CDZ The polarization of American politics.

[PredFan]

One of me favorite shows: "Adam Ruins Everything" has an election special out now. I recommend that everyone watch it. He is fairly evenly critical of both candidates and parties.

If you don't wish to, here is the spoiler: according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization. No one on either side can talk to the other side.

I know that I am very polarized, that I will only rarely discuss issues with the left. I have my reasons and I have expressed them elsewhere. No real need for me to repeat it.

At the end of the show, Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate, but because you and I, the average citizen, can no longer effect change. I seriously doubt that even if everyone on this board all agreed that the debt was a major problem, for example, and even if we agreed on a plan of action, we could not get that solution in place.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

 

[Iceweasel]

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

1. Evolution doesn't explain how life happened. That's all guess work. I agree that life evolves but there are only theories how inanimate objects became life. And to the degree life is so determined it thrives in some of the most hostile environments on Earth. Seems to be some driving force behind it all.

2. That is NOT the position of the left. They want morality defined their way. They generally don't want three or more people or two brothers marrying.

The polarization isn't a byproduct of the right, I get tired of it being treated as a mutual problem. The left has been racing, not walking, further left and claiming the right is divisive for not going along.

 

[PredFan]

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

1. Evolution doesn't explain how life happened. That's all guess work. I agree that life evolves but there are only theories how inanimate objects became life. And to the degree life is so determined it thrives in some of the most hostile environments on Earth. Seems to be some driving force behind it all.

2. That is NOT the position of the left. They want morality defined their way. They generally don't want three or more people or two brothers marrying.

The polarization isn't a byproduct of the right, I get tired of it being treated as a mutual problem. The left has been racing, not walking, further left and claiming the right is divisive for not going along.

This is not a discussion about evolution. I only bring it up because I agree with the left on it.

I also don't want to debate another conservative over what the left thinks. I know that there are some that think of marriage the same as I do.

I understand what you are saying about polarization. I tend to believe as you do that the left began a policy of no cooperation back in the 60s and it has been getting worse. At this point in time is is a problem in both parties. IMO.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I am not a partisan to begin with, but certainly see it as THE problem in American politics. Instead of dealing with politics in terms of principles, people deal with it in terms of tribe, and so instead of there being a liberal political ideology and a conservative political ideology, there are "conservatives" and "liberals". This has led to a gradual disengagement from the underlying political philosophies, as people conform to he identity even if that identity abandons the underlying philosophy. This has resulted in many on the left being anything BUT liberal and many on the right doing a better job of standing up for liberal principles than the left.

Take the issue of women's rights, for instance. the most obvious and egregious misogyny in the world arises from within Islam, yet the only people here willing to stand up for women's rights against the Islamic onslaught are conservative. In a small way that makes sense, as the word "conserve" in the term conservatism has to do with the conservation of ways of life with all the inherent social constructs, and those social constructs in western civilization are already liberal. It's a bit of a catch 22, and one that the practitioners of identity politics cannot grasp.

As far as reaching out to the other side, I would suggest eliminating the sides to begin with. This great Manichaean struggle between the forces of good (my group identity) vs evil (your group identity) is the problem, itself, as it is so self-reinforcing. Lock-step political correctness is just as fascist in nature as the most strident right wing fundamentalism as it is all about demands for conformity.

My suggestion would be for people to start thinking for themselves instead of worrying about the negative feedback they receive from their peeps if they don't toe the line. Start talking in terms of what I believe instead of what WE believe. Start dealing in principles instead of tribe and stick to those principles instead of applying them in one instance and abandoning them in another. Deal in basis values and construct a world view based upon those values instead of choosing a side and then retrofitting all your opinions back from there.

It is our sense of ego we extend to cover our group identity that is responsible for all this as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Iceweasel]

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

1. Evolution doesn't explain how life happened. That's all guess work. I agree that life evolves but there are only theories how inanimate objects became life. And to the degree life is so determined it thrives in some of the most hostile environments on Earth. Seems to be some driving force behind it all.

2. That is NOT the position of the left. They want morality defined their way. They generally don't want three or more people or two brothers marrying.

The polarization isn't a byproduct of the right, I get tired of it being treated as a mutual problem. The left has been racing, not walking, further left and claiming the right is divisive for not going along.

This is not a discussion about evolution. I only bring it up because I agree with the left on it.

I also don't want to debate another conservative over what the left thinks. I know that there are some that think of marriage the same as I do.

I understand what you are saying about polarization. I tend to believe as you do that the left began a policy of no cooperation back in the 60s and it has been getting worse. At this point in time is is a problem in both parties. IMO.

Evolution does not explain how life started so you can't agree on what isn't there.

You didn't define the left's position on marriage accurately. They don't say what you said you agreed with.

The GOP has been going along fairly well with the left, a few weak protests here or there to make them look like they are putting up the good fight. That's what this election is all about.

 

[PredFan]

I am not a partisan to begin with, but certainly see it as THE problem in American politics. Instead of dealing with politics in terms of principles, people deal with it in terms of tribe, and so instead of there being a liberal political ideology and a conservative political ideology, there are "conservatives" and "liberals". This has led to a gradual disengagement from the underlying political philosophies, as people conform to he identity even if that identity abandons the underlying philosophy. This has resulted in many on the left being anything BUT liberal and many on the right doing a better job of standing up for liberal principles than the left.

Take the issue of women's rights, for instance. the most obvious and egregious misogyny in the world arises from within Islam, yet the only people here willing to stand up for women's rights against the Islamic onslaught are conservative. In a small way that makes sense, as the word "conserve" in the term conservatism has to do with the conservation of ways of life with all the inherent social constructs, and those social constructs in western civilization are already liberal. It's a bit of a catch 22, and one that the practitioners of identity politics cannot grasp.

As far as reaching out to the other side, I would suggest eliminating the sides to begin with. This great Manichaean struggle between the forces of good (my group identity) vs evil (your group identity) is the problem, itself, as it is so self-reinforcing. Lock-step political correctness is just as fascist in nature as the most strident right wing fundamentalism as it is all about demands for conformity.

My suggestion would be for people to start thinking for themselves instead of worrying about the negative feedback they receive from their peeps if they don't toe the line. Start talking in terms of what I believe instead of what WE believe. Start dealing in principles instead of tribe and stick to those principles instead of applying them in one instance and abandoning them in another. Deal in basis values and construct a world view based upon those values instead of choosing a side and then retrofitting all your opinions back from there.

It is our sense of ego we extend to cover our group identity that is responsible for all this as far as I'm concerned.

Well said, but what Adam was proposing is to start the process by reaching out and finding common ground. I'm quite a bit skeptical that it can happen but I'm starting this thread to give it an honest try.

One thing I'll add, and I learned this through 10 years of arguing politics on the Internet, is that the reason we don't have discussions that go anywhere is that we can't actually discuss the issues. And the reason for that is that too many people have jumped into the debate having zero knowledge of politics, government, or history. You can tell this by how so many people will cut and paste opinions from others as their argument. Those people cannot discuss without it and demand links to everything said by the other side. The hilarious thing is that so often, what they pasted and/or linked to, doesn't say what they think it says.

With people arguing and not knowing what they are talking about, there nothing that can be reconciled. They are simply, as you called it, speaking from a "tribe" mentality.

 

[GaryDog]

I am not a partisan to begin with, but certainly see it as THE problem in American politics. Instead of dealing with politics in terms of principles, people deal with it in terms of tribe, and so instead of there being a liberal political ideology and a conservative political ideology, there are "conservatives" and "liberals". This has led to a gradual disengagement from the underlying political philosophies, as people conform to he identity even if that identity abandons the underlying philosophy. This has resulted in many on the left being anything BUT liberal and many on the right doing a better job of standing up for liberal principles than the left.

Take the issue of women's rights, for instance. the most obvious and egregious misogyny in the world arises from within Islam, yet the only people here willing to stand up for women's rights against the Islamic onslaught are conservative. In a small way that makes sense, as the word "conserve" in the term conservatism has to do with the conservation of ways of life with all the inherent social constructs, and those social constructs in western civilization are already liberal. It's a bit of a catch 22, and one that the practitioners of identity politics cannot grasp.

As far as reaching out to the other side, I would suggest eliminating the sides to begin with. This great Manichaean struggle between the forces of good (my group identity) vs evil (your group identity) is the problem, itself, as it is so self-reinforcing. Lock-step political correctness is just as fascist in nature as the most strident right wing fundamentalism as it is all about demands for conformity.

My suggestion would be for people to start thinking for themselves instead of worrying about the negative feedback they receive from their peeps if they don't toe the line. Start talking in terms of what I believe instead of what WE believe. Start dealing in principles instead of tribe and stick to those principles instead of applying them in one instance and abandoning them in another. Deal in basis values and construct a world view based upon those values instead of choosing a side and then retrofitting all your opinions back from there.

It is our sense of ego we extend to cover our group identity that is responsible for all this as far as I'm concerned.

You're not helping bridge the divide by creating strawmen like this. Almost every atheist in America is on the left, and we all agree that Islam's (and Christianity's) misogyny is horrible, and we wish it wiped from the earth. You're mischaracterizing your "opponents" and that doesn't help us agree, and avoid polarization. Especially when you use words like "the only people".

I'm a firm liberal and proud leftist, and an atheist, and I think Islam is the mother load of bad ideas.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I want to say more on this later - but I will say that polarization is not the core problem...polarization is a by product of the REAL #1 problem - corruption.
Both parties are fully infiltrated and wholly influenced by corporate/big money interest. And it is in that interest to keep the sheeple fighting each other rather than fighting the corrupt system itself.
As long as each party can convince their sheep to believe all the problems are the other guy - then they continue to do what they really do...use the government to further extract wealth from the American people into the hands of the elite.
America is NOT a Democratic Republic...we are a Plutocratic Corporatocracy.

 

[martybegan]

One of me favorite shows: "Adam Ruins Everything" has an election special out now. I recommend that everyone watch it. He is fairly evenly critical of both candidates and parties.

If you don't wish to, here is the spoiler: according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization. No one on either side can talk to the other side.

I know that I am very polarized, that I will only rarely discuss issues with the left. I have my reasons and I have expressed them elsewhere. No real need for me to repeat it.

At the end of the show, Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate, but because you and I, the average citizen, can no longer effect change. I seriously doubt that even if everyone on this board all agreed that the debt was a major problem, for example, and even if we agreed on a plan of action, we could not get that solution in place.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

To me the main stumbling block now is that the two sides want too many things that are mutually incompatible. Greater federal power is incompatible with more local control, A living document Supreme Court is incompatible with a Strict Constructional Supreme Court, Speech Codes and Social Justice are incompatible with Free Speech and Personal Freedom and Responsibility.

Now I know I will sound partisan when I blame the left for this, but to me the main issue is that we have gone from accepting other opinions to accepting only our own, and to me that blame squarely falls on those on the left these days. The reason they have been so frighteningly effective is the revolution in communications we have seen in the past 1/2 century.

They control most of the messengers, and thus the message, and the fact that their message is "Our way or else" is what leads us to the push back from the "right"

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I am not a partisan to begin with, but certainly see it as THE problem in American politics. Instead of dealing with politics in terms of principles, people deal with it in terms of tribe, and so instead of there being a liberal political ideology and a conservative political ideology, there are "conservatives" and "liberals". This has led to a gradual disengagement from the underlying political philosophies, as people conform to he identity even if that identity abandons the underlying philosophy. This has resulted in many on the left being anything BUT liberal and many on the right doing a better job of standing up for liberal principles than the left.

Take the issue of women's rights, for instance. the most obvious and egregious misogyny in the world arises from within Islam, yet the only people here willing to stand up for women's rights against the Islamic onslaught are conservative. In a small way that makes sense, as the word "conserve" in the term conservatism has to do with the conservation of ways of life with all the inherent social constructs, and those social constructs in western civilization are already liberal. It's a bit of a catch 22, and one that the practitioners of identity politics cannot grasp.

As far as reaching out to the other side, I would suggest eliminating the sides to begin with. This great Manichaean struggle between the forces of good (my group identity) vs evil (your group identity) is the problem, itself, as it is so self-reinforcing. Lock-step political correctness is just as fascist in nature as the most strident right wing fundamentalism as it is all about demands for conformity.

My suggestion would be for people to start thinking for themselves instead of worrying about the negative feedback they receive from their peeps if they don't toe the line. Start talking in terms of what I believe instead of what WE believe. Start dealing in principles instead of tribe and stick to those principles instead of applying them in one instance and abandoning them in another. Deal in basis values and construct a world view based upon those values instead of choosing a side and then retrofitting all your opinions back from there.

It is our sense of ego we extend to cover our group identity that is responsible for all this as far as I'm concerned.

You're not helping bridge the divide by creating strawmen like this. Almost every atheist in America is on the left, and we all agree that Islam's (and Christianity's) misogyny is horrible, and we wish it wiped from the earth. You're mischaracterizing your "opponents" and that doesn't help us agree, and avoid polarization. Especially when you use words like "the only people".

I'm a firm liberal and proud leftist, and an atheist, and I think Islam is the mother load of bad ideas.

The levels of misogyny in Christianity and Islam are worlds apart in both magnitude and prevalence.

I am not an atheist, but an agnostic, myself, since I cannot know what I cannot know. I do notice, however, that you use the term "we", which does reflect the group identity issue I addressed.

Why would you be "proud" to be a leftist? What makes you a liberal? Have you ever read and digested various liberal political philosophers like John Rawls or John Stuart Mill?

 

[PredFan]

One of me favorite shows: "Adam Ruins Everything" has an election special out now. I recommend that everyone watch it. He is fairly evenly critical of both candidates and parties.

If you don't wish to, here is the spoiler: according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization. No one on either side can talk to the other side.

I know that I am very polarized, that I will only rarely discuss issues with the left. I have my reasons and I have expressed them elsewhere. No real need for me to repeat it.

At the end of the show, Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate, but because you and I, the average citizen, can no longer effect change. I seriously doubt that even if everyone on this board all agreed that the debt was a major problem, for example, and even if we agreed on a plan of action, we could not get that solution in place.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

To me the main stumbling block now is that the two sides want too many things that are mutually incompatible. Greater federal power is incompatible with more local control, A living document Supreme Court is incompatible with a Strict Constructional Supreme Court, Speech Codes and Social Justice are incompatible with Free Speech and Personal Freedom and Responsibility.

Now I know I will sound partisan when I blame the left for this, but to me the main issue is that we have gone from accepting other opinions to accepting only our own, and to me that blame squarely falls on those on the left these days. The reason they have been so frighteningly effective is the revolution in communications we have seen in the past 1/2 century.

They control most of the messengers, and thus the message, and the fact that their message is "Our way or else" is what leads us to the push back from the "right"

One of me favorite shows: "Adam Ruins Everything" has an election special out now. I recommend that everyone watch it. He is fairly evenly critical of both candidates and parties.

If you don't wish to, here is the spoiler: according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization. No one on either side can talk to the other side.

I know that I am very polarized, that I will only rarely discuss issues with the left. I have my reasons and I have expressed them elsewhere. No real need for me to repeat it.

At the end of the show, Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate, but because you and I, the average citizen, can no longer effect change. I seriously doubt that even if everyone on this board all agreed that the debt was a major problem, for example, and even if we agreed on a plan of action, we could not get that solution in place.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

To me the main stumbling block now is that the two sides want too many things that are mutually incompatible. Greater federal power is incompatible with more local control, A living document Supreme Court is incompatible with a Strict Constructional Supreme Court, Speech Codes and Social Justice are incompatible with Free Speech and Personal Freedom and Responsibility.

Now I know I will sound partisan when I blame the left for this, but to me the main issue is that we have gone from accepting other opinions to accepting only our own, and to me that blame squarely falls on those on the left these days. The reason they have been so frighteningly effective is the revolution in communications we have seen in the past 1/2 century.

They control most of the messengers, and thus the message, and the fact that their message is "Our way or else" is what leads us to the push back from the "right"

I can't argue much on that but I am trying at least in this thread, to see if it's even possible to reach across and find agreement.

 

[PredFan]

I want to say more on this later - but I will say that polarization is not the core problem...polarization is a by product of the REAL #1 problem - corruption.
Both parties are fully infiltrated and wholly influenced by corporate/big money interest. And it is in that interest to keep the sheeple fighting each other rather than fighting the corrupt system itself.
As long as each party can convince their sheep to believe all the problems are the other guy - then they continue to do what they really do...use the government to further extract wealth from the American people into the hands of the elite.
America is NOT a Democratic Republic...we are a Plutocratic Corporatocracy.

I believe that there is common ground that both sides can agree on in this issue. I started a thread to reach across. Reach across the isle #1: Money in politics.

 

[Coyote]

One of me favorite shows: "Adam Ruins Everything" has an election special out now. I recommend that everyone watch it. He is fairly evenly critical of both candidates and parties.

If you don't wish to, here is the spoiler: according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization. No one on either side can talk to the other side.

I know that I am very polarized, that I will only rarely discuss issues with the left. I have my reasons and I have expressed them elsewhere. No real need for me to repeat it.

At the end of the show, Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate, but because you and I, the average citizen, can no longer effect change. I seriously doubt that even if everyone on this board all agreed that the debt was a major problem, for example, and even if we agreed on a plan of action, we could not get that solution in place.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

There are things I can agree with, on the right. I think schools need to be brought back to more local levels as opposed to federal. I think the left has a tendancy to go overboard in their anti-Christian scrubbing of public places. I see no reason not to acknowledge that our country's main heritage is Judeo-Christian and enjoy Christmas pagents, songs, nativities etc as expressions of that heritage instead of insisting it be secularized or removed. Same with certain aspects of public prayer like before games.

I think both the right and left agree on the influence of money in politics being harmful - at least I agree with that.

 

[martybegan]

One of me favorite shows: "Adam Ruins Everything" has an election special out now. I recommend that everyone watch it. He is fairly evenly critical of both candidates and parties.

If you don't wish to, here is the spoiler: according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization. No one on either side can talk to the other side.

I know that I am very polarized, that I will only rarely discuss issues with the left. I have my reasons and I have expressed them elsewhere. No real need for me to repeat it.

At the end of the show, Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate, but because you and I, the average citizen, can no longer effect change. I seriously doubt that even if everyone on this board all agreed that the debt was a major problem, for example, and even if we agreed on a plan of action, we could not get that solution in place.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

To me the main stumbling block now is that the two sides want too many things that are mutually incompatible. Greater federal power is incompatible with more local control, A living document Supreme Court is incompatible with a Strict Constructional Supreme Court, Speech Codes and Social Justice are incompatible with Free Speech and Personal Freedom and Responsibility.

Now I know I will sound partisan when I blame the left for this, but to me the main issue is that we have gone from accepting other opinions to accepting only our own, and to me that blame squarely falls on those on the left these days. The reason they have been so frighteningly effective is the revolution in communications we have seen in the past 1/2 century.

They control most of the messengers, and thus the message, and the fact that their message is "Our way or else" is what leads us to the push back from the "right"

One of me favorite shows: "Adam Ruins Everything" has an election special out now. I recommend that everyone watch it. He is fairly evenly critical of both candidates and parties.

If you don't wish to, here is the spoiler: according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization. No one on either side can talk to the other side.

I know that I am very polarized, that I will only rarely discuss issues with the left. I have my reasons and I have expressed them elsewhere. No real need for me to repeat it.

At the end of the show, Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate, but because you and I, the average citizen, can no longer effect change. I seriously doubt that even if everyone on this board all agreed that the debt was a major problem, for example, and even if we agreed on a plan of action, we could not get that solution in place.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

To me the main stumbling block now is that the two sides want too many things that are mutually incompatible. Greater federal power is incompatible with more local control, A living document Supreme Court is incompatible with a Strict Constructional Supreme Court, Speech Codes and Social Justice are incompatible with Free Speech and Personal Freedom and Responsibility.

Now I know I will sound partisan when I blame the left for this, but to me the main issue is that we have gone from accepting other opinions to accepting only our own, and to me that blame squarely falls on those on the left these days. The reason they have been so frighteningly effective is the revolution in communications we have seen in the past 1/2 century.

They control most of the messengers, and thus the message, and the fact that their message is "Our way or else" is what leads us to the push back from the "right"

I can't argue much on that but I am trying at least in this thread, to see if it's even possible to reach across and find agreement.

The answer is federalism where it can be implemented, and that is pretty much it.

If a State wants single payer, fine. If a State wants to enact carbon free power proposals, fine. If a State wants to offer everyone in the State free college, fine.

The issue is when 1) the programs try to get implemented on a federal level without federal jurisdiction, and 2) when States try to override the Rights of people as US Citizens.

 

[oldsoul]

One of me favorite shows: "Adam Ruins Everything" has an election special out now. I recommend that everyone watch it. He is fairly evenly critical of both candidates and parties.

If you don't wish to, here is the spoiler: according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization. No one on either side can talk to the other side.

I know that I am very polarized, that I will only rarely discuss issues with the left. I have my reasons and I have expressed them elsewhere. No real need for me to repeat it.

At the end of the show, Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate, but because you and I, the average citizen, can no longer effect change. I seriously doubt that even if everyone on this board all agreed that the debt was a major problem, for example, and even if we agreed on a plan of action, we could not get that solution in place.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

To me the main stumbling block now is that the two sides want too many things that are mutually incompatible. Greater federal power is incompatible with more local control, A living document Supreme Court is incompatible with a Strict Constructional Supreme Court, Speech Codes and Social Justice are incompatible with Free Speech and Personal Freedom and Responsibility.

Now I know I will sound partisan when I blame the left for this, but to me the main issue is that we have gone from accepting other opinions to accepting only our own, and to me that blame squarely falls on those on the left these days. The reason they have been so frighteningly effective is the revolution in communications we have seen in the past 1/2 century.

They control most of the messengers, and thus the message, and the fact that their message is "Our way or else" is what leads us to the push back from the "right"

I agree in whole with your first and third paragraphs, but I do not wholly agree with the second. I think we can agree that the left has been far more effective in this, however, the right is not free from blame. Far from it, look at the way Fox News covers stories for example. At their inception, I was able to turn off my internal "filter" when watching their newscasts. Now, however, I cannot bear to even watch most days, their right-leaning slant on nearly everything is too much for me to take. Now, that is not to say I disagree with them, quite the opposite, I agree on many things, it is their lack of objectivity that I take issue with. Now as far as commentary goes, that is a wholly different matter. That is an expression of opinion not fact.
I regularly listen to several right-leaning talk radio shows, and generally agree with the host(s). I do not take their presentation of "facts" at face value though, they are commentators, and therefore there is no expectation of objectivity there. When I listen/watch a "news show" however, I wish there where somewhere to turn where I could reasonably expect objectivity. There enlies a large part of the problem as I see it, mind you it is not the core issue, merely a symptom. Back to the original topic though.
I have been following national politics, to one degree or another for 20 years, and have yet to find a place where ALL sides of a particular issue are fairly and equally presented and explored. The only show I know of that even came close was "Hannity and Colmes" on Fox News. Sadly, it is no longer. Even so, it was clear to me very early in the run of said show that there was a clear right-leaning bias to it. It may not have been intentional (Hannity has a habit of being a bit of a verbal bully), but it was there none the less. Not only that, but what about views outside of right v. left? There was no representation of views that did not fit neatly into the left or the right, no "middle ground".

 

[PredFan]

One of me favorite shows: "Adam Ruins Everything" has an election special out now. I recommend that everyone watch it. He is fairly evenly critical of both candidates and parties.

If you don't wish to, here is the spoiler: according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization. No one on either side can talk to the other side.

I know that I am very polarized, that I will only rarely discuss issues with the left. I have my reasons and I have expressed them elsewhere. No real need for me to repeat it.

At the end of the show, Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate, but because you and I, the average citizen, can no longer effect change. I seriously doubt that even if everyone on this board all agreed that the debt was a major problem, for example, and even if we agreed on a plan of action, we could not get that solution in place.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

There are things I can agree with, on the right. I think schools need to be brought back to more local levels as opposed to federal. I think the left has a tendancy to go overboard in their anti-Christian scrubbing of public places. I see no reason not to acknowledge that our country's main heritage is Judeo-Christian and enjoy Christmas pagents, songs, nativities etc as expressions of that heritage instead of insisting it be secularized or removed. Same with certain aspects of public prayer like before games.

I think both the right and left agree on the influence of money in politics being harmful - at least I agree with that.

Money in politics is a big one, and I agree that there needs to be reform. Many in the left complain about corporate money and we on the right counter with union money. Would you agree to getting rid of both?

 

[Coyote]

One of me favorite shows: "Adam Ruins Everything" has an election special out now. I recommend that everyone watch it. He is fairly evenly critical of both candidates and parties.

If you don't wish to, here is the spoiler: according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization. No one on either side can talk to the other side.

I know that I am very polarized, that I will only rarely discuss issues with the left. I have my reasons and I have expressed them elsewhere. No real need for me to repeat it.

At the end of the show, Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate, but because you and I, the average citizen, can no longer effect change. I seriously doubt that even if everyone on this board all agreed that the debt was a major problem, for example, and even if we agreed on a plan of action, we could not get that solution in place.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

There are things I can agree with, on the right. I think schools need to be brought back to more local levels as opposed to federal. I think the left has a tendancy to go overboard in their anti-Christian scrubbing of public places. I see no reason not to acknowledge that our country's main heritage is Judeo-Christian and enjoy Christmas pagents, songs, nativities etc as expressions of that heritage instead of insisting it be secularized or removed. Same with certain aspects of public prayer like before games.

I think both the right and left agree on the influence of money in politics being harmful - at least I agree with that.

Money in politics is a big one, and I agree that there needs to be reform. Many in the left complain about corporate money and we on the right counter with union money. Would you agree to getting rid of both?

Yes I would - it's all the same to me. In fact, if I recall - both right and left expressed anger at Citizens United

 

[320 Years of History]

according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization.

I suppose if "Adam" wants to call it polarization, he can. I would have used any of several other words to identify the phenomenon, which one I'd use depends upon the situation.

• Intransigent
• Obstinate (see synonym guide)
• Mulish

Pertinacious is too a word I might use, but it's best reserved for describing how I perceive another individual rather than for describing a cultural phenomenon.

I know that I am very polarized

When I read that statement, the thought that crossed my mind was this. "You don't seem of late nearly as "polarized" as you did when I first encountered you on USMB around this time last year." Seeing as I only joined around this time last year and have not looked into your remarks prior to then, I don't know whether you have in fact mollified your views/rhetoric, but from what I recall of the year's worth of remarks by you that I've read, it seems so to me. (In case you're wondering, that's something of a compliment, and it's certainly not meant as a "backhanded" one, but mostly it's just an attestation of my thoughts re: what I've observed about your comments.)

Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

It's hard to argue with that. Acting upon what one has in common with dissenters is how at least some progress is made rather than none. Some progress is usually better than none.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate

Frankly, it seems to me that the high level goals are the same on both sides and that it's the means for achieving them that differ. For many of the issues that beset us, there isn't any clearly right or wrong solution approach. For that reason I have long felt that we should craft policy in much the same way plans for gargantuan business transformation project plans are, that is, with built in "milestone reviews" to determine whether to tweak the plan or, if too much of it needs tweaking, scrap it and devise another. That approach requires, however, that one implement policies "full on" rather than in "watered down" mode. It also requires that objectively measureable success/progress criteria be defined from the get go.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach across? See if it's possible.

I don't consider myself as being left or right, but I certainly agree with all those statements. The next step regarding each of them is to define a plan for achieving them. In considering any proposed plan, I'm far more likely to gripe about it or reject it if it's incompletely presented, poorly explained and supported, or poorly/incompletely integrated with other aspects of the overall program of which any given plan is a part than I am simply because I might have proposed a different implementation plan/approach.

For any given objective, there are surely multiple ways to achieve it and do so efficiently and effectively, but "efficiently" doesn't mean "faster than every other way one might have chosen." Since for plans to achieve public policy goals don't generally have the same temporally rapid completion requirements that corporate initiatives do, I assign a lower priority to how quickly public policy bears fruit, so to speak. Obviously, some public policy has a "need it yesterday" urgency. For policies having that trait, I think it best to just let experts deal unencumbered by the "no, this way is better" wrangling.

 

[PredFan]

according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization.

I suppose if "Adam" wants to call it polarization, he can. I would have used any of several other words to identify the phenomenon, which one I'd use depends upon the situation.

• Intransigent
• Obstinate (see synonym guide)
• Mulish

Pertinacious is too a word I might use, but it's best reserved for describing how I perceive another individual rather than for describing a cultural phenomenon.

I know that I am very polarized

When I read that statement, the thought that crossed my mind was this. "You don't seem of late nearly as "polarized" as you did when I first encountered you on USMB around this time last year." Seeing as I only joined around this time last year and have not looked into your remarks prior to then, I don't know whether you have in fact mollified your views/rhetoric, but from what I recall of the year's worth of remarks by you that I've read, it seems so to me. (In case you're wondering, that's something of a compliment, and it's certainly not meant as a "backhanded" one, but mostly it's just an attestation of my thoughts re: what I've observed about your comments.)

Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

It's hard to argue with that. Acting upon what one has in common with dissenters is how at least some progress is made rather than none. Some progress is usually better than none.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate

Frankly, it seems to me that the high level goals are the same on both sides and that it's the means for achieving them that differ. For many of the issues that beset us, there isn't any clearly right or wrong solution approach. For that reason I have long felt that we should craft policy in much the same way plans for gargantuan business transformation project plans are, that is, with built in "milestone reviews" to determine whether to tweak the plan or, if too much of it needs tweaking, scrap it and devise another. That approach requires, however, that one implement policies "full on" rather than in "watered down" mode. It also requires that objectively measureable success/progress criteria be defined from the get go.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach across? See if it's possible.

I don't consider myself as being left or right, but I certainly agree with all those statements. The next step regarding each of them is to define a plan for achieving them. In considering any proposed plan, I'm far more likely to gripe about it or reject it if it's incompletely presented, poorly explained and supported, or poorly/incompletely integrated with other aspects of the overall program of which any given plan is a part than I am simply because I might have proposed a different implementation plan/approach.

For any given objective, there are surely multiple ways to achieve it and do so efficiently and effectively, but "efficiently" doesn't mean "faster than every other way one might have chosen." Since for plans to achieve public policy goals don't generally have the same temporally rapid completion requirements that corporate initiatives do, I assign a lower priority to how quickly public policy bears fruit, so to speak. Obviously, some public policy has a "need it yesterday" urgency. For policies having that trait, I think it best to just let experts deal unencumbered by the "no, this way is better" wrangling.

Well said, thanks.

I am in fact staunchly conservative (polarized) but not far right. I say staunchly because I'm dug in and unlikely to move. This thread is about experimenting to see if we can agree, and if so what then.

So far I have found two on the other side whom I can agree with that all money needs to be removed from the political campaign process. Make it publicly funded, low budget, and possibly require media outlets to give free spots for ads.

 

[320 Years of History]

according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization.

I suppose if "Adam" wants to call it polarization, he can. I would have used any of several other words to identify the phenomenon, which one I'd use depends upon the situation.

• Intransigent
• Obstinate (see synonym guide)
• Mulish

Pertinacious is too a word I might use, but it's best reserved for describing how I perceive another individual rather than for describing a cultural phenomenon.

I know that I am very polarized

When I read that statement, the thought that crossed my mind was this. "You don't seem of late nearly as "polarized" as you did when I first encountered you on USMB around this time last year." Seeing as I only joined around this time last year and have not looked into your remarks prior to then, I don't know whether you have in fact mollified your views/rhetoric, but from what I recall of the year's worth of remarks by you that I've read, it seems so to me. (In case you're wondering, that's something of a compliment, and it's certainly not meant as a "backhanded" one, but mostly it's just an attestation of my thoughts re: what I've observed about your comments.)

Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

It's hard to argue with that. Acting upon what one has in common with dissenters is how at least some progress is made rather than none. Some progress is usually better than none.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate

Frankly, it seems to me that the high level goals are the same on both sides and that it's the means for achieving them that differ. For many of the issues that beset us, there isn't any clearly right or wrong solution approach. For that reason I have long felt that we should craft policy in much the same way plans for gargantuan business transformation project plans are, that is, with built in "milestone reviews" to determine whether to tweak the plan or, if too much of it needs tweaking, scrap it and devise another. That approach requires, however, that one implement policies "full on" rather than in "watered down" mode. It also requires that objectively measureable success/progress criteria be defined from the get go.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach across? See if it's possible.

I don't consider myself as being left or right, but I certainly agree with all those statements. The next step regarding each of them is to define a plan for achieving them. In considering any proposed plan, I'm far more likely to gripe about it or reject it if it's incompletely presented, poorly explained and supported, or poorly/incompletely integrated with other aspects of the overall program of which any given plan is a part than I am simply because I might have proposed a different implementation plan/approach.

For any given objective, there are surely multiple ways to achieve it and do so efficiently and effectively, but "efficiently" doesn't mean "faster than every other way one might have chosen." Since for plans to achieve public policy goals don't generally have the same temporally rapid completion requirements that corporate initiatives do, I assign a lower priority to how quickly public policy bears fruit, so to speak. Obviously, some public policy has a "need it yesterday" urgency. For policies having that trait, I think it best to just let experts deal unencumbered by the "no, this way is better" wrangling.

Well said, thanks.

I am in fact staunchly conservative (polarized) but not far right. I say staunchly because I'm dug in and unlikely to move. This thread is about experimenting to see if we can agree, and if so what then.

So far I have found two on the other side whom I can agree with that all money needs to be removed from the political campaign process. Make it publicly funded, low budget, and possibly require media outlets to give free spots for ads.

Red:
YW. TY too.

Blue:
I'd be willing to try that.

Other:
Another thing I'd like to see as goes the electoral process is that candidates offer up their various proposals and the "debates" be dual part events participated in not by the candidates but rather by actual subject matter experts. Part one would be a "general education" on the topic delivered by two experts. Part two would be the actual debate, which may be participated in by several experts, depending on the complexity and breadth of the topic . Economic topics would be "taught" and then "debated" by economists, environmental topics by scientists, etc.

I would like to see that happen because, quite honestly, I am so effing sick and tired of "spin" re: matters for which there should be none. The actual candidates can debate one another's character, their own leadership styles and abilities, and so on. As goes the complicated policies and ideas they propose, for few if any of them are the actual candidates experts. I don't want or need Mrs. Clinton to debate fossil fuels or global warming and I don't need or want Trump to debate poverty or economics. I know as well as both of them know that they aren't pros on those topics. Let the candidates parry back and forth about the things of which they are most knowledgeable: themselves, their world view, how they handle problem solving, how they communicate, etc. In short, their own abilities.

FWIW, it's through my own experience that I've come to that view. I have some 300 developers working on various projects for which I am ultimately responsible. I'm not a software programmer, yet I they work for me, even though they report to me through a hierarchy that has several managers between them and me. That's exactly what the situation is for a President. That means a President needs to be good at running large organizations, not necessarily, however, supremely knowledgeable about everything those organizations and their workers must do.

To be a good President, one must be an effective manager. There are many kinds of effective managers. There is no single best way to manage people and organizations. Sometimes an authoritarian style is best, other times a collaborative one. The key is knowing when to use each style. Another thing that's very important is communication, and there again, there are many effective styles and modes of communication and the key is to use the right one at the right time and situation. Those are the things we voters need to know about the individuals who would be President.