# "How Did We Become Bitter Political Enemies?" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 16, 2017, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112 "2017-06-16T13:23:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/301 "2017-06-19T00:15:39Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > Oh, that doesn’t matter. On page 2 or 3 of this thread, one poster used hyperbole and said that climate change would lead to extinction, so therefore obviously all people arguing in favour of stopping climate change believe that extreme hyperbole. HD has already said it’s our fault for not immediately denouncing that view, so we must share it. (Never mind HD for not denouncing, but ignoring, the extremeist viewpoints of Republican politicans or Trump…) You’ve deeply mis-represented my position. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/302 "2017-06-19T00:46:11Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > All right, I’ll give it a go, in good faith. > > **Climate Chang** e: > Left: Human caused climate change is a scientifically proven phenomenon that needs to be addressed before it causes untold cost and human suffering. > Right: Climate change is most likely a politically motivated hoax, but in the event that it’s not, we have to address it in a way that doesn’t hamstring the economy. > > **Guns:** > Left: The freedom of unrestricted gun ownership is not worth the loss of life > Right: Gun ownership is critical to prevent the loss of life in the case of home invasions, terrorism, or government tyranny. > > **Gay Marriage:** > Left: Gays should have the same rights as straights when it comes to marriage. > Right: States should be entitled to make decisions about what constitutes legal marriage. > > **Equality:** > Left: All people deserve to be treated equally regardless of race, nationality, sex, gender, religion > Right: People are pretty much already treated equally because America is the goddamn best. Wanting to change any laws at this point is asking for special rights that don’t apply to all citizens. > \*\* > Free Speec\*\*h: > Left: All speech should be protected except for hate speech or yelling “fire” in a crowded room. > Right: I should be able to express my controversial views without being villainized as a bad person. I apparently don’t realize this has nothing to do with free speech. > > (Sorry, I’ve never seen any alternative expressed.) > > **Foreign Policy:** > Left: We need to work with our allies and other nations. > Right: We need to show that we are decisive and will not back down or other nations will perceive us as vulnerable and will undermine our security. > > **Government Spending:** > Left: The resources of government should go towards building infrastructure and improving the lives of it’s citizens through education, health care and social safety nets. > Right: The government is not equipped to take care of people. By privatizing many basic services, competition will naturally result in people being served more effectively. > > **Economics:** > Left: The role of government is to curtain corporate excess and, when necessary, provide a safety net to support the economy. > Right: Government safety nets make it more difficult for people to achieve the dignity of real independence, and encourage irresponsibility and the deterioration of the family unit. Furthermore, these safety nets de-emphasize the critical role of private enterprise in keeping citizens financially secure. > > Conservatives: How’d I do? > > It should be noted I’m attempting to present the best-faith perspective, which doesn’t mean I don’t have huge problems with some of those arguments. But let’s try to look at them for what they are, not what it’s more convenient for us to believe that they are. IANAC, so I’ll critique both sides. But I think that was much better than the first one. If you got anything wrong, I don’t think it’s because you created a caricature intended to insult, which is the more important thing. FREE SPPECH: Does the left really want to ban hate speech? I guess I’ll take your word for it. On the right, though, you’re expressing something that does’t really touch on the law. Frankly, I think both sides like to suppress speech that bothers them. Righties want to ban flag burning, lefties want to ban “hate speech”, which does seem to be a hot button these days. GOVERNMENT SPENDING: I don’t think you captured the right’s view all that well, but I’m not really sure what the best way would be to summarize it in a sound bite. Maybe they just want spending to be lower (except for military spending). Or that it should be more local rather than federal. ECONIMCS: “Corporate excesses” is a very amorphous term and could mean almost anything. I don’t think most righties want to eliminate all social safety nets, but they worry about non-needy people getting them. Righties and lefties approach this differently: Lefties worry that not enough people are getting help, and don’t care so much if that means some non-needy people get help, too. Righties are more concerned with making sure no non-needy people get help. And again, you’ll find the issue of federalism playing a role. Lefties want to federalize everything and righties want to leave it more to the states. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/303 "2017-06-19T00:50:03Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > Oh, that doesn’t matter. On page 2 or 3 of this thread, one poster used hyperbole and said that climate change would lead to extinction Actually, the statement being hashed over was, to my eyes, very carefully worded to say that, as a consequence, human extinction was POSSIBLE. Not inevitable, not necessarily likely, just possible. But apparently there’s disagreement even over that. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/304 "2017-06-19T01:19:02Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > many presidents, including Bushes, have done that. Which agreement(s) by the Bushes did you have in mind when you wrote this? I’m trying to think of anything done by either President Bush that even begins to approach the scope and scale of the Paris Accord that they signed onto and didn’t try to get ratified by the Senate, and I’m drawing a blank. Little help? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/305 "2017-06-19T01:24:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > IANAC, so I’ll critique both sides. But I think that was much better than the first one. If you got anything wrong, I don’t think it’s because you created a caricature intended to insult, which is the more important thing. As a conservative, I’ll second JM’s analysis. _Significantly_ better than the earlier list. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/306 "2017-06-19T01:25:54Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I know of very, very few liberals who want to outlaw any speech because it’s offensive. [40 percent of Millennials.](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/307 "2017-06-19T01:29:59Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > [40 percent of Millennials.](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/) That’s more than I thought, but not all of those are liberals, and it’s still a minority of a single generation. Not reasonable to call that a liberal position when most liberals don’t feel that way, any more than it would be fair to call it a conservative position because some small number might want to outlaw blasphemy. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/308 "2017-06-19T01:50:32Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > [40 percent of Millennials.](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/) Uuuuuugh. Also, FYI, I used all of **mssmith** ’s positions for the ‘‘Leftist’’ view so I wasn’t really paying attention to the ‘‘banning hate speech’’ part when I laid it out. I am a Millennial liberal and I am opposed to the banning of any kind of speech. I actually think conservatives have kind of a point when they say they don’t want to be screamed at and shouted down and villainized for expressing an opposing view. The problem is a lot of them call this an issue of ‘‘free speech,’’ which muddies the waters, because then liberals are all, ‘‘WRONG, we’re not the government, learn to Constitution.’’ But really, the fundamental problem? It’s a real one. I’m not suggesting blanket tolerance for bigotry, but I’ve seen a lot less offensive views, say, just denying that white privilege is a thing, be considered in and of itself racial intolerance. Ignorance, maybe, but basically being lumped in with the KKK? Refusing to engage in any dialog at all? That’s a bridge too far. I really don’t understand what’s happening with this ‘‘new generation’’ of liberals. I’m not _that_ old, am I? My last stint in a classroom was 2011, within an extremely liberal, social-justice oriented context, and I don’t remember any of these ideas receiving credibility. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/309 "2017-06-19T01:51:33Z")
**wolfpup** , > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If ‘the world’ wanted an enduring agreement with the US, they should have negotiated something that could achieve ratification in the US Senate. They didn’t, and so they were left with something that was entirely at the whim of the US President, and when the President changes, those whims change. I’ve quoted myself here so that you and other readers can see what you were responding to, because I don’t think “responding to” is the right word for what you did. > [@wolfpup](#): > > This is probably the most ridiculous comment in this entire thread, and I only say “probably” because there are a few other howlers in it. But I call it out because it also functions as an excellent illustration of what is not just a political divide, but a factual divide – fundamental disagreements about the basic nature of reality in which one side seems to have lost the faculty of reason. > > The Paris accord was not the result of a “whim” of President Obama, however much you might hate both the former President and those pesky climate scientists who provided the sound scientific guidance on which the agreement was based. So the first element of reality-denial we have to address here is the assertion that the terms of the agreement were arbitrary and not achievable; this is utterly false. The second fact of actual reality is that virtually every country on earth signed on in the belief that it was both achievable and necessary, and IIRC the majority – some 148 nations – have now ratified. > > … You said you wanted to address “the assertion that the terms of the agreement were … not achievable”. Who made this assertion? When? As for the first point (that the terms of the agreement were arbitrary) it wasn’t my intent to claim this either. When I said “on a whim”, I meant that he entered into the agreement without submitting it to the Senate for ratification, as used to be done routinely for major international agreements. I wasn’t intending to make any comment whatsoever on “the terms of the agreement”, but the method used to signal USA’s support for it. It was a big step down from Senate ratification. > [@wolfpup](#): > > … Or to put it another way, the agreement was precisely the sort of compromise you suggest that the rational leaders of the world’s nations felt could be ratified. And it could be ratified by a US Senate, too – one with a Democratic majority. I don’t think a Senate with 51 Dems and 49 Republicans would ratify it either, but it’s largely unknowable at this point. Do you think Obama should have taken into consideration the political realities of the United States Senate (and the larger body politic) when trying to commit us to an international agreement? I do. > [@wolfpup](#): > > As for the gang of denialists that is installed there now, just what kind of agreement do you imagine they would ever ratify? Seriously. I don’t know. They didn’t ratify Kyoto, and they won’t ratify Paris, so maybe somethign that they feel better protects the economic interests of the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Settimo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Settimo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Settimo)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/310 "2017-06-19T02:02:42Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > My try at it: > **Climate Change:** > Left: Human caused climate change is a scientifically proven phenomenon that needs to be addressed before it causes untold cost and human suffering. > > Right: Either man-made climate change is not sufficiently scientifically proven yet, or the proposed remedy is too economically costly, or is done in a way that is unfair (for instance, developing countries are “permitted” to pollute more than developed countries) > **Guns:** > Left: Fewer guns = fewer gun deaths. > > Right: The Constitution is the Constitution, so even if there were fewer gun deaths, you can’t just abolish gun ownership without first doing away with the 2nd Amendment. Also, if bad guys have guns and good guys don’t, that’s an undesirable mismatch. > **Gay Marriage:** > Left: Gays should have the same rights as straights when it comes to marriage. > > Right: A variety of motives on this issue: Many religious conservatives believe that gay marriage is immoral perversion and so want to keep America as closely aligned with their religious views as possible. Some other conservatives think that gay marriage opens up the door to polygamy, incest, etc. Also, to some religious conservatives, having to provide a cake for a gay wedding is as religiously unacceptable to them as a Muslim having to handle or eat pork. > **Equality (possibly the thorniest issue of all):** > Left: Equal _results/outcomes._ People should be treated as if they are still unequal, and need “leveling” (i.e., minorities should be given affirmative action in a way that white people don’t get, etc.) In speech/entertainment, sometimes known as “punching up vs. punching down.” It is OK to punch up, but not OK to punch down. So, for instance, it is more acceptable for a black comedian to make fun of white people than vis versa. > > Right: Equal _treatment/opportunity._ People should be treated as if they are already equal, and do not need “leveling.” Giving different people the same opportunity means that there will be _different_ outcomes, because everyone is different (you can give two high school students each an opportunity to try out for the football team, but if one is fit, athletic, strong, and fast, and the other is slow, unhealthy, and weak, then one obviously stands a better chance of making the roster than the other.) Also, “punching up” should not be permissible any more than “punching down” – it should be about equal _treatment_, regardless of background. It should be considered equally wrong for a black comedian to make fun of white people as it would have been the other way around. > **Free Speech:** > Left: Speech should not be permitted if it is offensive to certain groups of people, or leads society down a bad direction. (There is a wide range of latitude in the liberal camp on this topic. Some are closely aligned with conservatives and favor broad free speech. But some others think that even factually true speech can be considered offensive, if offensive.) > > Right: Speech should not be permitted if it has a very harmful effect on society, but with greater latitude than the liberal view (i.e., leaking classified secrets should be illegal, and same for defamatory libel/slander, but offensive-but-true speech should be permitted, even if rude.) Society would be better if people were allowed to openly discuss what is truly in their hearts, and not get judged for it, so as to get the thoughts off of their chest, rather than being forced to suppress their feelings inwardly. “Political correctness” means not being allowed to say that the emperor’s new clothes are not, in fact, clothes. It is getting near the point of saying that “flame-retardant material” is offensive because it uses the word “retard.” > > **Foreign Policy:** > Left: The United States is but one country out of nearly 200, and we need to be a responsible and considerate member of the international community. Also, military force should only be used when all peaceful alternatives have first been exhausted. Foreign assistance can be a “stitch in time that prevents nine,” helping to prevent further problems later on down the road (i.e., US monetary assistance to Egypt and Pakistan.) Israel needs to be kept more at arm’s length than it is right now. Enemies are often misunderstood, and open to reason/negotiation. > > Right: A combination hodgepodge of beliefs, ranging from isolationism to neocon interventionism – “America first,” “Appeasement doesn’t work; look at Neville Chamberlain” – “America needs to side with small allies against big foes (i.e., NATO Baltics against Russia, Taiwan/ASEAN states against China, Israel vs. Arab states) etc.” Tend to see the world more in terms of good guys vs. bad guys. America should not be naïve and needs to be vigilant against threats. > **Government Spending:** > Left: The resources of government should go towards building infrastructure and improving the lives of its citizens through education, health care and social safety nets. If one must err, it is better to err on the side of helping people who don’t deserve the help. And why does America spend more on its military every year than the rest of the world combined? > > Right: A lot of governmental spending is good and necessary, but some (but not most or all) governmental spending is often wasteful, or has a perverse effect, backfiring rather than achieving its intended purpose. Afraid of people milking the system fraudulently for aid dollars that they don’t deserve (i.e., the $60 billion in Medicare/Medicaid fraud that happens annually). > **Economics:** > Left: The role of government is to curtain corporate excess and, when necessary, provide a safety net to support the economy. Socialism is misunderstood, and not the bogeyman it is made out to be. The Scandinavian countries, and Iceland, are prosperous today, and quite left-wing quasi-socialist. > > Right: If a safety net is too strong (i.e., an extraordinarily generous universal income or welfare), it can give people incentive _not_ to work. Economic systems such as socialism and communism have failed time and time again because they misunderstand human nature, as modern-day Venezuela and 1960s communist China demonstrates. Humans are not naturally selfless. Rather, because humans are motivated by self-interest, you must use an economic system that jibes with that human nature, and that is why by and large, capitalism, for all of its flaws, still usually works better than communism. This one gets my vote. Why don’t we have this kind of balance in our mass information streams? I sorely miss information outlets that represent not the right or left, but what I’ll risk calling the wisdom culture (which in my nostalgia the American press more closely represented in the past). And from this Scientific American [article](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/) on political personalities (which another poster may’ve mentioned in this thread, but trying to locate that post again, I can’t find it), conservatives: [ul] [li]appear “more attuned than liberals to potential threats”[/li][li]desire “stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions”[/li][li]believe people should be rewarded for effort, but not expect rewards without it[/li][li]value loyalty and authority[/li][/ul] liberals: [ul] [li]tend to be open and novelty-seeking[/li][li]tend to care for vulnerable people[/li][li]value fairness[/li][li]favor diverse ideas and diverse ways of life[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/311 "2017-06-19T02:06:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Which agreement(s) by the Bushes did you have in mind when you wrote this? I’m trying to think of anything done by either President Bush that even begins to approach the scope and scale of the Paris Accord that they signed onto and didn’t try to get ratified by the Senate, and I’m drawing a blank. Little help? The agreement with Iraq concerning the framework for negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement. Hugely more consequential in literally every respect than the Paris Accord. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/312 "2017-06-19T02:32:34Z")
Another excellent think-piece in the Sunday Times entitled [I’m OK, You’re Pure Evil.](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/sunday/im-ok-youre-pure-evil.html?_r=0) Well worth your time. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/313 "2017-06-19T02:34:41Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The agreement with Iraq concerning the framework for negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement. Hugely more consequential in literally every respect than the Paris Accord. Not the actual SoF agreement, but the “framework for negotiating” it? You think _that_ was “Hugely more consequential in literally every respect than the Paris Accord”? Well, I thank you for responding, and it’s certainly an … interesting … perspective. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/314 "2017-06-19T02:37:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t know. They didn’t ratify Kyoto, and they won’t ratify Paris, so maybe somethign that they feel better protects the economic interests of the United States. As noted many times already, they are wrong. > **[Trump's pulling the US out of the Paris climate agreement could be disastrous...](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-leaving-paris-climate-agreement-effect-on-us-global-economy-2017-6)** > > Researchers estimated that US GDP between 2016 and 2099 will be 36% lower if current climate trends continue. > [@](#): > > Economists say that while there may be some positive short-term economic effects, Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris agreement and not fight to address climate change would most likely have devastating long-term economic consequences for the US and the world. > > In a paper published in Nature attempting to bring together previous findings of climate change for the economy, researchers from the University of California at Berkley and Stanford estimated that there would be serious consequences for the global economy if climate change continues at its current pace. > > “If future adaptation mimics past adaptation, unmitigated warming is expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23% by 2100 and widening global income inequality, relative to scenarios without climate change,” said the paper from Marshall Burke, Solomon M. Hsiang, and Edward Miguel. > > While these effects would be different in different countries around the world, the researchers estimated that US GDP between 2016 and 2099 would be 36% lower if climate trends continue, compared to a world with more stable temperatures. > > This isn’t to say that the other nations in the Paris accord couldn’t mitigate these effects, or that Trump couldn’t undertake other measures to decrease carbon emissions. > > In addition to the macroeconomic effects, Trump said that the move would help to preserve jobs at power plants, coal mines, and other fossil-fuel-generating industries. > > While there are still a large number of workers in the traditional fossil-fuel industries according to the Department of Energy, the number of Americans employed in energy-efficient and renewable-energy jobs is also huge. > > For instance, 1.1 million Americans work in electric-power generation through traditional fossil fuels, but renewables follow closely with 880,000 employees. > > Additionally, from a long-term economic perspective, shifting toward renewable energy would likely be more beneficial for job growth. > > The Department of Energy said the renewable sector is booming with solar employment growing by 25% and wind-generation employment growing by 32% in 2016. It is clear that their decision to go for the “experts” their lobbies produced was more in tune with the fossil fuel companies that have many of those congress critters in their pockets. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/315 "2017-06-19T03:26:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The agreement with Iraq concerning the framework for negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement. Hugely more consequential in literally every respect than the Paris Accord. I too am curious why you feel this way. How does a regional Iraqi issue rank “hugely” higher than a climate accord that affects the whole planet? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/316 "2017-06-19T10:01:26Z")
Because it contained actual commitments for each country (e.g., withdrawal of U.S. Forces in the absence of a bilaterally negotiated SOFA), as opposed to voluntary, non-binding goals; the security of Iraq and the lives of U.S. troops were at stake, as opposed to simply the reputation of the U.S. (as significant as this is); and as we all have seen, the agreement directly led to the withdrawal of U.S. troops and contributed in some form to the creation of ISIL. There’s no question that this executive agreement had far more riding on it than the Paris Accord. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/317 "2017-06-19T10:53:38Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > If the proposed solution were, “Have everyone be more civil and understanding and listen more,” then that would be one thing. But increasingly, ISTM that people are saying, “The solution is for the other side to capitulate, surrender, and cave in.” Even being civil, keeping a calm voice, and not being rude, \*\*\*no longer suffices. \*\*\*Both sides demand that the other side \*cave in \*and abandon their political views. Well… Yeah. When one side is basing their views on actual scientific claims, and the other is basing their views on pseudoscience and widely discredited outliers, the solution is for the other side to capitulate, surrender, and give in. There is no way forward on that issue until that happens. On a moral level, I don’t care how polite you are, if your opinion is akin to that of the vice president, that homosexuality should be “treated” by gay conversion therapy, then I’m not going to respect your views, or treat them as worthy of respect, because they aren’t. They’re horrific and harmful and hurt people. I don’t care how polite someone is when they do it; assaulting my humanity is assaulting my humanity, whether it’s a mother saying, “Gay people make jesus cry” in a polite, worried, motherly tone, or her kid taking her at her word and bullying a gay kid until they kill themselves. Both sides demand that the other cave in, and we’ve gotten more polarized. Hmm, I wonder if any research has been done into how and why that happened? In any case, I feel like “exhibit A” is that one party nominated a standard, normal, rational, well-informed politician, and the other party nominated a reality TV star who doesn’t know Mosul from Aleppo and who bragged about sexual assault and still won with the support of essentially every significant figure in his party. I think that should be considered a fairly substantial hint as to where the problem lies, don’t you? Or, to put it another way: > [@wolfpup](#): > > No, my first reaction to your earlier comment “Be the solution. Start by not ridiculing the other side and calling them stupid names.” is that it’s precisely setting up a false equivalency. There was a time when the difference between Democrats and Republicans was indeed a matter of differences in values and world-view, when you might agree more with one ideology than the other but rational discussions could be had because both sides were basically rational and there were discernible common goals. Those kinds of discussions were basically philosophical and just represented different values and different approaches to achieving those goals. > > In the current situation Republicans have become divorced from science, facts, and reason, and have increasingly attracted a dedicated group of like-minded followers, reaching its low point this last election cycle where blatant, rampant dishonesty is the new normal. This is not a group that is going to be mollified by a conciliatory approach or appeal to facts and reason. Even the goals are no longer common when many believe the ideal is a Christian white America that shuns immigrants, disdains science, and wants to drive the economy by burning every ounce of fossil fuel that they can dig or pump out of the ground. What productive strategy would you actually imagine would come out of trying to “be the solution”? What **is** the solution when someone’s core beliefs are manifestly disconnected from reality, when many of the views are not just anti-science but anti-social, tribal and isolationist, disdainful and fearful of minorities, religiously dogmatic, and the person is insulted when confronted with it? This. All of this. I’m sick and tired of trying to mollify the insane factions on the right wing. And by insane factions, I mean “everyone who thought voting for Donald Trump was a good idea”. These people are intellectually and morally bankrupt. Their political philosophy seems to boil down to some bizarre combination of autocratic adoration for Trump and joy that he pisses off _teh librulz_. This is the party of fucking Coal Rollers, after all. I will stop treating the right wing like my enemy when they start acting like rational, reasonable politicians. And I will stop treating republican voters like my enemy when they stop supporting the kind of insane, craven bullshit that the republican party pumps out on a daily basis. If you consider yourself as a sane conservative and you still support the Trump administration, then your self-identity needs to be changed to reflect the reality that you are doing something completely insane. You are a bad person, and I don’t want you in my life. Relevant: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT\_story.html?utm\_term=.c5151973016f](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html?utm_term=.c5151973016f) > [@](#): > > The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. And that was back in 2012! You know, four years before Donald Fucking Trump won the republican party nomination and went on to become our 45th president. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/318 "2017-06-19T11:01:39Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Well… Yeah. When one side is basing their views on actual scientific claims, and the other is basing their views on pseudoscience and widely discredited outliers, the solution is for the other side to capitulate, surrender, and give in. Is your side wrong about anything? Wouldn’t the most practical way of making policy to convince the other side? How has demanding capitulation worked out for you? Is it more important to make policy or to win? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/319 "2017-06-19T11:13:17Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > How has demanding capitulation worked out for you? Is it more important to make policy or to win? Seems to work out pretty well for the GOP. Their control is beyond the actual popularity of the party, let alone the popularity of their positions. Now, with regards to policy, the Congress isn’t currently getting its agenda accomplished (whereas Trump is, to a degree, through executive orders), but that’s far from being able to “make policy”. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/320 "2017-06-19T11:18:21Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Is your side wrong about anything? Possibly. Let’s work to fix it. > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t the most practical way of making policy to convince the other side? At this point I’m not sure that’s more likely to succeed than collectively jumping up and down while wearing no pants and singing Inna-Gadda-Da-Vida. Have you _seen_ the other side? Have you taken a good fucking look at them, what they believe, and how they think? “Convincing” implies a thought process that can be affected by arguments and evidence. But there’s an entire cottage industry of alternative news pushing alternative facts that shifts the conversation in ways that run directly contrary to the evidence. You know what the right-wing line was when Trump fired the director of the CIA and admitted he did it because he didn’t like the investigation he was being subjected to by said director of the FBI? “Good, he should have fired him long ago” and “LOL look at the hypocritical dems, they hated Comey when he was going after Clinton and now they love him because he was attacking Trump!” It’s _insanity_. How the fuck do you talk to these people? How the fuck do you reach someone whose grasp on logic is so tenuous that they think that is a good argument? It’s like trying to discuss paleoclimatology with a young earth creationist. > [@](#): > > How has demanding capitulation worked out for you? Is it more important to make policy or to win? How well has literally anything worked? In the last election we had a well-qualified, well-informed, sane politician vs. a reality TV star who didn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground. The sane one lost. What do you propose? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112.md?page=17)