Too many people are arguing points of view that seem to be antagonistically created by Public Relations (PR) folks to divide us. Fear sells. It always has. So, to win elections and sway opinion, certain PR folks and candidates create a we/ they mentality. The other tribe is painted as evil.
But, are we really that far apart? I feel we too often are arguing the points of view of the most extreme among us. I feel most people are closer together if we only talk about it. If we could only discuss what we agree on as much as what we don’t, then civil disourse could occur. If we do that, those areas where we don’t agree may not seem such a high hurdle to overcome.
A good example is before the last former president, Republican leaders would not attend CPAC conferences. Why? Because CPAC represented the extreme side of their party. Republican leaders knew this and stayed away. Now, CPAC is reported as a main stream part of the party, which has taken the Republicans down a narrow path into the woods. To me, that is unfortunate, because I believe most Republicans would not favor some of the extremism of this wing of the party.
On the Democrat side, what is reported online is the more progressive thoughts of the party. To me, they are interesting points of view to consider, but don’t represent fully what more moderate Democrats might believe, at least in tone. I am not dismissing these thoughts at all, but what we lose sight of in this country on both ends of the spectrum is at some point we have to step up and pay for things.
Here are a few common themes that many of us may hold, but it is worth the discussion to confirm agreement.
-elected officials do not work very hard to serve the needs of the people; they focus on helping their major funders and marketing for more funding.
-collaboration to solve problems long term should not be such a foreign concept.
-freedom to do things is important, provided we are not hurting other people and we understand that freedom has a price tag of responsibility.
-name calling is not civil discourse; it is an intended short cut by someone who has not thought through an argument.
-shouting over comments by someone who does not agree with your comment is not an argument, it is playground taunt.
-opinion hosts online, on TV or on radio are most often not sharing facts, they are sharing opinion. The old saying is true, opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one.
-finally, people who name call, who shout and who share opinions as fact (such as “everyone knows this”) have earned the right that what they say should be taken with a grain of salt. This is especially true, if their track record indicates a highly untruthful nature.
Thinking of the above, the one comment that I can make in conversation that will resonate with even the more strident fans of the former president is “Donald Trump is his own worst enemy. He would serve himself better if he did not tweet so much.” That simple comment conveys an awful lot.
Issues. Let’s discuss issues, not personalities. What is the problem and the underlying reasons? What are the possible solutions? Who benefits, how long does it take, how can it be implemented, what is the cost and will it solve or help solve the problem? I could care less what teams wins or loses with a decision. Plus, it must stand the test of time and be monitored and improved or eliminated if it is not working well.
musingsofanoldfart 
oh the great divide.
I so agree Keith….
\🙏
“What are the possible solutions? Who benefits, how long does it take, how can it be implemented, what is the cost and will it solve or help solve the problem? I could care less what teams wins or loses with a decision”
Thanks Cindy.
Welcome Keith!
Talking points seem to be slipping away.
True, but we need to try to keep them afloat. If we ask and listen, we will be better off than if we don’t. Keith
Most Americans aren’t so far apart. However, out ability to cope with differences may have changed.
Somethings haven’t changed:
A. Dating back to research in the 1960s, it’s always been true that party leaders were more extreme than followers. That’s finally what led so many to identify as independents.
B. Technology was amplifying extremist voices in the 1930s. If anything, the proliferation of communications channels may have weakened the ability to influence opinions by that means.
Some things have changed:
A. Population density. The US was primarily farming and small town until 1950, and you could walk away from problems. Now if you walk away, you bump into someone else. That density makes it harder to cope. Humans are social beings — to a point.
B. Covid. The virus damages areas of the frontal lobe involved with management of emotions and decision-making. It’s quite probable that most of the world has been infected. We can’t know how many have brain damage, but we are likely to find out. This could easily be a contributor to the spike in both traffic accidents and gun violence that we’ve seen in the past year. I wrote a recent post on a UK study using before-and-after MRIs that clearly identifies damage and brain shrinkage attributable to Covid.
Thanks for your thoughts Vic. To me, when news became tailorable with the advent of the internet and Fox News’ success, the ability to misinform and disinform became pronounced. It used to be politicians ran on rhetoric and governed off facts. Now they govern off rhetoric as that can’t be seen as leaving their BS behind to actually make decisions.
Unfortunately, Keith, it’s ALL about winning for these guys, and by winning, I mean totally destroying the opponent. I agree with you, though; most of us actually think more alike than is portrayed, but the extremists on both sides get all the attention. We in the middle have to somehow grab more of that attention. If someone has an idea how, let’s hear it.
We so desperately need a moderate party. When people are told (and believe) the other party is worse than an enemy combatant, that is when pseudo news people and political leaders need to be shown the door.
Thanks.
I fully agree with all of your points, but as long as we have conspiracy theorists, immature juveniles, and radical people in Congress, it’s doubtful that the two sides will be able to sit down and engage in problem-solving discourse. And yes, it is both parties … neither one has accomplished anything significant for years now … but the nasties, those who promote bigotry and violence, do mostly seem to exist on the Republican side of the aisle. Unfortunately, the opinion people like Ingraham/Pirro/Carlson/Hannity are being listened to by some, and their opinions being treated as truth, as facts, by those who are either less educated or too darned lazy to read and research the issues. I don’t see this ending anytime soon … not until the media starts to take responsibility and the politicos who are only in it for attention and $$$$ disappear from the scene.
Thanks Jill. At a minimum, we need our elected officials to represent our better selves not our worst. I did like that Republican Senator today called one of those extreme Congressmen in his own party on the carpet for calling the Ukraine president a thug, when even the majority of his own party admire Zelenskyy for his courage. To me, people in the party where extremist language or actions occur should lead the effort to push back on the culprit. Diplomatic pushback aids in better discussion, as it tells extremists to rethink their commentary.
Exactly so. The likes of Cawthorn, Greene, Gaetz, Boebert, Gosar and many others are absolutely NOT the ones we need … they represent the worst that humans have to offer, not our better selves. Oh yeah … I saw that … ’twas Cawthorn, I believe, that called Zelenskyy a thug. I have gained tremendous respect for President Zelenskyy over the past month or so … I didn’t know much about him until recently, but he is obviously a man of courage and character.
Sadly, the folks you name are remembered for reasons they probably did not plan on. I am with you on Zelenskyy.
Your voice of reason and that most important of factors for a Democracy- Constructive Compromise place you head and shoulders above several of the USA’s elected officials who have looked so far over the edge they have lost balanced and tipped off.
As you know Keith, for some years I have held a notion that under usual forces which craft Human History the USA could be on the path to separating into a loose association of nation states not dissimilar to either The EU or to go a step back The Holy Roman Empire.
Now that Putin has descended into one of the more broodingly aggressive models of Czardom and the spectre of a larger conflict sits ever on our shoulders ;The USA faces another of those outside challenges.
The question now is will those previous ‘American’ fractures remain and some blindly continue in their sympathy for Putin for the only reason that the Liberal, Moderate and Democrats don’t?.
Roger, I like the term constructive compromise. My favorite example is Denmark developed a climate change intervention plan that had to be bipartisan to last beyond the term of the existing parliament. Being below sea level does create a sense of urgency and a need for sustainability. Keith
That was a very wise and long view / big-picture approach by Denmark.
Too many well-meaning ideas and endeavours and stifled by the ‘administrative term’ mentality and the knee-jerk response to undo something by an outgoing administration- ‘just because’
So true. In the US, seemingly every time the other party takes control of the White House, the US is either very forthcoming with providing condoms to third world countries, a a data supported, known control of STDs, AIDS, and unwanted pregnancies or the US becomes very restrictive on such use and the disease transmission and unwanted pregnancies rise. The US is like a yo-yo to deal with which wreaks unnecessary havoc. For those who do not want abortions, condoms reduce abortions (as evidenced by a Colorado study).