he WAS tortured. He was against torture because he personally knows how horrible it is. There is no way i can believe he is ok with torture now. What he did is go against something i KNOW he is strongly against just because he thinks thats what he needs to get elected and thats simply despicable. I would have more respect with someone who was ok with torture to save American lives, i know he isn’t and there is no way i can ever respect someone like that.

19

The problem with partisanship in the world in which we live is that every issue has to be divided into completely different schools of opinion, which is dangerous because this can lead to certain issues being pigeonholed as ones that “only Republicans/Democrats care about”. If Democrats and Republicans CAN work together on universally agreed-upon issues such as taking care of the planet, working on alternative energy sources to loosen our dependence on foreign oil, making sure our soldiers aren’t living in absolute squalor and get proper benefits, etc., then I for one won’t get in their way. My feeling has always been that if people really sat down and talked about their opinions, one-on-one, then they probably would find that they agreed on much more than what pre-conceived notions about party platforms would tell them. I don’t see how this should be any different on the floor of Congress.

20

To be blunt, I see no reason to even suspect, much less believe that the Republicans in Congress care in the slightest about any of those things.

And personally, I think that the rifts between people are real and unbridgeable, although not as neat and binary as Republican-vrs-Democrat. I believe that a great many people have completely irreconcilable agendas for the country, and the world for that matter.