Here is my proposal for saving the nation:
We need a party, or a group of candidates forging a party, that focuses on what it will NOT do. As a starting point, the platform should be a mirror image of the primary concerns of Democrats and Republicans - their fears about what the other side will do. They might, for example, declare that the will not force gender chaos on our children, nor us. Or likewise promise not to outlaw abortion, but maybe remove it from publicly funded health care.
These are just examples, but the point is candidates who promise not to force policy on the nation when opinion on the matter is deeply divided. Instead we have to work to build consensus to the point that it's not "deeply divided". Or, or leave the issue for society to resolve on its own.
Such a party should have nominal ideals and goals as well, but for the point I'm trying to make, they're not important. My point is that without consensus, majority rule is destructive and oppressive. If we can't come to an agreement* on an issue, we should just leave it be - from the perspective of government.
* to clarify, consensus, or agreement, means more than majority rule. A 51% majority, when a large minority vehemently opposes a policy, is not "consensus" nor "agreement". Consensus means a decision is at least acceptable to a large majority of the people, and vehemently opposed by very few.
We need a party, or a group of candidates forging a party, that focuses on what it will NOT do. As a starting point, the platform should be a mirror image of the primary concerns of Democrats and Republicans - their fears about what the other side will do. They might, for example, declare that the will not force gender chaos on our children, nor us. Or likewise promise not to outlaw abortion, but maybe remove it from publicly funded health care.
These are just examples, but the point is candidates who promise not to force policy on the nation when opinion on the matter is deeply divided. Instead we have to work to build consensus to the point that it's not "deeply divided". Or, or leave the issue for society to resolve on its own.
Such a party should have nominal ideals and goals as well, but for the point I'm trying to make, they're not important. My point is that without consensus, majority rule is destructive and oppressive. If we can't come to an agreement* on an issue, we should just leave it be - from the perspective of government.
* to clarify, consensus, or agreement, means more than majority rule. A 51% majority, when a large minority vehemently opposes a policy, is not "consensus" nor "agreement". Consensus means a decision is at least acceptable to a large majority of the people, and vehemently opposed by very few.
