CDZ The polarization of American politics.

[Tehon]

the right has been racing to the right for 2 decades now.

.

....and in equal measure, the left has been racing to the left.


thus the problem.

Speaking as a leftist, it seems to me that the left has been unwittingly dragged to the right. The democrat party has fully embraced the neo liberal/conservative values generally associated with the right.

If a person is far enough left, everything else looks right to them and if they are far enough right, everything looks left.

Abandon this sense of yours that your politics is your tribe, and you might see that.

"Safe spaces" on campus where racist people of color can eliminate whites from their midst, bakers being forced to write statements on cakes supporting gay marriage, talk of "microaggressions", an avowed socialist nearly winning the democratic nomination -- I'd say the left has traveled an ENORMOUS distance to the left since the days of Kennedy.

an avowed socialist nearly winning the democratic nomination

The term "socialist" seems to have lost all meaning these days. What Bernie Sanders supported was a more equitable capitalistic system. That being said......he didn't win, wasn't really all that close. The neo conservative/liberal won, which tends to support my point.

I am not a member of any tribe, FWIW.

 

[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"

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".

Yes, Fox slants right, but that is over-ridden by the rest of the MSM's left slant. Furthermore, I don't see Fox still clinging to the illusion of balance and fairness as the others (except MSNBC) do.

Now I don't watch political TV, or listen to Political radio (and yes, radio is where the Right has their strength, but as time goes on that's like being the best buggy whip manufacturer in 1928), but i read enough about ti on political web sites to get the gist of the current breakdown.

 

[Vastator]

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.

While I find your attemp admirable; the abject intolerance of the Left makes this approach impossible. For better or worse there is only one solution that will move this nation past this stage... And it won't be pretty.

 

[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.

While I find your attemp admirable; the abject intolerance of the Left makes this approach impossible. For better or worse there is only one solution that will move this nation past this stage... And it won't be pretty.

I actually did come to an agreement with two liberals on thesubject of getting all money out of the election process. That said it was only two, there were two others who could not compromise and those four total are a very small portion of the left population here. So you are mostly right it seems but not totally.

 

[Boss]

I think you are being extremely naive and foolish to think you can "come to agreement" on "issues" which are largely the product of liberal thought. Ask George W. Bush how well "Compassionate Conservatism" worked out?

1) Evolution does not explain origin of life... never has, never will. This is not a liberal/conservative argument. It is science vs. non-science. You either believe in science and respect the principles of scientific method of you don't. That means understanding the argument has never been Evolution vs. Creationism. Both can be true, they deal with entirely different things.

2) Marriage is not a right. While I can appreciate your view that anything ought to be able to get married, that's not my viewpoint and we shouldn't have federal laws making your view the law of the land. The federal government is not granted that power in the Constitution. Things like this are left to the states and people to decide and that's how it should be. This should never be up for debate because Constitutional principles aren't debatable. Our inalienable rights include the right to govern ourselves, not have a central federal authority determine what we can and can't define as marriage.

Our debt is important and lying politicians shouldn't be tolerated... those things go without saying and there shouldn't be a debate, period. If someone disagrees with that, they are retarded and not worthy of consideration. The problem is, we continue electing politicians who lie and we don't hold them accountable for our debt. There is no way for you and I to solve that. We can vote for men and women with integrity who don't lie and who will refuse to contribute to the debt but what happens to them when they stand up for their principles and the Democrats shut down the government? Ask Ted Cruz!

So what I get out of your post is that you are tired of the fighting and you want to make nice. Well, sorry... In the immortal words of the Dixie Chicks, I'm not ready to make nice! I'm not going to capitulate to liberals on THEIR issues. I would rather us focus on REAL problems and not the invented problems the left comes up with to push their agenda. For instance, health care... wasn't a big issue for most Americans... we had insurance, it was a pain in the butt to go to the doctor and have doctor's bills, but was that a worse problem than the 75% illegitimate birth rate among black children? Was it worse than American children placing dead last in education? Social Security insolvency in 15 years? Energy independence? I can think of a dozen things that were far more important than health care, but the left controls the narrative.... then WE follow along like a bunch of little whipped puppies.

 

[Boss]

I actually did come to an agreement with two liberals on thesubject of getting all money out of the election process.

You're not going to get all the money out of the election process. Money is speech. What the left seeks to do with this narrative, is eliminate speech from businesses and corporations. They want their labor unions and special interest groups to have an unfair advantage over everyone else. John McCain played right into their hand with CFR and it's the worst encroachment on the First Amendment than anything ever done.

 

[SingleVoyce]

The main driver of polarization is political parties. Once people label themselves as a member of a party, people in the other party become the enemy and there is very little room for rational discussion. This great divide is exacerbated by the support for parties by our political processes. We would be much better off if party labels were eliminated from ballots and straight party voting was not allowed. Voting would then require each voter to examine each candidate on the merits of the candidates and then decide who to vote for rather than the knee jerk behavior of simply voting for a party label.

 

[PredFan]

I think you are being extremely naive and foolish to think you can "come to agreement" on "issues" which are largely the product of liberal thought.

Sure. Those that are inventions of the left might not be agreeable.

Ask George W. Bush how well "Compassionate Conservatism" worked out?

I'm not interested in Compassionate Conservatism. You misunderstand.

1) Evolution does not explain origin of life... never has, never will. This is not a liberal/conservative argument. It is science vs. non-science. You either believe in science and respect the principles of scientific method of you don't. That means understanding the argument has never been Evolution vs. Creationism. Both can be true, they deal with entirely different things.

2) Marriage is not a right. While I can appreciate your view that anything ought to be able to get married, that's not my viewpoint and we shouldn't have federal laws making your view the law of the land. The federal government is not granted that power in the Constitution. Things like this are left to the states and people to decide and that's how it should be. This should never be up for debate because Constitutional principles aren't debatable. Our inalienable rights include the right to govern ourselves, not have a central federal authority determine what we can and can't define as marriage.

I have my own opinions about those two and they don't agree with many of my fellow conservatives, but I didn't try to reach across the isle on those subjects simply because I know they won't budge. Same with Climate Change.

Our debt is important and lying politicians shouldn't be tolerated... those things go without saying and there shouldn't be a debate, period. If someone disagrees with that, they are retarded and not worthy of consideration. The problem is, we continue electing politicians who lie and we don't hold them accountable for our debt. There is no way for you and I to solve that. We can vote for men and women with integrity who don't lie and who will refuse to contribute to the debt but what happens to them when they stand up for their principles and the Democrats shut down the government? Ask Ted Cruz!

Agreed.

So what I get out of your post is that you are tired of the fighting and you want to make nice.

There's the problem. You got my post wrong. I was trying an experiment because of a TV show that I like.
When I get tired of fighting, I just don't come here. It usually doesn't last more than a day.

Well, sorry... In the immortal words of the Dixie Chicks, I'm not ready to make nice! I'm not going to capitulate to liberals on THEIR issues. I would rather us focus on REAL problems and not the invented problems the left comes up with to push their agenda. For instance, health care... wasn't a big issue for most Americans... we had insurance, it was a pain in the butt to go to the doctor and have doctor's bills, but was that a worse problem than the 75% illegitimate birth rate among black children? Was it worse than American children placing dead last in education? Social Security insolvency in 15 years? Energy independence? I can think of a dozen things that were far more important than health care, but the left controls the narrative.... then WE follow along like a bunch of little whipped puppies.

So don't then. I will try on some subjects. In fact I did get to an agreement with two liberals here on the subject of money in the electoral process. There were of course, a couple of libs who refused to compromise.

It was an interesting experiment, I didn't expect the result. I'm going to try it again on another subject.

 

[martybegan]

I actually did come to an agreement with two liberals on thesubject of getting all money out of the election process.

You're not going to get all the money out of the election process. Money is speech. What the left seeks to do with this narrative, is eliminate speech from businesses and corporations. They want their labor unions and special interest groups to have an unfair advantage over everyone else. John McCain played right into their hand with CFR and it's the worst encroachment on the First Amendment than anything ever done.

To be fair, they also want SOME corporations to keep ponying up money, as some are big Democrat supporters. They just want to be able to pick and choose based on ideology.

Campaign finance reform will always devolve into "money for me and not for thee", its just human nature.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

Wow, what a wonderful political climate that would be. You are quite correct in stating what is most important in a President. I, too, am far less interested in what a given candidate knows on a subject, and more interested in who they listen too and what that person/people know. I care far more about the managerial and communication (aka leadership) skills of a candidate than on the level of expertise they have in any, given subject. I also am far more interested in their ideals/morals and end goals than in how they envision getting us there. That is not to say that the ends, necessarily, justify the means. As long as the means are within the confines of the COTUS then I am not as interested in them as I am the ends.

 

[Boss]

Sure. Those that are inventions of the left might not be agreeable.

Evolution vs. Creationism, Climate Change and money in politics are all inventions of the left.

I'm not interested in Compassionate Conservatism. You misunderstand.

It's what it sounds like to me. You want to entertain their arguments and reach some sort of mutual agreement. What you have to realize is, that's like reaching a mutual agreement with an alcoholic that they will only have one drink per week.

 

[PredFan]

Sure. Those that are inventions of the left might not be agreeable.

Evolution vs. Creationism, Climate Change and money in politics are all inventions of the left.

I'm not interested in Compassionate Conservatism. You misunderstand.

It's what it sounds like to me. You want to entertain their arguments and reach some sort of mutual agreement. What you have to realize is, that's like reaching a mutual agreement with an alcoholic that they will only have one drink per week.

The problem with money in politics is not an invention of the left. It is a factual problem.

And no I don't want to entertain their arguments, I want to see if there is any common ground.

 

[Boss]

The problem with money in politics is not an invention of the left. It is a factual problem.

And no I don't want to entertain their arguments, I want to see if there is any common ground.

Well no... money in politics is not a problem when you understand that money is speech. You can't run a campaign for political office with no money. You have to buy ads and airtime. You have to have materials printed and your message distributed... it costs money to do that. You have to travel and hold rallies... this costs money. Your measure of success as a politician is determined by how many supporters are willing to support you with their money.

What is a problem in politics is ethics. You have politicians who are corruptible and unethical and money buys their influence. It's not the money, it's the character of the politician.

The problem I have with trying to find common ground with a liberal is, they're not interested in finding common ground, they're interested in an agenda. They will settle for incremental movements by agreeing to meet you half way, then immediately set out to push for more. So your willingness to compromise with them is to your own detriment. They don't understand compromise as anything other than a means to move their agenda forward.

 

[oldsoul]

The problem with money in politics is not an invention of the left. It is a factual problem.

And no I don't want to entertain their arguments, I want to see if there is any common ground.

Well no... money in politics is not a problem when you understand that money is speech. You can't run a campaign for political office with no money. You have to buy ads and airtime. You have to have materials printed and your message distributed... it costs money to do that. You have to travel and hold rallies... this costs money. Your measure of success as a politician is determined by how many supporters are willing to support you with their money.

What is a problem in politics is ethics. You have politicians who are corruptible and unethical and money buys their influence. It's not the money, it's the character of the politician.

The problem I have with trying to find common ground with a liberal is, they're not interested in finding common ground, they're interested in an agenda. They will settle for incremental movements by agreeing to meet you half way, then immediately set out to push for more. So your willingness to compromise with them is to your own detriment. They don't understand compromise as anything other than a means to move their agenda forward.

While this is true, in my opinion as well, of politicians, I do not believe it to be true of all "ordinary" citizens. That, I believe is who the OP is attempting to address, "ordinary" citizens. It is my belief that politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are guilty of "selling" their influence, but I don't think that is the point of this thread. As I see it, this thread is about attempting to find "common ground" between opposing ideologies, not necessarily between the political parties.
If this type of discussion where to occur in a "grass-roots" way, on a large scale in this country, I believe the politicians would have little choice but to follow our lead.

 

[Boss]

While this is true, in my opinion as well, of politicians, I do not believe it to be true of all "ordinary" citizens. That, I believe is who the OP is attempting to address, "ordinary" citizens. It is my belief that politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are guilty of "selling" their influence, but I don't think that is the point of this thread. As I see it, this thread is about attempting to find "common ground" between opposing ideologies, not necessarily between the political parties.
If this type of discussion where to occur in a "grass-roots" way, on a large scale in this country, I believe the politicians would have little choice but to follow our lead.

Here is an analogy... It's like a wife who is being beaten by her husband trying to "find common ground" with him. They talk, and she suggests he only beat her when she does something really bad, and he agrees... they've reached a compromise. Has anything been resolved by this? No, because he is still going to determine when she has done something bad.

I am a conservative but I am like virtually every human with compassion, I don't want poor people to suffer, I want clean air and water. But the liberal viewpoint is that I don't care about helping the poor and I don't want clean air and water. Compromising with their viewpoint is not going to solve the problem because they get to define when the poor have been sufficiently helped... which never happens. They get to define when air and water is sufficiently protected... again... never happens. So my compromise simply aids them in moving the ball forward for their viewpoint, at the same time, it reinforces their viewpoint. I've submitted to their view and they reap the benefits of that. My viewpoint is never acknowledged... it is abandoned for the sake of compromise.

 

[PredFan]

The problem with money in politics is not an invention of the left. It is a factual problem.

And no I don't want to entertain their arguments, I want to see if there is any common ground.

Well no... money in politics is not a problem when you understand that money is speech. You can't run a campaign for political office with no money. You have to buy ads and airtime. You have to have materials printed and your message distributed... it costs money to do that. You have to travel and hold rallies... this costs money. Your measure of success as a politician is determined by how many supporters are willing to support you with their money.

What is a problem in politics is ethics. You have politicians who are corruptible and unethical and money buys their influence. It's not the money, it's the character of the politician.

The problem I have with trying to find common ground with a liberal is, they're not interested in finding common ground, they're interested in an agenda. They will settle for incremental movements by agreeing to meet you half way, then immediately set out to push for more. So your willingness to compromise with them is to your own detriment. They don't understand compromise as anything other than a means to move their agenda forward.

While this is true, in my opinion as well, of politicians, I do not believe it to be true of all "ordinary" citizens. That, I believe is who the OP is attempting to address, "ordinary" citizens. It is my belief that politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are guilty of "selling" their influence, but I don't think that is the point of this thread. As I see it, this thread is about attempting to find "common ground" between opposing ideologies, not necessarily between the political parties.
If this type of discussion where to occur in a "grass-roots" way, on a large scale in this country, I believe the politicians would have little choice but to follow our lead.

That is exactly what the point of the show was. I'm not sure I can foresee that actually happening, but I have found it to be an interesting experiment so far.

 

[320 Years of History]

Compromising with their viewpoint is not going to solve the problem because they get to define when the poor have been sufficiently helped... which never happens.

Say what?

Red:
Take my mentees whom I help directly by providing guidance and making opportunities available to them, although not by feeding or housing them. When I begin working with them they are usually middle school age, sometimes a little younger, and they and their parents existence is wholly dependent on public assistance. Shortly after our formal mentoring relationship ends, to an individual, my mentees have jobs, degrees and earn $60K+ and can provide for themselves. The mentees whom I first helped and who have been out of college/grad school for a couple yeas have bought homes, have prosperous and successful careers, and in one case taken in her mother. I'd say any of those measures constitute "sufficiently helped," although both they and I both thought I'd "sufficiently helped" when they began college.

So, yes, "sufficiently helped" does happen. I can't, off the top of my head, speak to how often it does for the kids whom I don't know or know of well. I believe "it takes a village" to get people off public assistance. I think government needs to "throw" money at the problem, but I also think folks who've been successful need to give of their time and share their experience with people on welfare because it's been pretty obvious that the skill I teach the kinds I mentor are skills their parents lack and couldn't give them regardless of how much they may want to. To steal from Plato, if one lives in a cave, shadows become one's reality, but that doesn't make shadows be anything other than shadows.

 

[Boss]

Compromising with their viewpoint is not going to solve the problem because they get to define when the poor have been sufficiently helped... which never happens.

Say what?

Red:
Take my mentees whom I help directly by providing guidance and making opportunities available to them, although not by feeding or housing them. When I begin working with them they are usually middle school age, sometimes a little younger, and they and their parents existence is wholly dependent on public assistance. Shortly after our formal mentoring relationship ends, to an individual, my mentees have jobs, degrees and earn $60K+ and can provide for themselves. The mentees whom I first helped and who have been out of college/grad school for a couple yeas have bought homes, have prosperous and successful careers, and in one case taken in her mother. I'd say any of those measures constitute "sufficiently helped," although both they and I both thought I'd "sufficiently helped" when they began college.

So, yes, "sufficiently helped" does happen. I can't, off the top of my head, speak to how often it does for the kids whom I don't know or know of well. I believe "it takes a village" to get people off public assistance. I think government needs to "throw" money at the problem, but I also think folks who've been successful need to give of their time and share their experience with people on welfare because it's been pretty obvious that the skill I teach the kinds I mentor are skills their parents lack and couldn't give them regardless of how much they may want to. To steal from Plato, if one lives in a cave, shadows become one's reality, but that doesn't make shadows be anything other than shadows.

You're taking me out of context. It's great that you've made a difference in the lives of a few but you didn't sufficiently help the poor in general. There are still millions of poor people who need help. There will always be poor people who need help. It is a problem that can never sufficiently be solved.

Now, I will argue that what you do is more beneficial than ANY entitlement program we've ever enacted. It didn't require a government solution. Did you "mentor" them by teaching them that they are victims who can't help their condition and they are entitled to be cared for by society? Of course not, you would have never motivated them to work hard and finish school and go out there and get a $60k/yr. job.

 

[320 Years of History]

Compromising with their viewpoint is not going to solve the problem because they get to define when the poor have been sufficiently helped... which never happens.

Say what?

Red:
Take my mentees whom I help directly by providing guidance and making opportunities available to them, although not by feeding or housing them. When I begin working with them they are usually middle school age, sometimes a little younger, and they and their parents existence is wholly dependent on public assistance. Shortly after our formal mentoring relationship ends, to an individual, my mentees have jobs, degrees and earn $60K+ and can provide for themselves. The mentees whom I first helped and who have been out of college/grad school for a couple yeas have bought homes, have prosperous and successful careers, and in one case taken in her mother. I'd say any of those measures constitute "sufficiently helped," although both they and I both thought I'd "sufficiently helped" when they began college.

So, yes, "sufficiently helped" does happen. I can't, off the top of my head, speak to how often it does for the kids whom I don't know or know of well. I believe "it takes a village" to get people off public assistance. I think government needs to "throw" money at the problem, but I also think folks who've been successful need to give of their time and share their experience with people on welfare because it's been pretty obvious that the skill I teach the kinds I mentor are skills their parents lack and couldn't give them regardless of how much they may want to. To steal from Plato, if one lives in a cave, shadows become one's reality, but that doesn't make shadows be anything other than shadows.

You're taking me out of context. It's great that you've made a difference in the lives of a few but you didn't sufficiently help the poor in general. There are still millions of poor people who need help. There will always be poor people who need help. It is a problem that can never sufficiently be solved.

Now, I will argue that what you do is more beneficial than ANY entitlement program we've ever enacted. It didn't require a government solution. Did you "mentor" them by teaching them that they are victims who can't help their condition and they are entitled to be cared for by society? Of course not, you would have never motivated them to work hard and finish school and go out there and get a $60k/yr. job.

I understood your angle. I happen to think, however, that the solution must be multidimensional: the economic support governments proffer is essential for people need food, shelter and clothing, but so too is the community-based "hands-on" support of the sort I provide is just as important for government money doesn't resolve the heartache and despondency that people experience when they are trying to get ahead and can't, or quite simply just don't know what to do next to get back on track or move forward.

Of course, I cannot do it alone, but people like me, like you and every other person who's "done something with their lives" contributing of their "blood, sweat, tears and time" to help someone or several someones can.

 

[Bush92]

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.

Some people get tired of a liberal media/education system treating us us like programable sheep. We cherish Liberty and national sovereignty.