While people might be divided by political opinions/issues, we share common ground on many things that really matter.
I like focusing on that common ground. It makes for a better life.
I'm afraid common ground is rare.
On the right, the Tea Party types are trying to control the party. Tea Partiers are Constitutionalists. The other side is the establishment. Like Democrats, they believe in big government too, just their kind of big government.
On the left, an admitted socialist almost won the nomination. The American Communist party not only backed Sanders, but said if he lost, would gladly back up Hilary as they did DumBama both his terms.
So where is the middle-ground between constitutionalism and Communism? There is none. We are becoming a more and more divided country with every election.
Common ground isn't rare. It's just forgotten by some in times of heated debates.
People often choose emotions over common sense. I'd win a prize if I could explain why that happens.
On one side, we have people that believe they can legislate mortality. On the other, we have people that believe they can legislate mortality. The truth is neither can be legislated.
There is no common ground between two groups of people: one that believes government should run our lives, and the other that wants as much government out of our life as possible. There is no middle ground there.
There is no middle ground between two groups of people: one that believes it takes a village, and the other that believes it takes personal responsibility.
There is no middle ground between two groups of people: one that believes we should reward irresponsibility, and the other that believes we should reward success.
If there is middle ground, I have yet to find it.
I see a middle ground if you cease looking at each situation as only two polar extremes...
The role of government in our lives - we can all agree that SOME government role is beneficial. We can agree that there is a legitimate need for the government in making sure our food supplies are safe, unadulterated, and contain what they claim to contain. We can agree there is a role for the government in disease prevention in a public health setting. We can agree that there should be a role for the government in making sure minimum safety requirements are met in buildings so a situation like Grenfell Towers doesn't happen or that when an earthquake hits (like it did in China) our schools don't pancake, killing everyone within.
Conversely, I think we can agree we don't want the government in our bedrooms. Nor do we want our government in our churches telling us what we can or can not believe. We don't want the government criminalizing thought.
In terms of responsibility vs irresponsibility I think we can find some common ground. For example we can agree that there are people who are unfortunate - who have suffered devestating losses, illness', catastrophes that are not of their making or choice. We can, I hope, agree that there should be some sort of safety net for them. Likewise, I think most of us agree success SHOULD be rewarded - in higher payscales, and the ability to spend money more freely.
That doesn't mean there aren't those who do want the extremes - but most don't. So right there is some common ground.
I think when you take the issue apart you will find there are points where we can agree.
Thank you
