An Exercise in Reaching Across the Aisle

[wei yau]

Alright, after all of the overwrought and frequently confusing discussion we've had about our political discussions, I figure it's time we talk about the issues instead of how we talk about the issues.

Much has been made, not just here, about Democrats (or the left) needing to understand why slightly more than half the country reject their policies. As I've stated before, I believe I understand why Bush supporters think the way they do. I just don't agree with it.

So, what do we do with that? How do you compromise on something like abortion? In a winner-take-all system, how do you not play all-or-nothing?

I think I have only the most superficial understanding of why Bush supporters (or Republicans or Conservatives or rightists) hold to their beliefs. I'd like to know more.

So, as an exercise, would it be possible to tackle one issue and try to see it from the other side? Input from any conservatives on this forum would be nice. As the originator of the OP, I vow to strike down, with great vengeance and furious anger, anyone who would suppress your dissension.

I'd love to offer a topic for dicussion, but I think it would be best for a conservative to lead off the discussion. It might level the playing field, since we seem to have the home court advantage.

[Dingfod]

I think Cool Hand already started here. (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=958)

[Cool Hand]

I think Cool Hand already started here. (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=958)

Heh. Thanks, warrenly, but we can see how far that went before devolving into name calling and talking past one another. I don't think my thread accomplished much of anything constructive.

Cool Hand

[Dingfod]

One thing constructive occurred: I'm staying out of the Polyticks and Low Forum for the most part. Y'all can have it.

[Cool Hand]

Alright, after all of the overwrought and frequently confusing discussion we've had about our political discussions, I figure it's time we talk about the issues instead of how we talk about the issues.


That's fine, eldar. The meta talk is too abstract sometimes.


Much has been made, not just here, about Democrats (or the left) needing to understand why slightly more than half the country reject their policies. As I've stated before, I believe I understand why Bush supporters think the way they do. I just don't agree with it.



Isn't that approach flawed? I mean isn't it premised upon the notion that all persons who voted for Kerry subscribe to the same set of beliefs, and that all persons who voted for Bush subscribe to a different set of beliefs, and that both camps are just as monolithic as the other?

Neither is correct, is it? Although some voters might vote for a candidate for a simple, one-issue reason, the reasons any given voter might vote for one candidate or another can be many and varied. Some may be simple, others may be complex or nuanced.


So, what do we do with that? How do you compromise on something like abortion? In a winner-take-all system, how do you not play all-or-nothing?


How do you know that any given Bush voter is in favor of banning abortions, or anti-choice, or however you prefer to describe it, or that the voter holds any other particular view on abortion? Isn't it also possible to be conflicted about it and recognize that it's not a black and white issue?


I think I have only the most superficial understanding of why Bush supporters (or Republicans or Conservatives or rightists) hold to their beliefs. I'd like to know more.


Do you really want to know more, or is that just an invitation to a rumble? (Actually, I'm being facetious with you, because I suspect you really do. On the other hand, I get the impression from some posters' remarks that they really aren't that interested).


So, as an exercise, would it be possible to tackle one issue and try to see it from the other side? Input from any conservatives on this forum would be nice. As the originator of the OP, I vow to strike down, with great vengeance and furious anger, anyone who would suppress your dissension.


A noble exercise, if one is able to get it going and to keep it up.


I'd love to offer a topic for dicussion, but I think it would be best for a conservative to lead off the discussion. It might level the playing field, since we seem to have the home court advantage.

Of course, it sounds like you are issuing a broad invitation to any conservatives who happen to be here. I can't speak for them.

To play devil's advocate, I'll assume that you are addressing me in particular.
If the topic is abortion, then you and I are likely to be agreeing with each other a great deal.

If you expect a response from a bona fide conservative in this forum, my guess is that you might hear little more than crickets chirping.

(As I've tried to explain in some other posts, I'm not what one might regard as a traditional conservative. To be sure, I hold some conservative positions. I also hold some liberal ones. I hold some moderate ones too. I'm probably more of a libertarian than anything else. I am not a rabid anti-Bush person, however, and that fact alone has caused me to feel marginalized here. In my calmer moments, I'm not rabid anti-anyone or anything. I'm just not a rabid person, for the most part.)

Cool Hand

[lisarea]

So, what do we do with that? How do you compromise on something like abortion? In a winner-take-all system, how do you not play all-or-nothing?

IMO, you recognize that it's really only a fringe that agrees it's all all-or-nothing proposition, and that the vast majority of people fall somewhere in the middle.

To take your abortion example, do people believe that women should be forced to carry fetuses that have no chance of surviving outside the womb? Should little girls who have been raped by their fathers be forced to endure pregnancy and birth? Should women be compelled to carry pregnancies to term knowing that they will likely die as a result?

Some people would say "Yes" to all of the above, and that's a pretty solid ideological fringe. No sense in arguing. I guess the other side would be voluntary extinctionists or something. No sense in arguing with them, either.

Now, personally, I think abortion should be safe and available, and it's none of anyone else's business. But I can certainly see the other side of the issue, and I can understand why they are so passionate about it.

I am passionately on the other side of the argument.

But I understand that the function of democracy is not for me to win. I am not supposed to make all of the decisions, and if I decide not to participate in the process, and engage in the compromise that precedes the general election, or the general election itself, I am opting out of the democratic principles on which this nation is founded. I have to compromise in order to participate. I am not compromising my OWN principles if I vote for a candidate whose platform differs from mine, or if I support policies that fall short of my personal ideals. And it doesn't really matter whether I think a compromise is acceptable, anyway. I'm not going to get my way just because I think it's right. I can either compromise, or I can be childish and petulant and opt out of the process entirely because I'm not getting my way.

I feel similarly about most social legislation, in fact. Drug laws, marriage laws, etc. I do not think it's the government's place to control our personal decisions, as long as they don't hurt anyone else. But even I understand why it should probably be illegal to sell children cigarettes or liquor. So even I am somewhere in the middle.

I even support the idea of marriage now, which is a recent development. I can see how it is a necessary social construct that serves to strengthen the family unit and thus relieve some of the burden on the state. Because I see the value of marriage, I find it reprehensible that this construct is only available to heterosexuals. I'd like to see the government completely remove itself from this whole 'sanctity of marriage' bullshit. I would argue that the government has no place conferring 'sanctity,' and as such, all government contracts that establish a family unit should be civil unions. Leave marriage and its attendant 'sanctity' to the churches and individuals, where it belongs. That is my ideal solution. However, as I said, I'm not in charge. As such, I can certainly compromise and support the concept of civil unions for gay couples. It's not perfect, but there are acceptable compromises to be had.

Now, let's look at economics. This is one topic where I get the impression that a lot of people think they're more extremist than they are. People will describe themselves, for example, simply as free market supporters or detractors. Bullshit. Almost nobody supports an entirely free market, and almost nobody supports complete government control of the economy. Anarcho-capitalists aside (where they belong, I might add), most people recognize the need for some kind of governmental structure and the money to support it. Most people realize that private police and private criminal courts are not an acceptable solution. Just as most people realize that the free market is necessary to maintain certain democratic principles. We don't need or want the government controlling the beanie baby market or the publishing industry.

IMO, it's almost entirely a matter of really nailing people down to where in the middle they fall, and recognizing that compromise is the whole point of the democratic principles the US was founded on.

[viscousmemories]

I'll be your conservative huckleberry, bitches!

Okay, I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian. I at one time in my life believed in the Almighty God of Abraham, and - among other things, natch - that Secular Humanism (about which I knew nothing at all) was the source of all evil in the world, feminists were no better than witches, and abortion was murder.

Now, I was always skeptical (my Mom to this day blames it on her having named me after doubting Thomas) but I did believe in spite of my doubts and I did have those same moral views. However, at sometime in my early 20's I ceased believing in the existence of supernatural things - including God. It just seemed too implausible to me.

But, it was still a while before my values on various things were challenged. And hence I still believed that Secular Humanism (about which I knew nothing at all) was the source of all evil in the world, feminists were no better than witches, and abortion was murder. Hence I still had values many here associate with closed-minded, fundamentalist extremists despite the fact that I was very open-minded and intellectually curious.

Believe it or not I didn't get to be the pinko I am today because some Democratic strategists figured out a way to win me to their viewpoint by way of condescension and/or ridicule. I was bullied into reading a bunch of liberal propaganda by my freakin' girlfriend! The New Our Bodies, Ourselves was my first glimpse of women as an unjustly oppressed minority. Torch Song Trilogy was my first exposure to the idea of gays as an unjustly oppressed minority. Etc. Basically I was coached, very gently and lovingly, in the direction of reconsidering my values. And surprise! It worked.

So ends my rant. :)

[wei yau]

That's fine, eldar. The meta talk is too abstract sometimes.

Abstract I can handle just fine. Going around and aruond on the same point instead of acting is what frustrates me.

Isn't that approach flawed? I mean isn't it premised upon the notion that all persons who voted for Kerry subscribe to the same set of beliefs, and that all persons who voted for Bush subscribe to a different set of beliefs, and that both camps are just as monolithic as the other?

Neither is correct, is it? Although some voters might vote for a candidate for a simple, one-issue reason, the reasons any given voter might vote for one candidate or another can be many and varied. Some may be simple, others may be complex or nuanced.

While all of what you state above is true, it isn't really conducive towards discussion. I had hoped that by casting a wider net, I'd get more personal, individual responses. Otherwise, I'm left to target individuals and frankly, I don't know any of you, at all.




How do you know that any given Bush voter is in favor of banning abortions, or anti-choice, or however you prefer to describe it, or that the voter holds any other particular view on abortion? Isn't it also possible to be conflicted about it and recognize that it's not a black and white issue?

It most certainly is, I chose abortion simply as an example. I could have used generic "X" and "Y", but I felt the example to be more illustrative.

I am detecting a tone of antagonism in your response. I feel that you are interpreting things that are simply not there. If I can at all clarify, let me just state it with the following:

"I believe that Bush supporters have rational and valid reasons for their support. On some of the issues, I believe I understand where they are coming from. Although, I am always willing to be proven wrong and revise my understanding accordingly. However, the dilemna I am left with is what do I do with this understanding? As I'm not a legislator, I cannot compromise with my fellow legislator across the aisle. As a voter and a sometime activist, I'm curious as to how can I use this understanding to bridge the gap and..yes, persuade others to my way of thinking. So, what I am appealing to the community at large to help identify a single issue...an issue in which the stereotypical blue/red divide is evident. Help me understand the issue. Help me understand why others oppose my viewpoint. Then let's figure out what can we do with that knowledge."

Do you really want to know more, or is that just an invitation to a rumble? (Actually, I'm being facetious with you, because I suspect you really do. On the other hand, I get the impression from some posters' remarks that they really aren't that interested).

Yes, I really want to know more. Don't let your opinion of others color your perception of me. Take me at my word. Give me the benfit of the doubt.

A noble exercise, if one is able to get it going and to keep it up.

I'll certainly give it a try.

Of course, it sounds like you are issuing a broad invitation to any conservatives who happen to be here. I can't speak for them.

To play devil's advocate, I'll assume that you are addressing me in particular.
If the topic is abortion, then you and I are likely to be agreeing with each other a great deal.

If you expect a response from a bona fide conservative in this forum, my guess is that you might hear little more than crickets chirping.

(As I've tried to explain in some other posts, I'm not what one might regard as a traditional conservative. To be sure, I hold some conservative positions. I also hold some liberal ones. I hold some moderate ones too. I'm probably more of a libertarian than anything else. I am not a rabid anti-Bush person, however, and that fact alone has caused me to feel marginalized here. In my calmer moments, I'm not rabid anti-anyone or anything. I'm just not a rabid person, for the most part.)


While your posts regarding "us vs them" (as well as liv's thread on populism and elitism) did prompt this thread, I have not envisoned you as a traditional conservative. One does not necessarily have to be conservative to respond. Hell, I might even give it a go with regards to American primacy and foreign policy.

All I'm asking for is a reasoned discourse on an issue. This is partly an attempt to bring about a more calm and civil atmosphere here. But, this is mostly an exercise on my part to widen my horizons and open my mind.

[wei yau]

IMO, you recognize that it's really only a fringe that agrees it's all all-or-nothing proposition, and that the vast majority of people fall somewhere in the middle.

Normally, I would have agreed with you. Yes, I do understand that there are nuances, qualifiers and exceptions to just about any position. But, I fear that sometimes I'm an extremist. For example, I'm fairly certain that I would be a fundamentalist, were I a theist.

IMO, it's almost entirely a matter of really nailing people down to where in the middle they fall, and recognizing that compromise is the whole point of the democratic principles the US was founded on.

I hesitated before excising the bulk of your post. I found it to be well-reasoned and clear, but it is this last part (as well as your statements on democracy and compromise) that strikes closest to the heart of the matter.

The general election is over and there's much work to be done. And perhaps it is the general election that is causing me to see everything in black and white (or red and blue).

I'll have to think more on this. Between yours and Cool Hand's posts, I have much to ponder. I accept that people compromise when selecting a candidate and that a supporter does not necessarily subscribe to the entire platform. Perhaps what I am troubled by is that both of the major parties have espoused or catered to extremist rhetoric. And all I hear is that rhetoric and am unable to hear the unspoken words of the middle.

[Cool Hand]

That's fine, eldar. The meta talk is too abstract sometimes.

Abstract I can handle just fine. Going around and aruond on the same point instead of acting is what frustrates me.



Yeah, that's probably more accurate. I didn't mean to imply you couldn't handle it, only that it's harder to follow what anyone means without bringing concrete examples into it. My "Us vs. Them" thread is evidence of that.


Isn't that approach flawed? I mean isn't it premised upon the notion that all persons who voted for Kerry subscribe to the same set of beliefs, and that all persons who voted for Bush subscribe to a different set of beliefs, and that both camps are just as monolithic as the other?

Neither is correct, is it? Although some voters might vote for a candidate for a simple, one-issue reason, the reasons any given voter might vote for one candidate or another can be many and varied. Some may be simple, others may be complex or nuanced.

While all of what you state above is true, it isn't really conducive towards discussion. I had hoped that by casting a wider net, I'd get more personal, individual responses. Otherwise, I'm left to target individuals and frankly, I don't know any of you, at all.



I agree, and I apologize for sounding antagonistic. I was being critical of the approach, and suggesting that leaving prejudices out might be helpful. You're right that my comments don't foster discussion on any substantive issue.

I applaud your casting a wide net. It's inclusive, and something that ought to be done more often in this forum. As for addressing individuals and not knowing many posters individually, join the club. I don't know that many either.



How do you know that any given Bush voter is in favor of banning abortions, or anti-choice, or however you prefer to describe it, or that the voter holds any other particular view on abortion? Isn't it also possible to be conflicted about it and recognize that it's not a black and white issue?

It most certainly is, I chose abortion simply as an example. I could have used generic "X" and "Y", but I felt the example to be more illustrative.


It's an excellent topic. Abortion is more nuanced than many who discuss it usually credit it with being. Medical science is making it even more gray than it used to be.

Unfortunately, abortion discussions tend to be one-sided or quite passionate. Hell, even the one-sided ones are usually passionate. Personally, I sometimes find the degree of passion to be so intense that it prevents the persons discussing it from engaging in much rational discussion. It often devolves into name calling and spouting of hateful rhetoric.

I do enjoy discussing the issues involved with a calm, dispassionate discussion partner or two, or seven. I just don't think that's possible for long in an internet forum with lots of posters. If you can get it to work, more power to you.


I am detecting a tone of antagonism in your response. I feel that you are interpreting things that are simply not there.


No, I wasn't trying to be antagonistic to you. I'm sorry for sounding that way. I started off too aggressively by questioning the premises that I thought you were beginning with. I'm being too reactionary to recent reactions to my posts. Funny, huh? I'll try to slip out of defensive mode.


If I can at all clarify, let me just state it with the following:

"I believe that Bush supporters have rational and valid reasons for their support. On some of the issues, I believe I understand where they are coming from. Although, I am always willing to be proven wrong and revise my understanding accordingly. However, the dilemna I am left with is what do I do with this understanding? As I'm not a legislator, I cannot compromise with my fellow legislator across the aisle. As a voter and a sometime activist, I'm curious as to how can I use this understanding to bridge the gap and..yes, persuade others to my way of thinking. So, what I am appealing to the community at large to help identify a single issue...an issue in which the stereotypical blue/red divide is evident. Help me understand the issue. Help me understand why others oppose my viewpoint. Then let's figure out what can we do with that knowledge."


Thanks for the clarification. That's a good approach. Now we just need a topic. I have to admit that I'm hesitant to choose one, as I'm growing more and more gun shy about discussing specific issues for fear of being misunderstood and vilified. I hope you can understand that.


Do you really want to know more, or is that just an invitation to a rumble? (Actually, I'm being facetious with you, because I suspect you really do. On the other hand, I get the impression from some posters' remarks that they really aren't that interested).

Yes, I really want to know more. Don't let your opinion of others color your perception of me. Take me at my word. Give me the benfit of the doubt.



Again, I'm sorry. I did in fact take you at your word. I shouldn't have used the opportunity to editorialize. My mistake.


While your posts regarding "us vs them" (as well as liv's thread on populism and elitism) did prompt this thread, I have not envisoned you as a traditional conservative. One does not necessarily have to be conservative to respond. Hell, I might even give it a go with regards to American primacy and foreign policy.

All I'm asking for is a reasoned discourse on an issue. This is partly an attempt to bring about a more calm and civil atmosphere here. But, this is mostly an exercise on my part to widen my horizons and open my mind.

Again, I find your endeavor to be a noble one. I'll be happy to join you in it if it concerns a topic in which I have some interest and familiarity, and as long as it remains tolerable. I'll have to be my own judge of how tolerable that is for me. I suppose everyone else who participates will have to do the same. I might also qualify my degree of participation with the proviso that I'm suffering from "debate fatigue" at the moment. I'll likely need some recharging of my batteries before I can fully engage.

Cool Hand

[LadyShea]

I think the "Us vs. Them" thread was not the best example of the debating skills and styles of many here, and would further add that the overall "Bush Platform" debate isn't a good one either as there are too many issues to get everyone riled about.

However, on specific topics, I think reasoned debate can be had, and I have participated in, observed, very good discussions even on abortion. A recent one on II is a good example, and I learned a lot as did my opponent I think.

Yes, someone is bound to resort to name calling, but they can be simply ignored in favor of more reasoned responses and the heat turned down with a simple "This is all an intellectual excercise and nobody's opinion is likely to be changed but lets throw some facts and figures and back up for our positions out there and see if we can't learn something" agreement.

[wei yau]

(Cool Hand - thanks for the response, we're Kool & The Gang)

As I'd really like to get a discussion started, I'll pick a topic. I'll even try to present the opposition's position, though I do not subscribe to it. I'll present what I understand as the reasons, but am willing to be corrected.

American Primacy and Iraq

The invasion of Iraq is a manifestation of the neo-conservative agenda for achieving American primacy in the world. In this particular instance, this is achieved through the force of arms. The origins of the invasion are rooted firmly in the idea that democracy and freedom are sufficiently alluring to create a cascading effect throughout the Middle East region once a "western-style" democracy is established in the area.

Iraq was seemingly the perfect target for this effort. In Saddam, we had a leader who had already fought one war with United States. Despite Iraq's oil production, Saddam was politically untouchable. Few would openly rise to his defense, given the tyrannical and brutal nature of his regime. His was a pariah state that was only acceptable due to its massive oil reserves.

The claims of WMD and "grave and gathering threat" were little more than political tools used to garner popular support for the invasion. There may have been just enough truth (depending on interpretation) to these claims to distinguish them from being outright lies. The claim of bringing freedom to the Iraqi people is a more valid justification for the war, when seen in the light of the neo-conservative agenda.

The question is, whether or not a democracy can be established in Iraq in any meaningful way. And should such a thing occur, would it be enough to spread democracy throughout the region.

I have my own thoughts on this matter, as you might imagine. However, I would first like to present my understanding of the neo-conservative agenda and Iraq.

[Adora]

I think I have only the most superficial understanding of why Bush supporters (or Republicans or Conservatives or rightists) hold to their beliefs. I'd like to know more.
It's not particularly hard. Those that have the most to lose with liberal change are most invested in conservatism.