A good description of my attitude towards anyone who supported the invasion. They are either fools or scum, without exception, and if my attitude is divisive, good. I want nothing to do with such creatures. Some evils and some stupidities deserve no forgiveness; I will despise those who supported the war till the day I die.
The Right deserves no respect, because it is evil, and always has been. The Left may not always be the good guys, but the Right are always the bad guys, throughout history.
The OP of this thread appeared to desire discussion of today’s political divisions in historical context, NOT an argument about the various factors which are the cause of those divisions. I’ll thank posters for staying on track.
I’ll also thank posters for remembering that this is not the Pit. (I’m looking at you, Der Trihs.)
My apologies if I went too far for IMHO.
And before that, we had one senator attacking another with a cane on the Senate floor. That hasn’t happened yet over abortion, the war in Iraq, gay marriage, or anything else.
We’ve got nothing on the past when it comes to partisanship and negative campaigning, either- the campaign leading up to the election of 1800 featured the Federalists accusing the Democratic-Republicans (the party of Jefferson) of wanting to murder their opponents, burn churches, and destroy the country, and the Democratic-Republicans accusing Adams, the Federalist candidate, of wanting to set himself up as king and enter a dynastic marriage with Britain (presumably with one of the children of mad George III).
I feel that way, too. But I think that’s more or less the way it’s been for most Americans throughout our history, with the exception of times when we united against an imminent threat from a common enemy, like WWII. And that didn’t even always do it- there was a fair bit of anti-war activity during the Civil War in both the North and the South, and it’s hard to think of a greater threat to the country than the Civil War.
I don’t know how we are supposed to discuss the divisions among Americans without discussing the war in Iraq. It is the singly most divisive issue on our political landscape and I don’t think it is adequate to merely look at what this administration did wrong. I think it is important to look at why a significant portion of the nation supported such a flawed policy when there was ample evidence that it was a mistake. Take for instance, Woodward’s new book. There aren’t any real shockers in there. A well-informed voter who took the time to study the issues in 2002 or 2003 could come to the same conclusions as Woodward did 3 years later. I think it is a valid question to ask, why didn’t red state America take a more critical look at these issues when it could have stopped us from making a terrible mistake and what does that say about them that they didn’t? If we are taking the Iraq war out of consideration for discussion, than there is no point to this thread.
I don’t think we are as divided as we were during the civil war, of course, but we clearly are divided along several deep fissures. I do not want any Christianity (or any other religion) in my schools, courtrooms, or halls of government. How do I compromise with people who want to mandate school prayer, or put the ten commandmants in public buildings? Is five comandmants a compromise?
I do not want my government to suspend habeas corpus. Where is the compromise there?
I want all Americans to have exactly the same rights, responsibilities and privledges. How do I compromise with people who don’t want some Americans to marry, adopt children, or serve in the military?
I tell you how we compromise: segregation. That is what has happened and what will continue to happen in the US. Red America and blue America are really just going their separate ways. Kansas is free to teach their anti-evolution nonsense in their “schools” and we laugh at them for doing it at our cocktail parties.
I’m not saying it’s a good solution, but that is what has happened and we are diverging as a culture because of it, but I honestly don’t see compromise on the table anymore. For me, compromise with red America means compromise on my ideals. It means setting our nation back economically, culturally, and intellectually. It means undermining my children’s (if I have children) future. How can I compromise with that?
Like you, I’m not sure if I’m just noticing this more or it’s happening more. But I agree and have been thinking along these lines for some time.
No-one seems to know how to convince anyone to their point of view. The beginning of this process is to acknowledge that your opponent is at least as honorable as you are, and it’s their opinion and arguments for it that you believe are wrong, not that they hold obviously wrong or evil points-of-view because they are a bad person. In other words they deserve the respect of the assumption that their beliefs are as reasonably-held as you believe yours to be, until they prove otherwise (by indulging in *ad hominem *or other de-rational debating techniques, for instance). And you must enter the discussion with the knowledge that, unlikely as you may find it, there is a possibility they will convince you to their point of view.
I think that right there is it, and why things are only going to get worse.
No-one likes to think of themselves as below-average; likewise, no-one likes to think of themselves as immoral or incorrect.
When we come to a certain point of view - however that point of view is reached - we therefore desire to think that we’re right and moral for thinking that. And so we look to our friends and associates to agree with us and affirm our beliefs. And if those friends and associates don’t affirm us, either we have to change and moderate our beliefs, or we choose new friends and associates who will affirm those beliefs.
Likewise, in order to buttress our own flagging self-esteems, we look to demonize the opposition. It’s an easy logical fallacy to fall in to: by declaring that our opponents are evil, we must therefore be good. By declaring that our opponents are idiots, we must therefore be smart.
Unfortunately, as communication across distances becomes easier and easier, it becomes easier and easier to find a group of people willing to stand behind you and cheer your political opinion no matter how outrageous it is. Rather than people moderating their opinions and having to accept their political enemies as fellow humans wanting the best for humanity - which is not only the truth, but necessary for continued conduct of society - it is much easier to fall into camps of like-minded folk who privately e-mail you to tell you how wonderful you are for having called your enemies “fools or scum, without exception” or for calling for “segregation” so that their political filth does not dare pollute you.
I hear what you’re saying and I agree with the divisiveness of the event. But there have always been divisive elements in the past 100 years. I was hoping to inspire some debate as to how we debate and interact with the people we don’t agree with no matter what the issue is. Take every issue out of the discussion and focus on how we as civilized people are supposed to reach a solution by consensus or compromise rather than by bullying other people’s points out of the discussion. It doesn’t make a difference whether we are talking Iraq or whether reality TV is any good.
Do we enter into a debate with respect for other people’s convictions? Do we honestly give them credit for the valid points they raise?
Or do we enter into a debate to stubbornly stick to our own viewpoint no matter what the other side thinks? Do we refuse to accept that there may be any other valid arguments save our own? Do we demonize and dehumanize our opposition. Is that any healthier than the worst wartime propaganda?
It’s like two blind men arguing about an elephant:
(Man 1: feeling the trunk) “AN ELEPHANT IS LIKE A FIREHOSE, YOU IDIOT!”
(Man 2: feeling the leg) “AN ELEPHANT IS LIKE A TREETRUNK, YOU MORON!”
They’re both right, they’re both wrong.
It seems to me that if people really want to be right, they owe a friggin’ debt of gratitude for people who have different perspectives than them. But only if they can summon the strength to admit that they themselves may not have the full picture in view.
Is our goal to win (by force, if necessary) or be right (by concession, if necessary)?
I think the world is rife with examples of what happens when we stubbornly refuse to cooperate and work with our ideological opposites, when we have a "no quarter’ policy when setting policies.
And if there was a country who should be able to get it right, I think that it ought to be America, godammit.
Now this is the real problem: not only do you disagree with their views, you disagree with them having those views. This is not good. I’m sure the Ministry of Thought Police will welcome you with open arms.
America is a democracy, and you must allow people to hold views that are contrary to yours - otherwise why should they put up with your views?
You are asking me to compromise with people who have demonstrably false views. I’m not talking about a McCain Republican, but the Christian right. I don’t agree in creationism and I believe that their belief in it and their desire to have it taught in public schools is an actual threat to my society. It has gone beyond my having to pretend I respect their ridiculous superstitions, now they want to force it into my schools.
Enough is enough. They are dragging my country into the third world with their ignorance and dogmatism. Asking me to compromise with this is akin to asking me to compromise with the Taliban. Ignorant and militant fundamentalism is a threat to democracy.
We had a compromise, it was called a separation of church and state. I am willing to to re-establish this compromise at a moment’s notice, but that is the line. Anything beyond that isn’t compromise, it is capitulation to ignorance.
(From an earlier post of yours in this thread) Bush is demonstrably false? The war in Iraq? Gay marriage?
Who made you the ultimate arbiter? Part of being in a democracy is that not only do you agree that you will civilly disagree, but you will respect their right to disagree. Disputes are resolved by the ballot box, not the bullet.
Sorry, but you really need to take a good long look at youself in the mirror. If you can’t tolerate other people having different views, you can’t argue when those who can’t tolerate yours put you in a re-education camp. Or worse.
Creationism is a demonstrably false belief and there is an active movement to teach it in public schools. How am I supposed to compromise with that?
Having lived through the period from 1964 to 1975, I’d say we haven’t reached that level of harsh division yet.
I hope we don’t.
You’re supposed to argue against it, not throw a tantrum.
As an aside, Creationism isn’t demonstrably false: how do you know that the Creator didn’t fill in the backstory as in Terry Pratchett’s Strata?
madmonk, of all the threads available to argue religion and politics, why are you choosing this thread to do so?
Fine, I won’t post in this thread again, but all of this proves my point. We have become deeply divided. There are difference sof opinion in the United States that reflect a fundamentally incompatable view of reality. It seems the only way we can co-exist is to not talk about hot button topics like Iraq and religion (as has been shown in this thread). That’s essentially segregation, and proves my point that we are becoming two distinct cultures.
I’m in my mid-30s, so I don’t really have a lot of context by which to judge today’s divisiveness. A few weeks ago, the state of the union came up in a conversation I had with an older person with whom I had been speaking for only 15 minutes – he said that the last time the country was this divided (in the era of which John Carter of Mars speaks), he left it and went to Europe.
I’ve thought for a while like dalej42: we have access to so much more information than even a few years ago that it’s relatively easy to find much about which we can agree and disagree. You can’t throw a virtual rock in this message board, for instance, without hitting someone who agrees to the letter with you on the issues of gay marriage, immigration reform and abortion; that same virtual rock, thrown again, will hit someone who holds the opposite views.
We all have opinions, beliefs and perspectives: it would be good if everyone realized they’re no more or less valid than anyone else’s, and it’s a real shame when they find their ways into legislation. In my opinion.
And I’m saying that’s not a new thing. Congress had “gag rules” to prevent discussion of petitions on the issue of slavery because it was such a divisive issue. I think we were a lot closer to being two different cultures in the Civil War, because back then they didn’t have things like national TV or chain restaurants or stores to de-emphasize regional differences.
Man, does he not get it or what? madmonk28 is the poster child for what’s causing this divisiveness.
Personally, I disagree with him on a lot of things. I may have some disparaging or condescending thoughts about him and people who think like him, but I’m not going to claim that I can’t discuss it with him, without him coming over to my way of thinking!
I don’t necessarily agree with him, but I’ve at least thought about what he says, and have come to a different conclusion.
That doesn’t make me “wrong” or that I have a “fundamentally incompatible view of reality”, it just means that I disagree with him. It doesn’t even mean that I always vote Republican, or that I’m a religious fundamentalist (I’m most assuredly not- look at some of my previous posts!) I tend to vote for the best candidate as I see it- it just happens that more often than not, they’re the Republican candidates.
I don’t feel divided from my neighbors and my family, even though we disagree politically. From my perspective, it feels like we share the same goals–a safe nation, good jobs, good schools, being able to support our families in comfort and security–even though we differ on the ways to reach those goals. On the other hand, I’m very reluctant to discuss politics or religion with people. It could be that if I brought those up, we’d quickly hate each other’s guts, but I hope not.