If you can’t stay on topic, as other posters seem to be able to do without great difficulty, then that is an excellent idea.
I don’t think Americans are more sharply divided than ever. If you check out the presidential election results historically, NO president has ever won with a supermajority (using the 66% definition here), and only a few have even topped 60% of the popular vote.
I do think, though, that the proliferation of communication – television, radio, newspaper, the internet, etc. – has brought disagreements that have always existed into far more focus and spotlight than ever before.
And, unfortunately, given that many of the communication formats rely on sound bites rather than rational discussion, the quality of public disagreement has tanked.
I wish I had any suggestions for bringing the debate back up to reasoned differences – agreeing to disagree agreeably – but I don’t. Short of boycotting ALL media discussions of politics that degenerate into namecalling. And that won’t work unless EVERYONE does it.
The last one, or the next one?
Close your eyes, relax, inhale, let the oxygen take hold, then say the following words.
“I do not agree with what you say, my friend, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.”
Repeat when necessary.
Like it or not, one of the greatest unspoken rights we have in this country is the right to be wrong. So long as our words and actions do not infringe on others’ rights or the public good, we can choose our causes for ourselves and line up behind any banner we wish, without fear that our heads may be affixed to the rostrum tomorrow morning.
Now, of course, you will raise the allegation that supporting the war in Iraq, voting for the Republican Party, or advocating the teaching of “intelligent design” in schools are contrary to your rights and/or the public good. Well, sir, you have every right to that opinion, and you may shout it from the rooftops, post it on the web, or use it as the libretto for a 75 part oratorio. If you are able to convince enough people, particularly those entrusted with the power to affect real change, then you may be rightly congratulated. Until the dawning of that golden day, however, do not be surprised if a great many people, even those who agree with your particular views, refrain from declaring that you hold a monopoly on the truth.
We may be a melting pot, but kindly keep in mind that not everything that has been tossed in over the past 200+ years will melt. Nor do all of the “impurities” rise to the surface where they may be systematically excised. That our nation was founded upon Enlightenment ideals does not necessarily dictate that all our citizens will be likewise enlightened. Furthermore, it is crucial not only to the continuance of productive discourse, but to our capacity for civilized behavior, that we tolerate those of differing viewpoints, no matter how ardently we may desire to wipe that smug look of their distasteful visages with a crowbar.
To expect that every American should have the same point of view on anything is misguided. To expect that everyone should act in a reasonable manner is also misguided. People aren’t reasonable by nature, only capable of it. It’s entirely possible for someone to cherish some idiotic, obsolete bit of superstition, and to find it every bit as compelling as your version of the truth. You ask the question as to how you should be expected to compromise with people like this? Well I can’t give you a direct answer. I’m not in your shoes. But I contend that our willingness to try is what makes us good citizens.
Is political discourse falling apart in this country? I don’t think so. We’ve certainly seen a sharp decline in the degree of civility exhibited in the public arena. But a) we’ve been through worse, and b) many of the perceived divisions in our society have been blurred by the sensationalistic appetites of the masses and the press’s unprecedented capacity for simultaneously pandering to and whetting that appetite. In short, put away the magnifying glass, and you may find that the gaps separating you from your pea-brained Red State neighbor aren’t so huge after all.
“Big meanie?” I believe a more accurate description would be deemed unsuitable for IMHO, so I’ll just say you are subtly trying to tilt the playing field by putting your beliefs in the most flattering light imaginable. If only meanness were the only problem here.
The problem is, that is my basic disagreement with the Right. They don’t want me or anyone else to have any rights. They want everyone to be a jingoist Christian corporate capitalist, by force if necessary. They want to oppress or worse everyone else; gays and non-Christians and liberals and the poor and non-whites and non-Americans; the pro-choice, pro-science, pro-welfare, pro-public education; they want to outlaw or kill them all. You can’t compromise with these people; there’s no point. There is a difference between people who simply disagree with me, and enemies; the Republicans are my enemies. not because of any feelings I have towards them, but they won’t tolerate people like me.
In other words, America is as divided as it is, and it will become more divided, because the Right is fundamentally hostile to everything but itself. The only unity they accept is the unity of subjugation. I still remember what happened after 9-11; the Democrats tried to compromise, under the theory that we should all pull together. The Republicans simply took all the power they could; they regard any attempt by the left to compromise as an opening for an attack, a weakness to exploit.
Whether it’s worse now than in the 60’s I don’t know, as I wasn’t politically aware then; I’ve heard those who were claim it’s not as bad, and heard others claim it’s worse. I’ve heard older people say it’s worse than the McCarthy era.
Not all Republicans are like that. You’re describing the religious right, which consists of some but by no means all Republicans. There are Republicans who want to do those things, yes, but there are also pro-choice Republicans, pro-public-education Republicans, and so on and so forth. My parents are Republicans, but they’re pro-choice and sent both of their kids to public school (and my dad worked in public schools). I have converted to Judaism, and I’m a liberal, and I don’t think they want to kill me for either of those.
I feel dirty now for defending Republicans.
True.
Sure, but the ones who want to silence everyone who disagree with them are the ones in power, either in political office or in the media. The sensible Republicans – who would now be branded “liberals” by the loonies on the right – have been marginalized within their own party.
Understandable. I can’t imagine doing that on a daily basis…
And my own father was a Republican like that, but they aren’t the ones in charge. The reasonable, tolerant Republicans have about as much influence on the party as the Log Cabin Republicans.
Who appear to have been put in charge of the Congresional page program …
If you really and truly believe that this is the case, then you’ve bought into the radical left point of view, hook line and sinker. Furthermore, you’re bound to hurt somebody wielding a brush that broad. The system finally stops working when we refuse to listen to one another, and the position that “you can’t compromise with these people” is morally reprehensible. I mean, think about what you’ve just said. In a sweeping generalization, you have declared half of our country’s population to be your enemies, unworthy of your respect, and ultimately unworthy to live in your world. From where I stand, that’s pretty fucking scary. That’s the kind of language you hear from people who set off bombs on city busses.
I’m sorry to break it to you, but neither side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on corruption, intolerance, or vice. It’s on both sides, and it’s reprehensible no matter which side of the aisle it’s coming from. I’m a former conservative who has grown pretty disgusted with the Republican party, but the Democrats have hardly proven to be an attractive alternative. So I have no interest in pushing a conservative agenda on you. But Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, open your eyes and take a good look at your so-called “enemies.” If you look beyong the MoveOn.Org reading list, you may just find that most of them are decent people who want to keep the government’s nose out of their lives and don’t give a rat’s ass which (if any) god you worship or who you sleep with.
If there is a kernal of truth in what you say, it is that the Republican leadership has allowed the party’s message to become hijacked by a vocal minority within its own ranks. Once the upcoming midterm elections have gone by, though, if the normal pattern holds true, Duh-bya effectively becomes a lame duck and there will be a power shift in the party. Hopefully the moderate Pubbies will take their party back from the Bible thumpers.
Even if this doesn’t come about, you would do very well to soften your rhetoric. Assuming that those who don’t agree with you are enemies out to get you, beyond redemption and immune to persuasion – that’s the first step towards jihadist thinking.
By American standards, I am “radical left”.
Pure nonsense. There are plenty of people you can’t compromise with; the Stalinists and Nazis come to mind. Nor should you compromise with people like that even if you could, obviously.
Less dramatically, you can’t compromise with the other side, unless the other side is willing to do so. I do not believe that the Right is willing to do so.
You mean the half that re-elected a mass murdering, pro-torture, dishonest man to be President ? Should I “compromise” by saying “OK, I’ll go along if you only kill 300,000 Iraqis, instead of 600,000” ? Why am I scary, when I’m the guy who hasn’t ordered people to slaughter and destroy ?
No, but the Republicans are much worse.
I’ve never been to MoveOn.org, nor do I have any idea what if anything is on their reading list, or even if they actually have one. However, I do not beleive that most Republicans are “decent people who want to keep the government’s nose out of their lives and don’t give a rat’s ass which (if any) god you worship or who you sleep with”. If they were, they wouldn’t do things like vote against gay marriage, over and over again. Some, I’m sure, are well meaning dupes; I believe the majority of the Republicans are either bigots, amoral capitalists, or religious fanatics. And regardless of whether or not they really are the majority, the scum element of the Republicans have been in charge of the party at least since before Reagan.
They haven’t done so for many years; I see no reason to believe they will now, or can for that matter.
Unless it’s true.
That’s not what Creationism says happened. If it did happen, as you postulate, then Creationism is again shown to be demonstrably false - just in a different way.
I do think it is bad that the proliferation of media outlets allows us to tailor the news to our own political perspective.
Now the folks on the right can get their news from Fox or talk radio or the Wall Street Journal, and those of us on the left can get our news from Keith Olberman or Salon.com or The Daily Show.
The upshot is that people have their own views reinforced and strengthened, without troubling themselves too much with the other side’s point of view. Or worse, we have been conditioned by our slanted news sources to regard the other side as contemptible or ridiculous. And then when we DO encounter someone holding a different political view, the absence of any common ground causes things to devolve quickly into a shouting match peppered with each side’s talking points.
On the other hand, I can (if I have nothing else to do that night) start with Special Report, switch between the Fox Report and Hardball, go to Countdown, maybe watch Scarborough, over to the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, kill 30 minutes, watch Letterman, if I really feel up to it watch Conan and then go to bed. (This schedule works slightly better on the East Coast.) During the commericals I can read everything from the Washington Post to the Economist to Fark (well, maybe Fark is a bad example) while also spending time on the SDMB and half a dozen other websites and messageboards.
What happens if I go from Scarborough to Pee-Wee’s Playhouse?
Would you say that your intolerance of my beliefs because they differ from your own is part of the problem that’s contributing to the current air of divisiveness?
I’ll bet you and I could sit down and find areas of common ground.
Der Trihs, as I mentioned earlier to another poster, please do not use this thread to justify your reasons for demonizing your political opponents.
I know that Iraq, etc. will come up as a reason for divisiveness today, just as the Civil War, the Red Scare, and Richard Milhouse Nixon have come up as reasons for the past. I’m simply asking that posters not dwell on, attack, or defend those reasons in this thread.
Can’t we have just one general discussion political thread that doesn’t descend into bashing? he asked plaintively.
It’s all the Republicans’s fault.
Regards,
Shodan
How apropos: Today’s cartoon from my Non-Sequitor desk calendar…
Joe: You’re watching a news discussion program?
Danae: Uh-huh. I wanna pick up debate techniques from the pros.
Joe: Wow. I’m impressed! So what have you learned?
Daneae: That it’s more important to demean the opponent’s integrity than to be right about anything and never, ever admit you’re wrong.
It goes on, but this was the relevant part.
My apologies, but I was responding to Kizarvexius, etc, and I can’t think of any way to do so that isn’t such an explanation. After all, my basic argument about why America is so divided hinges on what the Republicans are like.
Probably not.