political discourse

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 9:55am

based on the general agreement i've seen that the rancorous state of political discourse in america is hurting america, i wonder if it is still possible to discuss issues civilly and look for true solutions or if all discussions about politics must descend into one-sided generalizations and the demonization of every viewpoint other than the one being promoted by the side making the post.

i mean, if we are truly to heal the divisions within american political life, shouldn't we start here amongst ourselves? i'm curious if this thread will engender serious responses, no responses or quickly slip into the kind of divisiveness and namecalling that both sides decry as the root of all evil.

rather than pointing fingers and assigning blame, is it possible to have a discussion that looks towards how to solve the problems that we face and encompasses all viewpoints without demeaning those with which you disagree? or have we as a society moved beyond that?

if we have, how can we hope to ever heal the rift?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:57pm

I think it's very possible. But I don't see it happening on a regular basis anytime soon. We have politicians on both sides who constantly stir things up. We have become most of the time more like fans of sports teams than people looking for common ground and compromise.

I have always praised Bush when I thought he was right about something. It has just happened SO little. And, it's hard to be open to compromises when you vehemently disagree with the policy making (and LACK of policy making) that is happening. It's as if the pro-Bush folks see a parallel universe and the anti-Bush folks see another completely different parallel universe. And that is absolutely frustrating. How can we possibly come to a middle ground when the issues are viewed SO differently and when one sees such actions as completely immoral? And with that question, I may have summed up several issues in our country.

I would like to come to a middle ground where we are Americans searching for the best answers. But that is not happening. Look at the environment--an issue that should be non-partisan. An issue that affects us all. We can't even put the pom poms and foam hands down for one second to agree on this matter. And that is just painfully sad.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 1:29pm

When I was in grad school, we were constantly put on projects and graded on whether we could reach consensus on those projects. I think in today's political discourse, people don't want to work toward consensus.

In my opinion, liberals want things their own way 100% of the time. We in the U.S. use the Constitution as a governing document. Yet the liberals don't seem to understand what it says. They twist it around to mean what they want it to mean. We can't come to agreement with that going on.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 1:32pm

And, thus, we have example A on the problem.

Clearly, papa, the fault is 100% on the liberals. Goth is all ready for compromise and consensus as long as that means coming to HIS compromise and consensus.

Let's not forget that it was liberals and activist judges who took Blacks from slaves and then second class citizens to the equal rights they are entitled to now. Or would you rather Blacks were slaves or second class citizens, goth?

Updated On: 7/7/06 at 01:32 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 1:44pm

"Let's not forget that it was liberals and activist judges who took Blacks from slaves and then second class citizens to the equal rights they are entitled to now."

Once again, the liberals have their own version of everything. And that's the problem!

The Republican Party was created because there were no political parties that opposed slavery. It's fact, look it up. Liberals and activist judges were the problem, not the solution.

Read it here

Updated On: 7/7/06 at 01:44 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 1:47pm

Do not confuse Republican and Democrat with "conservative" and "liberal" when discussing pre-20th century politics, goth. This is where YOU show your ignorance/version of everything.

It was in the mid 20th century that Democrats and Republicans made a switchover on which party was liberal when it came to civil rights issues. Thus, the GOP tries to fool people by reference Lincoln, etc., when it is now the Democrats who are the liberals on such matters.

Nice try--but you aren't about to fool ME on this matter.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 1:57pm

Papa, liberals have to stop the bait and switch for honest political discourse to move forward.

They will open up a topic about Blacks and slavery, then when they are confronted with historical truth, will change the subject.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 2:04pm

I didn't change the subject.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 2:07pm

Vote for Civil Rights Act of 1964. The numbers don't lie. The Republican vote was 80% or better in favor.

The Original House Version:

Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Don't let facts stand in the way

[FranklinShepard-Inc.]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 2:12pm

Well, Papa is damn right actually. Theoretically. But hasn't it at all times and everywhere been the problem that politics tend to get ideologic rather than pragmatically look for solutions. So unless we get rid of the former approach, we'll never achieve some political discourse that isn't just showbiz or, as jrb put it, sports...

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 2:12pm

Exactly. And then after that, the parties slowly began to switch. This is why many Democrats became Republicans and many Republicans became Democrats. This is why there are those who have stayed in their party because of family legacy, but do not agree with that party any longer.

[Sleeper2]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 2:19pm

Here's a constant in politics: when the party in power is in the toilet, they always call for "getting along" and "healing the divisiveness" and "finding solutions instead of finger-pointing."

Nope. No way. Not this time. This mess of historic proportions was created by this adminstration, and a majority of voters put them back in. I didn't vote for them and I'm not going to be quiet about assessing blame, or assisting them out of the crap they laid all over the world. Here's my solution: impeach Bush.


Updated On: 7/7/06 at 02:19 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 2:21pm

Ya know, Sleeper--that is a VERY interesting point. And considering how snide Papa was when Bush was made President again in 2004, it is rather curious how suddenly he wants all of this peace and love and harmony.

But, I will happily give papa those things. I will not give them to Bush and Co.

Posted: 7/7/06 at 2:30pm

I found these facts interesting too...("yea-Nay")

By Party and Region
The Original House Version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate Version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

Updated On: 7/7/06 at 02:30 PM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 2:35pm

Both parties twist the constitution to serve their purposes. The NRA is perhaps the worst offender, as the right to bear arms was only granted in the context of a well-armed militia and the need for state security.

Provisions of the Patriot Act and the NSA wire taps activities in my opinion violate the clear language of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.

Both parties try and to twist, or ignore, those provisions that do not serve their purposes.

The Bill of Rights:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[jasonf]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 3:19pm

Amongst us, or amongst non-politicians, yes, I think a discussion of the facts without name calling is possible. Amongst politicians, their main goal is in almost every case (and this goes across political parties) NOT serving the best interest of their constituents. Their priorities are A)getting reelected, B)lining their own pockets, C)if good is done along the way, great. It's not an optimistic point of view, but it's true. Until campaign finance reform is taken care of there is no chance of us truly fixing the problems we're dealing with. Every one is too damn scared of the political ramifications of doing anything controversial. Look at what happened in NJ -- in order to "prevent voter backlash" we didn't have a budget for the last week. Of course this is just going to come back and get them in the end anyway, but the crux of the situation was a fear by the politicians themselves that their own pockets would no longer be lined as they once were.

[wink]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 6:43pm

I was just now, really only five minutes ago, thinking about this rift as I was driving back home from Burger King. I'm glad you initiated this thread, papa. I don't have your eloquence or wit and you've introduced this subjectly nicely.

My opinion is with such controversial issues as war and gay marriage is that opinions are so strong and deeply rooted in each others' values is that we can never agree on these two matters.

While watching the President and his wife on CNN, I did my best to believe he had his countrymen's best interests at heart. But listening to him dismiss polls that point to his unpopularity and talk as an elected leader who knows what's best for his countrymen whether they like it or not, I found myself deeply discouraged again. He simply does not care. I think it would be easier for everyone if he even pretended that a point of view other than his own was valid. As it has always been with Bush, he dismisses other viewpoints in his smug, self-contratulatory way. Is it any wonder people are sit on opposite sides of the political fence without thought of compromise when our highest leader does not even acknowledge the concerns of an opposing viewpoint?

And of course, I'm placing blame with Bush here. He is, after all, the man we elected to serve US, rather than serve himself. I personally think he projects a hostility toward opposing viewpoints that is bound to make people on each side dig their heels in and refuse to compromise.

I will also say that there are some issues in which I have no clear answer to solution. For example, I'm clear on the problems of illegal immigration but I'm not so sure of the correct plan of action. So while Bush spoke of patience on issues that I think need resolved immediately, I agree that that perhaps we need to wait for more information and input before a decision is reached that affects so many people that can't speak for themselves.

I really, really want to believe our President is acting on the best interests of our country. But I don't.

So I guess I would be willing to compromise if I felt my concerns were validated by people other than my family, friends, and people on a message board. It's hard to get past the feeling that no one else is listening, so solutions in the form of compromises aren't even in the working stages yet.

[jasonf]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 7:19pm

This whole thing, especially what you wrote wink, made me think AGAIN of 1776. I keep going back to it and the my comments all about the movie are peppered all over the board the last couple of days, but bare with me.

I think the issue that you're addressing, of doing for the politician rather than the constituents is precisely what Lyman Hall of Georgia was conflicted with in the play/movie. He couldn't decide if he should go with the opinions of the people he represented or his own opinions. Ultimately, he chose to go with his own opinion quoting a member of British Parliament, Edmund Burke, as saying "that a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion."

I know this sounds like I'm arguing in favor of Bush, but there's a MAJOR difference between Hall's argument and the way Bush acts. Bush doesn't in the least seem conflicted in his decisions. Instead, he seems, as wink said, to dismiss and ignore any oppositions point, or even the consensus of the American people. Additionally, Bush has yet to prove to his constituents, as can be seen by his poll numbers, that we SHOULD be taking his decisions as what is best for us. Time and again he's proven just the opposite, and his failure to recognize the other side is precisely what's led to an even greater divide in partisanship in this country.