News talk shows. Our governmental bodies. This board right here.
It seems like there is a significant amount of time and effort spent on demonizing our ideological opponents. It seems that a very small percentage of people truly want to listen and learn from other people, they just want to change their minds, or barring that, shout them into submission. It seems rare that a person can summon the strength of character and concede that their opponent’s points have merit.
I’m all for debate. Debate is crucial! But debate without mutual respect is a road that gets dangerous the further you travel down it.
Do I just have too short a memory to see “it’s always been like this, and it’s nothing to worry about,” or are we passing through — or worse, into — a period where we are more sharply divided than ever before?
Or rather, the past 100 years — clearly, the American Civil War was marked by a fairly extreme divisiveness.
If I’m not making any sense, I think I’m just going through what I think Jon Stewart is going through when he went on Crossfire a few years back. Link
Ever listened to sports talk radio? You can hear people arguing over the choice of a starting quarterback which sounds more intense than the argument over going to war in Iraq.
I think it has a lot to do with the technology available to us. In the 1000 channel universe, there is plenty of room for “news” shows featuring people from both sides arguing with each other.
With the internet, we have the ability to debate things with message boards.
Congress has always had divisions. C-span allows them to broadcast their opinions to the entire country.
I recall reading an article somewhere a few years ago that looked at all US Presidential elections and basically concluded that, by deafult, in times of relative stability, Americans are pretty well divided and partisan. However, when we have a common boogieman (e.g., Cold War), the partisanship diminishes and we have more unity and more people willing to reach across party lines to back an acceptable leader.
Based upon the article, I guess the Commies were a more unifying threat for 40 years than Osama is these days. Accordingly, with the Soviets gone, we have reverted to our default partisanship, and the Presidential elections reflect this.
You know, I really feel disconnected from half of my country. Either I’m not an American or they’re not, but when I look at Red America it doesn’t have a lot in common with people like me. We don’t share the same values, we don’t share the same belief system and in fact, when I hear them talk about the threat of gay marriage, the war in Iraq or George Bush, I dont’ think we share the same reality.
I am much more likely to feel that I have something in common with a university eduated person from another country than I have in common with a Republican from a red state. I think our embracing of Christian fundamentalism, precisely at a time when man-kind is poised to make great advances in science, combined with this adminstrations incredibly ill-advised and unwinnable war have dealt a serious blow to the United States, one that I don’t think we can recover from.
Given all this, how can I possibly find common ground with people who want to force my children to learn their superstitions in public schools, enshrine bigotry into the constitution, and wage wars without thinking through the consequences?
The last two presidentual elections were very close to a 50:50 split for canidates. Support for Bush stays about the same or gets worse on opinion polls for performance.
In the past elections were very passionate and violent at times. Read some of the atchive articles from the past. My grandfather was very much passionate on political issues due to his life experiences. He was born in America was of German decent. He went through the WW II and had to worry that other peoples would tyrn on him for no reason. He was sent to war.
He had a blow up with father, because I joined Cub Scouts. It sounds stupid, but there’s a reason for that reaction. Hitler used the youth groups in Germany to watch his people, manipulate the populace, and later as fodder for the war. The cub scouts were formed for much the same original reasons, and he considered them the same as the Hitler youth groups. He took politics much more serious than people do today. The older people in many southern states only vote republiacan no matter who runs, because the Republian party formed to eliminate slavery in the first place.
My understanding is that the Democrats had a hold on the South for many years because Lincoln was a Republican and conservative Southerners would vote for Democrats because they sure as hell weren’t going to vote for somebody from the same party as the guy who freed the slaves!
Of course, Southern Democrats of that time never much resembled those from the North…
Please note, not all red-staters are die hard rednecks who hate gays, n-----s, and Muslims while swilling Coors on their way to Baptist Church. I am a registered Republican, but I lean libertarian, and I am moderately pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and I hate beer. I also don’t go to church, and I have also rolled my eyes at Pat Buchanan and Jerry Falwell, and Ann Coulter makes me cringe sometimes. However, I do support the War on Terror. I guess that means we’ll never have lunch.
Maybe I have it backwards, since it was a while since I saw the program that covered that bit. I think I got it right though. The program was on the Blue Ridge Mountains, which is south in my cartography. It means nothing out of that area except as an example that politics was a passionate subject, in the past.
[QUOTE=madmonk28]
I am much more likely to feel that I have something in common with a university eduated person from another country than I have in common with a Republican from a red state. QUOTE]
Funny, I’m a Republican from a red state, and yet university educated (2 master’s degrees, actually). I bet we could find a lot of common ground, actually.
I am:
[ul]
[li]pro choice[/li][li]for gay marriage[/li][li]socially fairly liberal[/li][li]against the insertion of religion in secular affairs[/li][li]for some sort of universal health care, or at least serious health care cost reforms[/li][li]for the original war in Iraq.[/li][/ul]
But I am also:
[ul]
[li]military spending[/li][li]against gun control[/li][li]against many types of public assistance[/li][li]against the continued Federal encroachment on state powers[/li][li]against throwing good money after bad in Iraq. It was a shithole, and is a shithole, and nothing we do will ever change that.[/li][/ul]
I think you’re painting Republicans with an awfully broad brush.
Actually, I dont’ think we would find much in common at all. Several of the things on your list are anethema to me. And it’s not just a matter of education, but culture. Culturally, I feel myself much closer to my European friends than I do to Red Staters. When I visit my in-laws in Arkansas, I very much feel like a foreigner. Not just an outsider, but an honest to God foreigner. We don’t share the same values at all and I don’t see the gap closing any time soon.
Iraq I think is the single most telling issue. We were right about it and you were wrong. You should have listened to us, we knew better and now thousands and thousands of people are dead who didnt’ have to be because of red state America and their president. I don’t know how we can find common ground on that.
Also, when you use big statements like Iraq was and always will be a shithole and then accuse me of using a broad brush, I know we are not countrymen, sorry.
Another divide that is fast approaching is between the haves and the have nots.
Because our society is requiring an increasing amount of education/certification to get high paying jobs, you end up with two classes of people…those who are willing to play the game and those who are not.
The ones who are not willing to do what it takes to climb the ladder of success find themselves mired in a bad situation. And since many of them are unwilling to look in the mirror as to the cause, it must be someone elses fault.
Meanwhile, the acheivers look at them and say “I did what it takes to get here. So can you. I don’t owe you a thing.”
So the underclass grows…and with it the tax burden to pay for them and their behavior.
In twenty years when medicare and social security are going broke, our society is going to have to make some hard choices regarding our tax dollars. Do we raise them to pay for socialist expectations on a capitalist tax base? Do we prioritize the old over the poor? Do we reform our education system to bring more of the underclass into the world of higher paying jobs or do we just lower our standards…and our standard of living?
Yes, I’m a big meanie because I’m pointing out that someones behavior and priorities have a direct bearing on their financial situation.
And then you wonder if the country’s divided? This kind of “We were right about it and you were wrong. You should have listened to us, we knew better” attitude on both sides is what’s causing and widening the divisions. People don’t like being told that they’re wrong, when the topics aren’t fact and are little more than personal opinions.
And, for the record, I said Iraq was a shithole [before we invaded], and is a shithole [now that we’re occupying it], and nothing * WE * do is going to change that. [we should get out before it really gets ugly, and a lot more of our people get killed.]
[bold text is what I said], [bracketed text was implied]
See how quickly this got ugly? Of course we are divided.
But we WERE right. Doesnt’ that matter? Shouldn’t we examine why we were right and the red staters were so wrong? We were right and the red staters called us traitors. We were right and we were compared to Nazi appeasers. And now that it is clear we were right, we are told that we should move on and not dwell on the past. Well why the hell not? We were right. If you had listened to us, we wouldnt’ be in this mess.
Look, I didn’t get into this thread to argue about Iraq, so let’s just stop it now.
What I was trying to say in my last post is that this dogmatic approach of “We were right, you are wrong”, is not the way to foster reasonable discourse. If you tell people they were wrong like that, it tends to piss them off, and if they happen to disagree with you, they generally don’t like you, and don’t give anything else you say much credence.
I think that’s the biggest part of what’s dividing the country- both sides are absolutely convinced that the other is WRONG, and that they are RIGHT, when in fact, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Which is fine in and of itself, but where the divisions occur is that neither side seems to be giving the other side any respect. To use the earlier example, since I support the initial invasion decision, regardless of whether there were or weren’t WMD, you have decided that me and my ideas are unworthy of any respect, and that I’m contemptible.
Just IMO, but the biggest wedge these days are between the folks who say “we may not all have the same views, so we should compromise” and the ones who say “anyone who disagrees with me is evil/supports terrorists/is a traitor/appeaser/etc.”
You know… I had the experience of growing very close with about as liberal a person as you could ever find recently. She is a women’s studies(with emphasis on queer theory)/arts(emphasis on fiber arts) major at a small private college in the midwest known for being uber liberal. She comes from money, has alot of it herself and is a genuinely good person. That said, she was also one of the most unbelievably dogmatic and fundamentally intolerant people I’ve ever known. I say was because I believe that she chose to break off her relationship with me because I wasn’t coming around to her point of view on everything and had the audacity to question some of her opinions. Instead of growing and learning from each other, and I had the pleasure of learning a great deal from her, she retreated into her small group of friends who all think exactly like her and we don’t speak today. Things can be pretty divided today and it’s horrible. Most people I know are pretty decent, they do the best they can and if they have political opinions as like as not they arrived at them from a combination of upbringing and personal experience as well as comfort level. They didn’t deeply research or self examine why they believe what they do because day to day it’s not that important to them. This goes for liberals as well as conservatives. I hear more and more talk in an ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ vein that amounts to de-humanizing the opposition into gross caricatures. It disturbs me and I want no part of it.
