One of the biggest problems facing our nation today is dissonance. We have mostly, in the past, been represented by a two party system. Now, at one of the most critical points in our history, we've become a people divided by age, race, gender, sexual preference, religion and even political stance. It's not neccessarily just Republican or Democrat any longer; there are many factors which determine our selection and when lines of distinction cross one over the other a decision is not always an easy one to make.
As if this is not enough to keep this country embroiled in bitterness we have at this time an administration whose very existance forces extemists from both parties to the surface where their hateful epithets seep into the mental fabric of our land.
A person of moderation may feel strongly about abortion based on religious grounds. This will label the person as a Right Winger, a Conservative, and whichever derogatory remark that will accompany it. This same person however, may have very strong feelings toward a womans freedom of choice. Does this individual automatically become a liberal, Lefty or whatever hate provoking term it carries? How about a man who believes that their should be no prayer or representative of religious matter in any public school or building but also swears to his right to keep firearms.
There are many people in similar situations where they are divided on the issues and, unfortunately, too many people who, rather than use their thought procceses and find a middleground, or even realize that there is such a thing, will file themselves into one particular category, closing their thought process to any issue that would create conflict in their own mind.
This, no doubt, will cause underlying confusion and automatic extreme resentment to any one who holds a different opinion than they on the one particular issue that they ponder. The result is, rather than being able to carry a meaningful discussion with someone on any issue, the person indulges in a useless diatribe. The result is that one person loses sight of the subject and enters a contest where there is no longer an issue, there is only a belligerant attack, and even though they may share same opinions on other issues, there will never be resolve, only more bitterness.
This is not an isolated problem. This administration has managed to divide this country on every level. Even many of the Republican party find themselves biting their lips over such issues as stem cell research.
The Bush Brigade began alienating most people on election day, 2000. There was a problem with the ballot in Florida, where 'W's brother officiates as Governor. Also, Katherine Harris, who was not only Bush's campaign manager but the Secretary of State of Florida, made the final decision to end a very controversial recount, putting Bush in office. These were only a couple of instigating factors.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Smitty
I would say I agree with your division theory but as far as Iraq, Bush, and even America it is much deeper than the surface we all think we are scratching........... please keep in mind that: 1) There was evidence of WMD's but no eyes on 2) recently we found over 500 unexploded ordnance with Mustard and Sarin gases and both will kill, depending on size, hundreds up to tens of thousands in a matter of seconds with one attacking the nervous system, by very simple exposure, and sending someone into violent convulsions and a shut down/overload and mustard burns flesh with liquid along side the vapors that burn your lungs like your skin! (WMD's?) 3)Americans are not the only ones there, I now attend college with a turk soldier who was on the other side of Iraq at the same time I was there (weird huh?) 4)If it wasn't Bush's Administration we would, possibly, have never gone after Al Queda, which trained in Iraq and was there with Saddam and "co existed" with his regime, and The (Insert name here) Administration would be fattening their pockets some other way, or in the exact same way as Bush, because face it, most Political "Leaders" are gonna be Blue Bloods any way right?...........
That leads me to the next point which would be why has a two party sytem always been prevalent and both parties rarely care about the people.......where as the "Mr. Smith" (Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.....about 1939) can't fight for the "lost causes" becasue the enriched two party idea of the lost causes can be band-aided and left for our children to fight over later.........I served my country and I pray for my troops and my country but maybe our more advanced and technological country may want to rewrite The Constitution and write our Own Declaration of Independece Independence from the people who want us to focus on each other instead of those whose pockets guide our lives, quit letting a few people interpret a document that most hold "sacred" and few have studied, better yet ever read.............
that would lead to our "taken-for-granted" public education huh? Let's concern our children with the importance of money instead of teaching them to co-exist and compromise with people. Instead of teaching them that they can become "better than others" lets teach them to become "better with others"
I'm no pacifist and I have my own decent "understanding" of war and everything else from Buddah, Jesus, and Muhammad to Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington...... what we need is better education and alternate routes for the "outcasts" who function differently in our realm of grades, manual labor, or blue blood priviledges, and the illusion of wealth.........
what we can do is take the media......crime is down significantly from the 70's (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm) and taking into consideration our population is growing thats real good ....... and you would never know it on any news channel you turn to. Why the media and journalists went from being the muckrakers of the day to the "fake" biased views and influences of a few VERY DEEP Pockets of today......... This passed down from generation to generation then they sucker uneducated and eventually uncompromising and belligerent people into actually believing these people are better than them. After that The "American Dream" is slowly dying off, yeah I know there is a success story everyday right? What about all the failures? The failures are usually caused because of something like; If Paris Hilton and another well talented and well educated designer (I think Paris is neither educated nor talented) want to get into designing its not a struggle or even earned by Paris but rather given as for the other girl who may have better fashion and maybe better ideas of how to help contribute to the world. Instead people teach little girls if they do good and try real hard, diet,exercise,get nose jobs then they can be like Paris Hilton instead of teaching little girls they can't be like Paris Hilton and why is that? Because they are not Paris Hilton and thats HOT!!
2 - Martin Lav
Peter J, I'm confused a little by your point...I thought you were trying to say that both sides have gone to the middle, clouded the issues and therefore no one can gain any passion behind a particular agenda. I think the right-wing has done a better job of staying focused on their "core" issues and have done an excellent job of preying on the "moderation" of the left.
"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists". Even when all facts point to "Impeach the President for Lying" we have a whole host of "facts" assail up from the right as to why he didn't and why even if he was wrong he's still right. Look at the events in Israel going on right now. If you say they are over reacting and the US should step in and pressure the Israeli's then the right will say the Israeli's are the only ones besides the US that are actively fighting this "war on terror".
I think it's time for more people from the LEFT to hit the streets and take back our country.
3 - Dave Nalle
The problem here, Peter, is that you're perpetuating the divisiveness yourself when you say things like:
"These are not conjectures, they are facts"
Right after you spew a bunch of leftwing talking-point conjecture.
If you can't tone down the rhetoric and stick to facts when you're trying to promote a middle ground, what hope is there for reason from those who are more extreme?
Dave
4 - Peter J
I really wasn't trying to push any agenda nor was I saying that both sides have moved to the middle.
I was demonstrating a point over the multitude of issues voters are subjected to and the fact that each one of them carries a label of their own.
If you read the third paragraph over you'll see where I was demonstrating examples of one person having conflicting beliefs such as a liberal view on prayer in classroom, which would classify him as 'left' and at the same time believing in his right to bear arms, putting him to the right.
Fearing repurcussion from both sides the individual may have difficulty discussing these or other points. This being a valid reason to not castigate or slander one for their beliefs.
As our political system is set up now, that person will feel compelled to find his own represantative party when in actuality, he has none, since he believes across the spectrum.
Al, I wasn't trying to promote a middle ground, that's the point. An actual 'middle ground' is almost as unlikely as someone who fits all Leftist or all Right Wing doctorine. I don't think I ever indicated my preference of Right over Left nor did I promote anything (up until the issue of Bush's 2000 Election which I don't believe is conjecture) to sway anyones beliefs toward any party.
My intention was to try to allay feelings of non-conformity for those who are experiencing 'party conflict'!
5 - Baronius
Peter, I'm sure that you believe what you've written about Bush. It reminds me of an anecdote I heard about a Russian who insisted that every news story coming out of the Soviet Union was false, and also insisted that a Russian invented the telephone. The moral being, it's easy to spot the propaganda you disagree with, but harder when it supports your side.
Why are these tendencies increasing? Partly because of the new media, I suspect. Sites like this one are rare. For the most part, a person can receive a steady stream of information oriented to his already-held beliefs. Since there are common visions (clusters of beliefs), an anti-abortion gun nut is going to hear about the benefits of school vouchers from his favorite media. The system reinforces the segmentation of ideologies.
A personal example: I have no idea if there is global warming. I suspect that there isn't, because I have little faith in the people who say that there is. But I'm not sure.
Anyway, Peter, please reply.
6 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
Baronius- I suggest you take a peak at Dave's excellent article.."Matters of Faith: Global Warming and Intelligent Design." There's a lot of good information in it and the string that follows - some bogus info too of course. And I just wanted to clarify the distinction between Global Warming and causation, I'll be brief. Global warming just means the earth is getting hotter, a virtually undisputed fact (something like 1 oC rise in 100 years). Causation is a different issue and much more controversial.
Back to the subject matter...I too would like to confess a subject matter in which I prefer to be blind and side on party lines, rather than have a realistic discussion on the issue.
I have always assumed privatization of SS is evil. Although I really don't know anything about it, I have come up with a number of my own personal theories on why it is evil, other than the fact that Bush proposed it. And of course none of my theories have ever been challenged because i stay fairly uninformed on the issue. That was until Dave shot down nearly every one of my crazy theories (for the most part - see our string in "Bush Popularity Sinks Into "Disastrous" Range, While House Democratic Money Machine Raking It In"). Of course, my opnion on SS security privatization has not change over night. I still think it probably is evil (note the room for doubt now). I just don't have any theories left to prove it. Maybe I'll go find a real one sometime.
7 - Janet
Peter, I have been mulling over this very issue after my first rather intense exposure to the political blogosphere and American cable news channels. I was positively shocked by the extreme polarization and demonization that goes on as a matter of course.
However, it seems to me that blaming it on the current administration is untenable. "The Devil made me do it" is an intellectual cop-out. American political dialogue was simplistic and incendiary long before 2000. There are deeper cultural roots to this than a particular president or the current administration. Virtually every political discussion I've ever had with an American over the last three decades was accompanied by dismissive sniffs and quick application of labels, leaving me feeling very uneasy. Venom has been a staple for many years on both the right and the left, with no middle ground permitted, let alone a mixed bag of opinions.
You have identified a very real problem, but I don't see any serious attempt here to understand where it comes from, just another session of finger-pointing.
8 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
I have to say, I felt a little awkward about this article myself, and I think Janet puts the *finger* right on it.
9 - Clavos
Interesting article, Peter. I do think has a point in #3; the recap of Bush's sins for five paragraphs almost made me stop reading because you were beginning to sound just like a typical anti-Bush partisan.
But I think you ended well, and I agree only by talking together reasonably will we be able to resolve many of the problems our nation and the world face.
Baronius is right when he says sites like this are rare; and interestingly, Peti shows us in his post immediately following, when he talks about Dave having convinced him to begin to think differently about Social Security privatization.
One of the shortcomings of a two party system is that it has a tendency to force voters into a lesser of two evils choice at the polls, when most voters (at least those who take their vote seriously) are probably positioned somewhere between. A viable third party would make a significant difference in our political landscape by forcing the Dems and Reps to review their own positions, while adding another option for the voters.
At least, let's balance Congress out a little better in November.
10 - Clavos
Ooops--that should have been: "I do think Dave has a point in #3..."
11 - Baronius
Peter - I posted my #5 before I read your #4. I breezed past one idea that should probably be clarified. There are what Thomas Sowell calls "visions", which are reasonable bunchings of issues across voters. For example, the foundations of my pro-life position are related to the reasons I oppose homosexual marriage.
So let's say that most issues have three or four arguments for them and an equal number against them. If the roots of one argument are common to multiple issues, you'd expect groups to share the same position on those issues. It's really late, and I can't tell if I'm explaining this well at all. But it's no coincidence that both parties are coalitions of a couple of major factions.
P Ex - I haven't checked out Dave's article yet. To be honest, I'm a little fatigued from lots of I.D. arguments on the boards. But thanks for the suggestion; I'll have to visit.
Clavos - "Balance out" Congress? Since 1994, both houses have been about 51%-49% every time. Ditto with the Presidential elections. I know what you mean about balancing things out, but it seems to me that both parties have whittled down the supposedly mighty independent swing-voters to nothing. I don't see what would encourage parties or candidates to moderate.
12 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
I meant the article and esp the string that follows more as a resource on global warming than ID theory. I don't like reading about ID theory either - but for different reasons.
13 - Dave Nalle
Of course, my opnion on SS security privatization has not change over night. I still think it probably is evil (note the room for doubt now). I just don't have any theories left to prove it. Maybe I'll go find a real one sometime.
The main catch with SS privatization is that it would be in the hands of the government and they can take any good idea and turn it into a disaster or even a work of evil.
Dave
14 - Maurice
Peter J
I appreciate the thought and tone of the first 5 paragraphs of this article. Most people are a mix of the 2 polar extremes. I am not a fan of Bush (did not vote for him) but I do not believe he is the source of the divisiveness. Just as some are bound to hate Ms. Clinton there are those that hate the innocuous and ineffective Bush.
As far as SS... All anyone has to do is look at their investments to know that the private sector is much, much better than SS. Why would we only want wealthy people like me to take advantage of money growth?
15 - Peter J
Baronius,
You probably got it more than most.
That paragraph about the Bush administration was only a small part of the article but that's the part that everyone picked up on.
No place else did I allude favoritism to any other issue.
Clavos,
I was disheartened to hear that I almost lost you on the Bush diatribe as ,again, it was not the point but you did read on! That was the exception to the point of the article. Not only did you read on but you did what I was trying to point out that no one does. You offered a valid opinion and an example of a solution, without just dismissing me over one part of my many views. Do I still qualify as a partisan? You get 10 points.
Dave,
forgive me . Back in #4 I addressed Al,, I meant you (it was very late)my apology.But do you see my point?
You assumed that I was left wing because of my remarks. You immediately dismissed the crux of the article because you didn't like one of my positions.
Where do I go when I don't like the idea of abortion but I'm pro-choice and am 100% for Stem Cell Research?
How about I have a house full of guns and no problem using them but I believe Global Warming deserves consideration?
How about I have these doubts because I'm no scientist so I'll bow to them for an answer on Global Warming or I'm not an especially religious person but I believe there should be a Christmas tree and Nativity scene outside the Courthouse just so long as there's a Menora and whatever other faith based representative Items are allowed also?
Am I the only one whose a bit confused about these issues?
Try to find a name or place for me that doesn't embarass or insult.That's all so un-necessary.
Janet,,BAM! Labels,,Nothing will infuriate faster than a label. I agree with one liberal issue so now I'm a lefty,liberal. pinko! Wrong! I fit no classification and any normal, self-thinking, reasonably intelligent person will feel the same. Insulted. I can hear you now, "Oh, poor baby got insulted"! Which of you don't?? Hero!
Like six year olds in a playground;'You're stupid' will start two kids rolling in the dirt as fast as anything.
The object of the article was not to teach, nor to demonstrate. It was to initiate conversation which is what I feel helps find resolution.
We have a real problem in this Country and this one has nothing to do with politics, politicians or even issues.It's all us! It's Labels, how to lose them, get past them, get out of their way, quit spewing them or whatever it takes to bring intelligence back in to the game.
Janet, you get the balloon! There can be NO intelligence when you call someone a name for having a different ideal from yours, all you're doing is showing your ass!
That's the point!
16 - Dave Nalle
Peter, I was going to respond earlier on the subject of your chimerical set of beliefs. They seem very similar to mine. I hold some beliefs which fit with the GOP and some which might fit better with the Democrats. To answer your quesiton about where you go, I found that I have to go with the GOP, because as a party they're more accepting of diversity of opinion than the Democrats are. Too many in both parties are inflexible ideologues, but the GOP at least tries to honor the 'big tent' concept.
As for reacting to your article about Bush, the reason I and others singled it out was that in the middle of an otherwise reasonable article you had this glaringly partisan, highly debatable statement. Purely on stylistic grounds it didn't fit in, plus it wasn't true. That's going to stir people up a lot more than the other reasonable things you said.
Dave
17 - Peter J
Dave,
Initially I didn't intend that Bushspeak to have bearing on the intent of the article, it was merely an example(although it turned out to demonstrate the intent of the article being that the statement took precedent over the entire article) so, for the sake of not losing my cause, please dismiss it or at least address it as a seperate issue. I do appreciate your pointing that out for that sake.
It's very difficult to demonstrate any issue, no matter how innocently presented,without 'stirring the shit'! Almost every response, without even realizing it, pointed to the intent of the article but no one could just see the article for what it was worth without becomming inflamed or simply distracted by that one 'Bush comment'!
18 - Clavos
or simply distracted by that one 'Bush comment'!
Peter, with all due respect, that comment comprised about a third of the article; that's probably why so many of us highlighted it.
19 - Peter J
Dave,
I find it hard to define myself (as you, I find agreement with you on many issue) as it's not so much that it's which party I agree with, it's how the party disagrees.
I'll find that I'm in agreement with 'A' but they're so fucking beligerant I sly away for the moment or I'll remain quiet so as not to partake in an argument which is so juvenile! Another time party 'B' will have a point but they're so fucking whiny they're an embarassment.
But I do see where you're coming from.
Now, let's see if we can pull this off.
You said that my take on Bush (the Election was never completed and there was every indication that the Fl. vote was dis-honest, we went to Iraq under false pretense) is wrong. Why?
20 - Dave Nalle
I think that section could have been rewritten to make the point just as effectively while not appearing to be a partisan slam in and of itself.
And let me comment specifically on the final part of it:
"These are not conjectures, they are facts, and the only reason they have a place in this article is to demonstrate some of the causes of the breakdown of common sense in our land which can only lead to more political squalor."
First off, you're stating that they are facts, when at least some of the points you bring up are subjective or at the very least subject to interpretation. That Bush circumvented FISA is a fact. That his intent was to deceive the public about WMDs is conjecture. You don't differentiate.
And it is not solely the actions of the administration which have led to a breakdown of common sense and civility, in equal measure it is the opportunistic politicking of opponents of the administration who have taken conjecture and tried to present it as fact, and who have seized on every action of the administration and tried to turn it into an abuse or a great conspiracy to serve their political interests. They are as much at fault as the administation itself, and ought to be taken to task in the same breath if you're going to bring up the supposed offenses of Bush and his crew.
Dave
21 - Nancy
"Political sleaze starts at the top" - boy, that sure is on the button! All you have to do is look at the top ranks of just about any country, let alone the US. But of course, just like in cooking, the grease always rises to the top, doesn't it?
What we desperately need here in the US is a viable 3rd (& 4th & 5th) political party. We almost had one courtesy of Ross Perot, but I suspect one if not both current parties had more than a hand in derailing it. I think if we continue on as a strictly 2-party system, we're ultimately going to lose party choice altogether, since it's far too easy for incumbents to steal/rig elections & create ways to remain in office forever, a la the efforts of the Texas GOP. In fact, even they were somewhat shook at the possible future implications should the Dems ever win back the state.
Unfortunately, the current political rulers believe in Divide & Conquer, and specialize in that very divisiveness (I'm talking Rove, here) as well as outright lies & dirty tricks in order to create a margin to ensure their continued power, and too many idiot voters believe them, or fail to connect their ruthless & bottom-feeding methodologies with any other sphere of influence they have access to, such as dismantling the constitution, lying to take the nation to war, etc. This applies to either/both party. If there were a 3rd ... I suspect there would be a lot more self-restriction when it came to this sort of behavior, just because people would have another option to vote for, instead of just one alternative they may find untenable.
22 - Martin Lav
The democratic parties mantra for Kerry '04 should have been: "It's the War Stupid"
That and only that would have distinguished the two parties platforms. Pick a side, take a stand and getting out of the middle is how you separate from the pack. Clinton and Bush, the Dems and Reps both took the middle of the road and as Peter points out people have conflicting stances on various issues, however, it's this lack of clarity that causes the populous to go the safe "worst of two evils" route and keeps examples like Ross Perot on the sidelines.
I agree with Peter's premise that not everythings black or white or fits in a box nicely, but there's no alternative unless someone breaks from the pack. If any leader had the courage to do that, then they would really fit the meaning of the word. If Kerry had done that and bashed Bush on all of his mis-steps and obvious disaster of a premise for war (that's right Dave, DISASTER) then he would have shown his leadership skills and won the election.
Peter, you're own article talks nicely about opposing views in apologetic tone and then when you are dismissed by the right as being wrong, you step back again and then they've got you.
You can't just say "the right is more wrong than the left" ?????
My two cents....
23 - Peter J
Dave, I'd say that 'opportunist' and 'political opponents' are synonymous at this stage of the game.
Martin, I,m really trying my best to be nice but it's getting more and more difficult, The premise of the piece being 'try to dismiss labeling and discuss differences calmly'. As far as saying the Right is more wrong, I wish I could say that but I don't believe it's true although I do find the people who hold Extreme Right views to be a creepy, irritating, condescending lot (I'm speaking of the Administration here).
But Dave, how can you say that we weren't deceived about invading Iraq? That argument is so old and tired I can't imagine bringing it up.
24 - Baronius
1) Avoid polarization.
2) Anyone who says that Bush won in 2000 has to defend that position.
3) Anyone who says that Bush didn't lie about invading Iraq shouldn't even bother defending that position.
Peter, do you see the problem here? If you can't, maybe there's a plank in your eye.
25 - Martin Lav
Stay nice Peter J, I'm trying to be as well, but as you point out Mr. Bush and his idealogs will bash you as being unpatriotic if you decry the war, a murderer if you believe in pro-choice, a sinner if you allow gay marriage rights and flip flopper or wishy washy if you ever change your mind.