My Fellow Americans,
We are all so played against each other by sophisticated political machinery. "Divide and Conquer" still appears to be working, and it richly rewards those who operate this machinery at our expense.
I am hopeful that in time Internet forums and "discussions" such as we are attempting on Gather will finally bring some clarity to the electorate. It is my hope that the People, in all our diversity, will come to realize their power and potential.
America depends on this diversity. We depend on the ability to advocate for our differing positions. We must come to realize that the "other" is not the enemy.
We differ only in perspective, not morality. The People are the ultimate source of political power only if we choose to exercise it.
We should always argue compassionately. Respectful argument is constructive.
We must unite in the way we argue. Divisiveness is counter-productive.
Everyone must participate, everyone must be heard, everyone must be accommodated to some fair degree and never absolutely.
We the People. Let us unite in our diversity and take back our country from the political machinery that misinforms and prospers. Let's render impotent the divide and conquer tactics that drives so much of the political debate.
We can do this but we must stop the name-calling, the demonizing, the disrespect of those with other views and positions.
There is no place on Earth other than here in America where a unity in diversity is possible. The world is counting on us to figure it out and lead the way.
The time to act is now and the power is given to each of us to create a more perfect union.
E Pluribus Unum!
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 30
L.H. - I'm glad you will vote but I am disappointed you don't wish to share your views with us. We need your input, no matter what your position is. I think participating in the political debate by voicing your opinion is as much a citizen's duty as voting.
Larry M - Thanks!
Sandy K - The statement that you disagree with "We differ only in perspective, not morality" might seem incorrect on the face of it but I think upon closer inspection you might agree with me. Sometimes it takes a severe test of humanity to see this expression ring true, as it is so often muted by our focus on superficial differences.
For example, after the planes smashed into the World Trade Center those involved in rescue operations were desperately trying to help their fellow human being without regard to religion, race, national origin, or any other consideration. All that mattered was that you were human, and this compassion probably even extended to non-humans as well (i.e. pets).
Winston - You can express yourself however you like, this being America and all. I just don't find it helpful in the discussions to use such labels.
There is such diversity within any of the groups you mentioned. Do all Republicans feel the same about Republican issues? I don't think so, and I hope not. It would be unnatural.
If we stick to the issues yet avoid the labels you used in Political Science class, I feel we might achieve better results in our discussions.
For example, I react negatively when someone refers to me as a "liberal", especially knowing how it used by some as a derogatory term. I am more complex a person than the label would allow, and it just puts me on the defensive. I will not as easily hear your argument if I am put on the defensive.
In addition, I also embrace certain conservative ideas. I pick and choose from all positions and I try not to pre-judge. Labeling enables prejudice.
Dorothy H - Thank you!
They seem to be mad at the US and the Western World, when their anger should be directed at their political leaders. Having a country ruled by Islam means that they cannot have a banking system or a legal system that allows them to "play" in the world game of commerce. Sure, they sell oil, because they can call their terms on that, but, they don't use those profits to "do" anything else! No finance, no manufacturing, no agriculture, no economic diversiifcation! No wonder why the average Middle Eastern guy is mad! But his anger should be directed at his own leaders, not us.
Can Islam live peacefully in a world with personal and economic freedoms?
You are prolific today, I can hardly keep up.
"How do you explain the differences in politcal beliefs between two people, say Obama and Pat Buchannon, without using those words? "
The words you refer to are labels we talked about such as left-wing, right-wing, liberal, conservative and such.
I suggest a focus on the issues and not the people who might choose to discuss the issues.
The issues should be something that concerns or affects all Americans, not special interests like bowling. Some suggestions:
The War in Iraq
Universal Health Care
Immigration
Reproductive Rights
The Role of Faith in Politics
Free Speech
Diversity
Race Relations
Civil Rights
Campaign Finance Reform
Representative Democracy
Gay marriage
Transparency of Government
The Role of the Media
American Culture
Family Values
Creationism
English as the National Language
Amendments to the Constitution (Flag-burning, Definition of Marriage, etc)
American Ideals
Foreign Policy
This is of course not an all-inclusive list, but are some of the hot-button issues in need of argument.
I would pick one issue at a time and discuss how various politicians address these issues, as well as expressing your position.
For example, let's say our topic of interest was universal health care. We might begin a discussion about how this is accomplished in other countries (such as is done in most of the industrialized world except here in the US), the relative spending in these countries as a percent of gross domestic production (GDP), the notion that this is a socialist construct and so on, and then compare these things to what we do here in the US.
We might then go on to discuss the various candidates position on this topic. For you and I, we may want to talk about the positions of Obama, McCain, Franken and Coleman.
Perhaps we can agree ahead of time to discuss a particular topic. We should allow ourselves some time to do the research and to think about where we stand in relation to the issue before we make our initial comments.
We would have our initial discussion as outlined above. Due to the complexity of the issues and the limitation of words in any discussion, we may need several cycles of back-and-forth, point and counterpoint.
Eventually we should be able to exhaust our ability to carry the discussion any further. At this point a summary of our views should be stated.
Some examples of such statements might include:
"I agree with this, but not with that"
"I believe such and such, so I'm going to vote for so-and-so"
"I respect your position, but I'm afraid we must agree to disagree"
After that it's time to move on to another topic.
If you would like to call the first topic and try this format please do so. We should give a couple of days to do the research and present our initial statements.
On the surface that seems a fair comment but as one gives it real thought they might consider that the west (mainly the US) is in their area attempting to inflict its way on them. That gives them the right to be angry as I am sure we would be if the same were happening here. I refuse to join in with the thinking that "WE" are the masters of life. That no ones elses life style is ligitamate. That, as far as I'm concerned is one of the major problems we have. You cannot think through anothers head on his behalf. they must be allowed to deal with their lives as they see fit.
The same as the question about how women are treated. That is not for us to act upon. We can abhore it and encourage but we still have no right to force our way of life on them. There is change happening in some regions though at a slower pace than I would like to see. I ad a friend who lived in Lahore, Pakistan. She graduated from college and taught language at a local high school and college. Her family tradition was to have a prearranged marriage with a man picked by her family. She refused and left Lahore for a nearby city where she met and fell in love with a man she wanted. Now she has moved back to Lahore and has a decent relationship with her family. I am hearing more young folks are moving away from arranged marriages. They have a generational clash in operation now butno matter how we feel aout it we have no right to get in the middle of it.
I see it similarly as interfering in someone elses business. We must allow the transition they started to work itself out without us forcing it down their throats. We could also turn the situation around to find that they dislike some of the customs and habits we use. Should they come here and interfer in our traditions?
Next item: "Can Islam live peacefully in a world with personal and economic freedoms?"
I just posted an article "The Enemy Has Been Sighted" that is germane to your question.
You are correct, the Muslim world is angry at the West.
Yes, their leaders have a lot to answer for, but not to us, to their people.
We are not blameless in their attitude toward us or for our dependence on their oil.
Read my recent post and we can pick up on this discussion.
I marvel at the Muslims walking past Victoria's Secret at the mall, or by the pool here where I live. This must be very difficult and uncomfortable for them, but the personal discipline and fidelity to their faith and culture is something to be admired.
I would like to hear from American Muslims about the challenges about living in America.
Muslims are involved in the world economy, otherwise we would not be buying their oil and they would not be making investments in this country. You were refering to the Islamic prohibition of making profits in lending money such as is common in this country.
This has been a problem for Muslims here in America until such time as they spoke out about their needs and advocated for their community. Just recently, reasonable accomodation has been found so Muslims may now borrow money without violating Islamic law.
Reasonable accommodation. Empowerment. Opportunity. This is the way it should work!
The short answer to your question is "yes", but much depends on us.
I agree with the points you make. I say more on this subject in my recent post "The Enemy Has Been Sighted".
I would put it a little differently, or rather add to what you said, in that the Muslim world is frustrated and mad at us for totally ignoring them. That's why Bin Laden attacked us, in order to bring our attention to this very fact. And it worked. We are now having this discussion. Our ignorance and arrogance is a big part of the problem.
In regards to how women are treated in Islamic countries, again there is a diversity. Islamic women in Turkey are treated differently than in Iran. Even so, it is not for us to say how other people should live.
If we truly believe we are leading the world in regards to personal freedoms, which I believe we are, then we must be prepared to adopt an attitude of leadership.
One who leads does not expect to see anyone's backside; that means we are following, not leading. We must set the example, and make the example so attractive that others will naturally desire to follow.
I didn't realize the country's name had changed. I know I'm living in my own world , but everybody knows me here.
Seriously, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
I think I understand our history pretty well, and I would say that our country was founded on the unique idea that the common people could decide for themselves how they should be governed.
The way this was achieved, besides sheer luck, was by dissent and rebellion.
I'm saying we should all get together to passionately argue like hell, not sing Kumbaya. Isn't that free speech?
Were you commenting on my article or my response to Winston? Please clarify this for me.
If we were to sing something together, I'd like to suggest an American song, "This Land is Your Land".
"I think one of the biggest problems we face is the gap between those who preach morals and those who live them. "
Do you mean to imply that there are none that do both? (End of Bill's comment)
That quote is Sandy's to defend. I personally do not think preaching morals or living them are mutually exclusive, nor do I think the gap she refers to is one of the biggest problems that we face.
I think Sandy is talking about hypocracy. Hypocracy is certainly a not nice thing, and I think we've seen plenty of that from The Decider and his administration.
The biggest problem we face in my opinion is ignorance. That was the whole point of my article "The Enemy Has Been Sighted".
You said in your comment, in regards to what happened after the 9/11 attacks that "there were thousands who waved flags and donated a pint of blood, but who were unwilling to consider why that happened..."
That may be true, but to my point the significant thing is that they gave blood!
I was thinking about your response to what I wrote. I re-read the article and realized that perhaps you were keying in on the line "We must unite in the way we argue. Divisiveness is counter-productive."
I now see how you might think the statement "divisiveness is counter-productive" suggests that we should all think the same thing in order to not be divisive and counter-productive. That is not at all what I meant to suggest.
Divisiveness comes not from arguing. Divisiveness comes instead from being disrespectful, like the exchange between "Lex Luther" and myself in the comments to my article "The Enemy Has Been Sighted". There you can see an example of how disrespect breeds more disrespect.
Did I finally get your point? Do you understand where I am coming from?
I still need some clarification from you on this, but in any case you have lead me to some insights concerning how I may better express myself. It is all too easy to be misunderstood. Thanks!
I agree about the Lex Luthors. I usually won't waste my time responding to such unreasonable folks. I was just having fun venting on that one.
Jim, are you saying a respectful debate with my fellow Americans won't happen anytime soon? Well maybe not en masse but I see it happening incrementally, little by little. This is the reason I am here blogging in the first place, my underlying principle.
I feel that sincere passionate debate is the means by which this country obtains moral strength, civic cohesiveness and political improvement.
Anything less than engaging in a respectful debate about the issues that affect us all is a dereliction of one's duty as a citizen.
You may be correct, Jim. Yet I would rather be an optimist and wrong than a pessimist and right.
By the way, I took no offense whatsoever. I was just trying to understand the point you were trying to make. Only ignorance and disrespect would make me take offense. You demonstrated neither.
Thanks for getting back to me on this. I hope you will help to engage others in this pursuit. It is uncomfortable, it is messy, it is vital!
I missed the sarcasm in your comment. Had I understood I would have responded with a simple lol. Gotcha.
Your comment did elicit from me what I thought was a humorous response, "I know I'm living in my own world , but everybody knows me here." I hope you lol.
You're okay in my book!
The motto one can subscribe under, whether we're speaking about politics, religion or even everyday life. ;-) I hope and pray, dear Mike, that your voice will be heard - not only for the sake of your country, but for the sake of world in general.
Blessings and best wishes - S.
Thank you for your kind comment.
I agree with all you have expressed concerning "politics, religion or even everyday life" and "not only for the sake of your country, but for the sake of world in general."
You are so wise. I do not say this because you may agree with me and say such nice things, but I think you are very sensitive and perceptive.
This was the vision for America expressed hundreds of years ago by Thomas Paine in the introduction to his pamphlet "Common Sense".
In his pamphlet Paine inspired the people in the American colonies to take action against British oppression and to secure for themselves and posterity a new way of governance based on personal freedoms and choice of government.
He said it was not only for the sake of America that this new idea be made manifest, but for the sake of the entire world. I hope we may live up to Paine's noble vision.
Blessings and all good things to you, Svetlana!
I'll be honest. Of late I've been thinking that there are too many people here on Gather who are incapable of civil discourse...who prefer only to misrepresent, miscontrue, and miscombobulate whatever the "other side" says so they can massage their own egos. I've considered leaving the forum. Reading your articles has reminded me that with the bad also comes much good; that there are many worthwhile discussions. Thank you for that.
Thanks again.
Boy, howdy, do I know first hand what you mean when you talk about those who are incapable of civil discourse.
I don't know if you've picked up on the recent controversy due to my deleting 124 comments by those "who prefer only to misrepresent, miscontrue, and miscombobulate whatever the 'other side' says so they can massage their own egos", but man has I been edumacated.
The controversy concerns my article on illegal immigration, and there are now articles and groups that have sprung up in reaction to my reaction to those previously mentioned. I'm honored.
Anyway, I won't bore you further with that subject, but will instead implore you to stay and share your insights. I for one will give your words full consideration and a frank yet respectful reply.
Thank you!
I've really been enjoying your posts. We seem to share very similar views, and I feel your writing is excellent. I always look forward to hearing from you.