Will's Link
This really struck me on a lot of levels. It sure feels like it hits on a key challenge to the America of tomorrow, next week, next year, next decade and next century.
It's a look at political polarization, well, perhaps "angle" on political polarization is a better term, that seems under discussed. Worth a read for sure. Whether you wear your MAGA hat or still wander around with your Hilary 2016 shirt...
Constant loss for one side can only go on so long.
Good read. You should take a lot of pride in yourself. You have been one of the few capable of disagreeing without contempt on this site. I need to do better, great reminder. Thanks.
"Each side thinks it is driven by benevolence, while the other is evil and motivated by hatred — and is therefore an enemy with whom one cannot negotiate or compromise."
Think about that for awhile. I agree with Trial on this topic. There's a lot of self professed benevolence here.
Compromise is for details- not the macros. For instance, we should not comprise IF we balance the budget but HOW we balance the budget. ..
But in todays political theater it is about being a country of civil liberties with limited governmental control or big government with less civil liberties ( the collective is acceptable norm) and how is there a compromise to this political mindset.
We are in a civil war of political parties and it is increasingly dividing apart with each election cycle. I always said that the DNC know how to street fight and the RNC wants to play by rules which is why the RNC always loose it in the media and public opinion persuasion which means voters.
The market and jobs does not matter in this fight, it is all about power and control to drive the collective agenda. The DNC would rather have a poor economy than a strong one for political control, 8 yrs of Obama's economic policies have proven this.
The only way to constructively battle this without blood in the streets is by votes and rule of law, which both are fading away fast.
The fundamentals of free capitalism is the only method to keep free people. We loose this and it is back to a 3rd world country of the power elite, once the middle class is gone so is this country as we know it.
If I am wrong please enlighten this peon on compromise.
The author builds the proposed solution on the assumption that both sides got us here. That is a false narrative. If it were true then there are many good points to consider. However, the recent turn of blatant hypocrisy and unfair fighting has taken this battle into the sewers. And one side is far more responsible for it.
It's not about political differences of policy and ideas. It's about not accepting defeat on a subject when the truth is presented or playing by rules of civilized behavior during a process. We can't have a civilized battle with underhanded tactics and then call for fair play. That is what the author is doing. Ignoring the reason we are not able to have a fair fight.
I am for being kind and understanding, fighting hard but fair. Let the truth be known and accepted. If you cheat and break the rules, then we are now at war. Peace talks sound good right now but the hypocrites and cheaters need to own this mess first and then we can progress.
This is very close to a Biblical principle. But it is missing a key element. Repentance. Repent and be forgiven. We can not move forward with those who are unwilling to admit and own their insanity, lies or offenses. Walking out, slander, undignified and unwarranted persecution, unwillingness to accept what you already have accepted and so on... That kind of arrogance and childish behavior is not on an equal footing with fair play.
It's a crafty argument but a fake one.
And when there is only one side that is compromising.... where is your vaunted "fairness"? When the only "compromise" you offer is "it's not like I'm taking away from you all at once, we can come to compromise and only we'll only take from you a little at a time...." There is no "meeting in the middle" when what one considers "giving" is in reality only taking, all taking. Just taking less than the whole thing, which is what they are after.
When you finally say enough is enough, I will give no more..... in what world is that contempt?
We dont even allow ideas to compete today, we just assign them to a category: "bad" or "good". "L" or "R". "Agree" or "Moron". There seems an unwillingness (culturally in our country) to even entertain other ideas. We have our list, and if other ideas dont line up, no need to look beyond to understand them, or better understand ourselves... we (again, culturally speaking) just seem to label those ideas crud and seek any affirmation there of. Or, only look at those ideas through our lens and not openly consider whether our lens may have some issues as well - why are those other ideas popping up if "my" way is ideal? Is there a weak point here?
That frustrates me. Because I like to think about stuff. Probably to much! ha ha ha!
Any way, I thought those were really neat parts of the piece, and it sure seemed like a good discussion here. Glad folks have enjoyed checking it out. Enjoy the weekend folks!
The Rock
