All things considered, that’s a very high bar for an Israeli to set for himself!
But what if they see you as the enemy?
There’s a real problem when one major faction defines that as simply “Those who disagree are traitorous cowards who need to shut up and get in line”, though. When a major faction defines disagreement as treason, it is not useful to respond as if they didn’t.
I believe in the free marketplace of ideas. If the people are smart, they’ll pick the best option. If they aren’t, we’re pretty much fucked.
I’m sorry?
Then I work to convince them that I am not - that we are all in this together.
It’s only the radicals who really think the other side is the enemy; which is why moderates from both sides have to work together to neutralize them.
I’ve always understood that partisan politics are even more fierce and rancorous, and the tendency to demonize the opposition and “see my fellow citizens as the enemy” even more prevalent, in Israel than in the U.S. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Jews have a ancient tradition of calm deliberation, especially as regards politics. They abhor heated discussion as…OK, I’ll stop, I’m killing me here…
Well, as I understand it, it’s perfectly possible to have vigorous, heated discussion without it getting personal, the way it has in the US.
You take that back, you disgusting Socialist Communist Nazi Fascist!
You’re wrong.
Let me tell you a story: a friend of my wife’s used to be a Peace Now activist in high school, back in the early 90’s, and she would often take part in loud, vehement protests in front of Fort Ze’ev, the Likud party HQ in Tel Aviv. After every demonstration she’d sneak around the back of the building to visit her aunt Lily’s husband Arik. After giving her a big hug and kiss, her uncle Ariel Sharon would look at her, wince and say “Oy. Honey, it’s great to see you, but would it kill you to change out of your Peace Now T-shirt before coming in here?”
Politics is just politics. It doesn’t mean you can’t be a human being.
Well said, Alessan!
It’s the extremists on both sides who poison the political atmosphere for all of us by demonizing their opponents.
How do you remain moderate when the President leads your country into a dishonorable war, at the cost of thousands of innocent lives? What is the best way to police the tone of your criticism, so that it is not offensive, when talking about murder done in our name? What is the best way to poltiely disagree with men who have made your flag a symbol for horror and slaughter?
But remember that not all criticism is demonization. Sometimes it’s based on facts. “Bush authorized/ordered torture in violation of the Geneva Accords” is not the “left wing equivalent” to “Obama wants death panels”.
Challenge them. Argue with them. Vote against them.
Offend them, if you like. But don’t expect not to be offended in turn.
I never said anything about polite (dude… I’m Israeli. We don’t do polite). All I’m saying is that as distasteful as you may find the concept, you have to play the game by the rules - and that means at least pretending that the other side has a valid point and that you and they could conceivably meet somewhere in the middle. Otherwise, you might as well just close the store and go home.
Wow, that’s just nuts.
Next tell us what a good friend we all have in Michelle Bachmann.
If we’re not dangerous radicals, that is.
So if I’m arguing that 1 + 1 = 2 and my opponent maintains that the result is 4, I should happily agree on 3 and call it a job well done? :dubious:
Sometimes there is no acceptable middle ground.
Not if you’re doing math.
But we’re talking about politics here; there are no absolute truths, only opinions. And frankly, if you believe that your particular opinion is as absolute and self-evident as 1+1=2 then I hate so say it, but you’re part of the problem.
Here are some absolute truths:
President Obama was born in Hawaii, not in Kenya.
President Obama is not the Antichrist (in the Biblical sense of being the actual Satan, or the progeny thereof).
President Obama is not a Muslim.
How, please, are we to argue in good faith and with a straight face that there are valid points in the statements that these facts are incorrect?
See Kolga’s response. Also please scroll back up to see my last line, which you apparently missed: “Sometimes there is no acceptable middle ground.” Not always, sometimes.
Likewise with scientific facts, e.g., biological evolution.
You’re not. You’re supposed to ignore the bullshit and steer the political debate back to actual issues. Things like healthcare and the economy and national defense and the environment, not useless fluff like the examples you brought.
Elevate political discourse - don’t waste your energies arguing facts.
Given that some (please to note, I did not say all) of the people who are arguing that those facts are incorrect refuse to debate anything OTHER than those facts, it seems to be that attempting to elevate political discourse with that group would not be possible. You stated that in politics, there are no absolute truths, and yet, with that particular group and their politics, I would beg to differ.
I recognize the core argument you’re making, that you believe a consistent effort to refocus the public discourse on actual disagreements rather than partisan psychosis will bring the conversation back to rationality.
And while you’re dreaming, can I have a pony? 