Liberals and Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, here's a thought: let's call a truce. Can we just agree that we are all Americans, and that we all want what we think is best for this country, even if we almost never see eye to eye on what that is?
In the past week, I've been thinking a lot about a comment I heard made by one of the few politicians in this country who I consider a master at positive political dialogue. I heard a talk by John Edwards last week. One of his comments struck me. He said he thinks there's a "toxicity" in our national political dialogue today that is very unhealthy.
Since then, I've been noticing this toxicity more on both sides of the aisle. Why is it that we can't say what we think, note where our opinions differ, try to find out what we can agree on, and attempt some kind of compromise, without resorting to personal attacks? Why do we always have to, for instance, look for the most despicable possible interpretation of an opponent's actions in their personal life, and then attack? Are any of us perfect?
Can't we just take a person's explanations about their personal lives at face value, especially when their alleged personal failings have no bearing on their ability to govern or to contribute substantive ideas?
I'll be the first to admit, I've said some pretty nasty things about Republicans. I hope I've stayed away from irrelevant personal attacks, but let's face it: politics is often frustrating. Sometimes we lash out, but we shouldn't make a habit of it.
Republicans, fellow Democrats, and independents, can we please stick to the issues?
I want to address just my fellow Democrats for a minute. During the 2004 primary season, I know many of us got all up in each other's faces arguing over which candidate was the best of a field of many fine choices. A lot of people said some things they shouldn't have said, myself included. You know what? One of the guys I said some not very nice things about, turned out to be the very guy for whom I later had to convince other people to vote. I don't know about you, but I don't want to put myself in that position again.
Now I want to address just the conservatives. You and I are going to have philosophical disagreements on public policy. I'm not cutting you any slack on those.
I want an egalitarian society with a level playing field and equal opportunity for all. I think you want a trickle-down society, where the corporations and the rich folk control most of the resources and the rest of us work hard all our lives and can still barely feed our families. If you don't want that, I'm pretty sure your leaders do.
I happen to think the logical end result of your policies is a mediaeval feudal system with wealthy lords and Kings at the top, probably ordained by the Lady of the Lake, her arm clothed in shimmering samite, with the bulk of society being pitiful peasant serfs trying desperately to scrape a living out of the muck.
Feel free to jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong, unless you'd rather just distract people from the issue by insulting me or another Democrat. Maybe you can convince me that I should pity poor Bill Gates for all the money he’d lose if he had to pay the same rate of taxes as everyone else, but I doubt it.
Yes, we have our differences. I thought the new animated movie "Happy Feet," which I saw the other day, was a cute little story with a message about how we are responsible for stewardship of the environment. Fiscal conservatives probably thought the message was "if more animals could dance, we could exploit them for their entertainment value and it might become cost-effective to save their habitats. Their habitats are in trouble because of their own lack of ingenuity, not to mention lack of rhythm." Social conservatives probably thought dancing penguins are gay and therefore unclean.
I'm not saying being nicer to each other is going to be easy. I can sometimes find common ground with traditional conservatives or libertarians, but the recent breed of ultra right-wing neocon religious Republicans has been doing things to this country that go against everything I was raised to believe are American values. It's hard not to cross the line into personal attacks on people that you see as trying to ruin the free, just, tolerant, and egalitarian society for which you, your family, your heroes, and your ancestors have worked. Nevertheless, we are all still human, at least, I think so.
I'm not saying that genuine corruption and abuse of power shouldn't be punished, either. Where laws have been broken, the guilty parties should be held responsible. I think some laws have been broken by the current administration, so please don't expect me to look the other way just to make nice.
Conservatives, I'm not saying I'm going to stop making fun of your attitudes. Frankly, it's just too wide a target for me to resist. I am going to draw the line at vicious attacks on you or your candidates personal lives, and I am going to focus on the issues. I'm asking you to do the same. I’d like to see a clean, substantive debate in the coming presidential election, for once. Who’s with me?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 23
Michael, I think politics is the only way we decide how to address very important issues. It is also sometimes very divisive and difficult, because real people can get passionate when they believe they are right about something important. I agree we (and our elected officials and politicians) need to stop calling each other names, develop some diplomatic skills, and start trying to solve the world's problems instead of fighting.
James, there need to be some serious and honest investigations into many allegations of wrongdoing. Preferably, we need independent investigative groups to do it. Perhaps they should be elected rather than appointed by the very people they might be investigating, as well. I do think there's a lot of corruption. I think there are also perhaps coverups that happen because the politicians underestimate us and think we can't handle the truth. I also think there are some very good public servants at all levels of government. The trick is discerning who they are amidst all the lies and spin.
I've read (somewhere...) that the most powerful weapon in use against America today is the one that is wedging us apart, away from our common ground and shared values, keeping us polarized and fractured. We ceased to be "united" states of America somewhere in the recent past. Going back to civilised debate, acceptance of differences, and searching for common ground is vital to our survival.
If we had investigative journalism to any appreciable degree in this country, that would be a start. I do think there are various watchdog groups that have come up with some interesting bits of evidence and important questions, at least, on 911. I have seen much to be concerned about when it comes to the integrity of the 911 report, however, nothing has been proven "beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt," in my opinion. I don't think there is any way to get around the fact that, if you want any corruption or coverups punished, at some point a court has to get involved. Merely exposing whatever has happened is, of course, another question.
A wonderful sentiment. It's chances around here, unfortunately, are not so wonderful. I generally resist the temptation to insult till insulted, myself, and if you see me throw one first, it's someone I already have ample experience with, probably. I won't name any names here, but they know who they are. I'd try to behave if they will, though. (I suddenly feel like I'm sitting on the couch with my brothers being told we all have to get along by my mom, though) By the way, I enjoyed your critic of conservatives, pretty good.
"with the bulk of society being pitiful peasant serfs trying desperately to scrape a living out of the muck. "
Monty Python,"In Search of the Holy Grail", with the two serfs down in the mud discussing the socio-economic values of the feudal system, and economics in general in decidedly professorial terms. The liberal in his element, according to conservatives, I imagine. ROFL
I like your idea, Astrogirl. It is a good idea to keep things civil.
I don't feel that our system is so corrupt that if proof were available, it wouldn't have its day in court. You mention that they hold a mock trial in the movie and present evidence that a crime happened, but the only question is "who did it?" That is the one question you'd need to answer to bring it to court. You can't have a criminal trial without an accused person or persons.
I think the 911 report suffers from questions not asked that should have been asked, probably to spare the reputations of people the questioners would soon have to work with again. I don't think it's a vast conspiracy involving all of Congress or something like that. I do think that people in Washington have to deal with each other on a daily basis. Sometimes it's like a couple that avoids fighting over the real issues, because they have to wake up with each other in the morning.
I share your hope for the internet eventually being able to expose facts the media doesn't cover.
Ron, I love that scene from Monty Python. By the way, there's some lovely filth down here. I guess we should be grateful for it, seeing as it's all the aristocracy has left us.
Joe, well, I wouldn't take credit for the idea, but thanks.
Janelle, thanks. We have such a lot of issues to work on in the country and the world, it would be nice if we could work together.
I think there is a healthy respect for differing viewpoints that evolves slowly from debate. It occurs over time because as we see more and more of each other we grow into relationships.
The thing about debate, however, is, as you noted, that on some level someone is saying that your viewpoint is wrong, skewed, distorted and all of these descriptions take on negative connotations because people don't do what they should, which is to accept diversity on every level and consider criticism as a chance to see themselves through other perspectives.
So taking comments as personal other than the occassional "You're a jerk (and trust me, for me, much worse)" is really more about the person directing the insult than the one receiving it.
It's ok to be passionate as long as we recognize passion in others.
Thanks for the article!
For the past 25 years I have had a spirited but pleasant discourse with a very close friend who happens to be a Republican. I feel like we each came away from these conversations a little better-informed.
This has disappeared entirely since Bush II came along. The attitude of "You're with me or you're with the enemy," has poisoned this sort of discourse in America, and unless we do as you suggest and switch off the rants of the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, Bill O'Reillys and, much as I hate to say it, Randi Rhodes and Al Frankens, it may stay poisoned.
- mike
I'm concerned that maybe it means none of them want to stop being nasty and so they don't like to comment here.
I may have no real first hand idea of what this is like, but believe me, I can imagine. I'm sure it wasn't pleasant. Thank you for your comment. I really think it is so important that we start trying to find common ground, even if it's elusive.
But, you are correct that the roles have changed. I think the parties are redefining themselves and it tends to leave a lot of their traditional members without representation. I would argue that the roles changed more like around 3 decades ago when Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in the Middle East and then Reagan came in and got us into so much debt and scared the pants off me when I was in high school because every minute I thought he was going to start a nuclear war. As an adult, I'm guessing younger than you, I have always seen the parties as pretty much the way they are now. I think some of the current rancor is partly because many are finally realizing that their parties changed without their knowledge or consent.
As for a revolution, well, I sincerely hope it doesn't have to come to that. Some days I wonder, though. What if humanity just evolved really fast and learned our lessons? I'm not sure that some sort of quantum leap in understanding isn't somehow possible.
When you say naivete, I guess I have to say if he's naive, then I share the same problem. It's not that I don't sometimes get excruciatingly depressed about various aspects of the world situation, but I guess I just think it does me some good to have hope, too. And maybe, just maybe, if we all could find a little hope and a bit of compassion and love in our hearts, well, mountains could be moved. I guess I'm just inspired by the idea that there are others out there who haven't given in or given up.
Wisest words ever spoken: //The trick is discerning who they are amidst all the lies and spin.//
Better to "discern" first and walk softly while doing it. However, when the bully is standing over you with a big stick having already taken a couple of whacks, its' time to remove the stick , stop the bully and repair the damage. In just about that order. Having said that I'm not inclined to waste time punishing.
We the american people and our democracy have suffered more than a few whacks. I hope that most hard working citizens are able to "discern" that and vote accordingly.
Gatobilis,
I'm an independent in recovery, sometime repub and sometime dem and sometime green. I was even tempted to vote for Nader once out of sheer spite [in retrospect] because he alone seemed to be saying, "why in hell can't WE make a mousetrap that's better and won't ultimately kill us." Don't know what I am now -- a member of the DISGUSTED and PERMANENTLY SCEPTICAL CROWD.
I, too, draw the line at being civil towards the neocons, who aren't ALL repub's of course. There are plenty of dems, greens, libertarians, etc. who push a neocon agenda each for their own reasons.
I know what AstroGirl is saying--I think--correct me if I'm wrong--Astro; i.e., change the dialogue and change the paradigm.
I find that difficult in the midst of warding off the blows to my very existence and the existence of "the real democracy" I cherish. Dwight D. Eisenhower must be rolling over in his grave. I do have faith though in the voters' ability to read between the lines, eventually, and see dirty self serving tactics for what they are. John Edwards has had personal experience having to tell those who worked hard and voted for him and his ideals, "sorry about that folks, we fought the good fight and lost--by just a hair--try again next time." But, back to the other paradigm for a moment, as Bush would say, "It's hard work."
In the meantime, I believe the neocon philosophy and body politic is not going to waft away on a cloud of lofty ideas. I think of a bunch of bully boys beating up on a bum in the street, just because they can! The old saying, violence begats violence is true. When I'm put in the position of being the bum in the street, or on the ropes, I just want to haul myself up by my little old high heeled bootstraps and mash their mangy heads into mush. OOPS, not lady like and Nancy would not approve. But I'm still alive.
Yeah, I hear you. It's hard to be civil to people who are perpetually nasty themselves. I think the fundies and neocons are frankly, a bunch of nuts, and they're a bunch of nuts that 20 or 30 years ago, we couldn't even envision ever gaining power, because they are just that far out of the mainstream. They've managed to dominate the political dialogue and so they won temporarily, but I hope and pray and think this is as far as they'll get.
The way they managed to dominate the political dialogue is worth looking at and learning from, I think. The power players in the Republican Party (distinct from your average Republican) have put major money into think tanks that do nothing but try to decide how to convince people to vote for them and what language to use. They've spent years planning strategy for far in the future. By contrast, the Democratic Party doesn't have the same level of corporate funding and hasn't had the luxury of planning that far in advance. Still, despite the money gap, I think something can be learned here.
I understand your desire to vote for the best person for the job. I think, though, that it's important to look at the party's overall philosophy. It's not just about the individual candidate. It's about the philosophy they will support by voting with their party if elected.
The Republican philosophy is basically "every man for himself, the weak get left behind, the rich deserve all they get." That's how I have always understood it anyway, and not just recently. I see Bush as basically having mostly accomplished what the leaders in the Republican Party have been trying to accomplish for the last 50 years or so.
The Democratic philosophy is more like "give everyone equal opportunity, remember we are all created equal, and expect those who benefit the most from society to give the most back to it." I like the latter philosophy because it's more compassionate, I think it's a higher philosophy spiritually, and it's why I will always vote Democratic, except perhaps in some extreme circumstance.
Gatobilis, I disagree with you and Shawn about Edwards. Yes, he is a nice man. He is also very smart and savvy, very strategic, and knows how to communicate in a way that gets people on his side.
I don't mistake niceness for weakness. Edwards is tough. Don't forget - his family had no money when he was born, but he put himself through law school, became one of the best lawyers in North Carolina, if not the whole country, won most of his cases, and somehow got himself in a position where he is now a viable candidate for president. Not something the average person could accomplish, I think, and it shows a toughness that doesn't show on the surface necessarily. I worry about him a bit because I like him, but I also have complete confidence that he'll do just fine.
Good points. The fact that Edwards comes from a "working" family is a decided advantage, given his personal success. Isn't it ironic that Kerry was rejected by many for being elitist, and a Washington elitist at that, while Bush was hailed as the down to earth good ol boy.
Edwards success juxtaposed against the circumstances of his family upbringing more closely resembles the lives of ordinary people and, as such, provide a role model and some hope for those who aspire. To the extent that he can retain that perception [and not allow himself to be sucked into the Moggy's ambulance chasing "slick Willie" slot], he has much going for him in that regard alone. And, as you point out along the way--keep doing this--his policy stands and some concrete "plans" to make a difference will in fact make a difference. Hopefully, voters will pay really close attention and not be swayed by negative advertising and campaigning across the aisle and across the primary campaign trail--but this will depend in part onf whether Edwards will pounce on it fast and not let "swift boats" put him off course. Independent voters like Gatobilis [dare I speak for you in general terms, Gato] and myself will admire him all the more for his financial success and professional excellence. Hope he incorporates the latter into his ongoing message as opposed to downplaying it. Yes, I'm a lawyer and I've done extremely well and I'm proud! [wish I'd gone to law school, while I was at it]
Keep up your good work.
I have a great deal of respect for lawyers, if they work to create a more just society. Many of my heroes have been lawyers - Mahatma Gandhi, Thurgood Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, John Edwards. I also happen to have a great lawyer for my worker's comp case right now. So, I think the villification of lawyers is largely because people find the legal system frustrating and confusing.
I almost went to law school myself about a year ago. It would have been a second career for me. I got as far as taking the LSAT, which I did very well on. I visited some schools and had one I particularly liked. When it came down to it, I wasn't sure being a lawyer was for me. I also wasn't totally sure if I could do it with my partial disability, though I think I could have probably worked around that. If law school weren't so expensive I might have been willing to try it for a year, but as it is, it was a financial commitment I couldn't make without being sure.
The truth was I wanted a law degree to be a more effective activist. I wanted to work for the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Law Center or something like that. Law school tuition is especially daunting when you know you would work for a nonprofit! In the end, I decided I could be an activist and be underpaid without being a lawyer. Well, I guess my LSAT scores are still good for a few more years if I change my mind.
I've heard this a lot from people. People either believe that nice people can't make it, or they believe no politician could be nice. I happen to believe that this is largely a case of self-defeating assumptions. If we want nice people to be able to make it in our political system, we have to stand up for them. If we want to believe that politicians can be honorable people, we have to demand honorable politicians. Assuming that the whole system is corrupt and therefore can't be changed doesn't help change it. I think we can change the paradigm by demanding the change.
I really didn't mean to insult you. Really. I am enjoying your comments.
I stated what I believe to be the case and have seen from countless Republicans throughout my life. Republicans seem to want government to stay out of just about everything, not fund any social programs, and do mostly nothing except maybe law enforcement and the military. It is a laissez-faire philosophy, and to me, that translates to "every man for himself." In a perfect Republican world, every person takes responsibility for him or herself and there is no help available from government for those who fail. To me, that translates to "the weak fall behind, the rich deserve all they get." You can correct me where you think I'm wrong, but I don't see how this isn't the Republican philosophy, though perhaps you would prefer to state it in different terms.
I also don't assume that registered Republicans don't care for the less fortunate, but I do wonder how they think the less fortunate are being helped by Republican policies. I have also, on this site, seen many comments from Republicans who actually don't seem to care about the less fortunate, and just assume those less fortunate people are lazy.
I don't believe welfare was detrimental to African Americans. I think it helped a lot of people who had nowhere else to turn.
"What once were a proud people became a fragmented people, a disenfranchised people, and an unemployed people."
African Americans as a group never were unfragmented, enfranchised, and optimally employed since being brought to America as slaves. To say that Democratic policies caused them to descend from some height they had reached since coming here is, frankly, absurd. Slavery is the ultimate disenfranchisement.
I'm sure they were justly proud people in Africa, when they hadn't been treated so horribly yet. The sad situation many African American communities still find themselves in is still a direct result of being brought here as slaves. It takes a while to rise above that sort of thing. Poverty is, by itself, often a self-perpetuating cycle. Add to that the humiliation that must come from being treated like less than a person, and you've got people with a heavy burden. Very motivated and self-directed individuals can rise above it, but many will need some help to do so.
"Without motivation there is no reason to change. Why change if you can get paid to do nothing?"
I've never met anyone who wanted to stay on welfare or get a handout from the government. Most people have far more dignity than you're giving them credit for. Many will accept a hand up if they are in sincere need. It's embarassing to have to accept financial assistance, though, and most people will make an effort to get off it if they can. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I think they are exceedingly rare. Welfare has never been enough to ensure anyone a comfortable lifestyle, in any case.
Ideally we don't just throw money at the problem of poverty. Ideally we get involved in people's lives and find a way to help more directly. What is it that you're proposing should be done? If throwing money at the problem hasn't solved it, another thing that definitely hasn't solved it is not spending any money on the problem and just ignoring it instead. Problems don't fix themselves by being ignored. What is your proposal?