As the joy of Christmas fast approaches, I wanted to say a few things about the basic assumptions that prevent the “left” and the “right” from productively discussing the issues that all Americans need to confront in some form or another.
Assumptions:
To Democrats, Republicans are:
At best, Republicans are inward-looking, narrow-minded people who believe that the poor are poor solely as a result of their own choices and they don’t deserve my help, thank you very much. At worst, these Republicans or “conservatives” are selfish, greedy bastards bent on destroying the less fortunate in order to accrue more power and money to themselves. The needy deserve their fate.
To Republicans, Democrats are:
At best, Democrats are naive, do-gooders (in their mind) and busy-bodies who think it their duty to use government to help the poor who are only poor because of the burdens placed on them by society in general. At worst, Democrats, “liberal” or “progressives” who envy the successful or feel guilty about their own “good fortune” and thus want to force the rest to pay to salve their own consciences. They are ignorant fools deemd themselves better able to make decisions for the “people”, yet they cannot understand the basics of human nature or economics and are bent on accruing more power to themselves to enact their own selfish idealistic utopia where they rule the ignorant rubes.
Admittedly, I am a Republican and thus would be happy for liberals or “progressives” to comment on my rather simple analysis of how each of us sees the other. But the point is, despite our assumptions, we really need to argue the facts and the issues. It’s not helpful for a Republican to argue from the assumption that the Democrat is too damn stupid to know when to come out of the rain, that they don’t have a a clue what the healthcare bill does. Instead, we need to explain why we think the healthcare bill is bad. How it skews the laws of supply and demand, for instance, by increasing the demand for health insurance and thus the demand for health insurance. And the effects of that. Arguing that “you don’t even know what it says, yet you support it because you are a socialist hack” is not argument, it’s invective.
Similarly, arguing as one Congressman did, that Republicans oppose the bill because we hate the idea of Obama as president and we’d prefer a lilly white aryan nation addresses no points of substance regarding the healthcare bill. Likewise, saying the Republicans just want the poor to die or oppose the bill because they want to keep their precious money and hetero white masculine hegemony does nothing to persuade anyone. Arguing that the plan will indeed increase competition in the health insurance market while setting a minimum standard of acceptable coverage, and how that can actually work, is the best way to actually have an impact on your opponents and their views.
So, this Christmas, I ask simply that readers of Federal Review – no all those who fight in the political realm – actually address issues substanstively. Reject attacks on intellect or even motivation. I won’t be perfect in this regard, but when I do simply post that “Obama wants a socialist world”, you call me on it and make me make my case. We can do better. And while I do, truly, believe that the healthcare bill is about expanding government control of the individual because those pushing the bill believe they can, by government action and fiat, create a utopia at odds with human nature, I will try, henceforth, to make my case why it won’t, and cannot work.
Let’s not ignore our assumptions, but address them. If you don’t think your opponent could possibly understand your argument, back up and speak of your assumptions and basic principles and how they drive your view of the issue, and question what assumptions drive the opinion of the other side.
Join me in arguing the issues, and not attacking the intellect and motivations of those who disagree. Seek to understand, before seeking to be understood.
In other words, let’s hash it out and debate like adults.
And, Merry Christmas to you all!
Winston, I know that this post was aimed at me, among others. I’ll do better at confronting the issues. I only hope that others will. Merry Christmas and I’ll see at 2PM.
Dude, not everything is about you.
Are you sure? The pizza was great. Merry Christmas and I’ll see you tomorrow.
Nice thoughts, Winston, but unfortunaetly the ‘rules of engagement’ have been drastically altered and you better realize that today’s democrat is no longer LBJ, and he’s certainly not a John F. Kennedy. Those were men, that were political enemies, but they shared a common denominator with conservatives that has evaporated from today’s democrats, a love of country.
Sure, conservatives will continue to take the high ground and look within for reasonable answers and continue to reach out. Meanwhile the progresives (that’s a cute name isn’t it?) will follow the path of deceipt, manipulation, and distortion all in the quest of raw power.
Go ahead and reach out to the Johns, aka DFl, of the world, and you’ll find yourself missing an arm.
I’m not afraid, for on the high road lies the truth. Assuming my
opponents are only to be torn assunder qnd destroyed means there’s no reason to ever engage them, and therefore no reason for a blog.
Blogs spung as outlets to voice individual opinions and ideas. Blog ‘conversations’ soon followed, and the blogosphere exploded.
Winston, there is nothing wrong with taking the high-road and trying to engage the progressives (there’s that silly word again). Just make sure they want to honestly engage, and not merely want to take you from your high-road and into the gutters they dwell………….just for sport.
Here’s wishing everyone here at FR a very merry Christmas and a prosperous new year!
Now how about a BEER POST!!!!!!!!!!
Winston, I generally agree with your points as long as we all remember that Republicans are right and the Democrats are wrong…
Alot of people calling themselves Democrats today would be calling themselves Republicans if “Republicans” could learn to separate their damn faith from their politics.
Z – same goes for Democrats, except their “religion” IS their ideology and politics. Like Anthropogenic Global Warming, for example…
It’s one thing to believe strongly enough in something that someone might call you “religious” about it, it’s another thing to make policy based on the teachings of a particular supreme being. Especially when the law already provides wording to try to prevent exactly that. It provides no such wording to prevent policy that is based on something other than the teachings of a supreme being.
…unless the Supreme Being is Obama or his Great Goracle. Then it’s different.
In other words, if you believe unquestionably in everything that Obama says (or in AGW) it’s OK enact laws based on that belief, but if you believe in God (whatever god that would be) it’s not OK?
Ya know, there was such a religion before in Egypt…
If you’re poking at me, I think much of what Obama does is stupid. If you’re talking about other Democratic civilians, then I don’t see how that’s relevant since they aren’t making any policy. If you’re talking about other Democratic lawmakers, then if you’ve kept up with the news recently a lot of them think Obama is doing stupid stuff too. Even they can’t agree with him on the direction he wants to take healthcare.
In any case, until someone establishes Obamaism as an official religion which gains tax-exempt status, with this religion preferably believing that Obama created the universe and is and always has been mankind’s savior, then yes I think it’s fine for democratic lawmakers to enact policy based on them believing what he says.
I can tell you’re trying really hard to have a witty comeback that makes sense in the context, but I don’t think it’s working. You sure go to a lot of effort to divert attention from the inconvenient truths …cue response about how global warming being a scam is an inconvenient truth that democrats don’t accept…
“cue response about how global warming being a scam is an inconvenient truth that democrats don’t accept…” Oh no, I have a better one. How do you define the “truth?” Based on my 30-year experience in this country, lberals define the truth as anything they believe in, regardless of facts to the contrary. For instance, liberals look only at one side of AGW and reject any facts that may undermine “their” side’s arguments. The fact that the scientists who became prominent by pushing the global warming theories using bad/unscrupulous/corrupt/ science are doing exactly the same as based on the leaked CRU e-mails (and that’s about World’s top 20 pro AGW climatologists implicated in those practices) puts a definite question mark about the basis of AGW theories. And, it puts a big question mark about the “truth.”
Same goes about other liberal “truths.” Just close Gitmo and everything will be fine – no, these terrorists simply go back to killings. Stop profiling at the airport – OK, so a young radical Muslim get’s on teh plane and tries to blow it up. Stop US military personnel from carrying side arms to prevennt accidents/ don’t upset US Muslim population by unfounded suspicions- and a Muslim US Captain goes into Fort Hood and kills 13 people. Etc., etc. And not ones have I heard a liberal saying “our ideas were wrong.” The blind/unsupported faith is what signifies most religions. By the same talken most liberals are the faithfuls of Liberalism despite concrete proof that it’s wrong over and over again.
Now, was it more to your liking?
Z,
What about “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” is so threatening to you? You kneejerk anti-Christians are so sad.
Yeah… what Z said! Not all of us Dems follow the “Goreacle” or believe in trace-gas caused global-warming. But there is no way that we can stomach being on the same team as the one the KKK follow. Kick them and the religious nuts off your team and we will gladly switch parties.