DiscussMormonism.com

Here's an article that, while short and simple, makes a case for perspective in these divided times:

https://reason.com/2020/06/12/both-left ... civil-war/

An excerpt: These current events are the most disruptive times in many of our lifetimes, but they are nothing new—nor are they particularly awful. We are not headed toward a new civil war, so everyone—on the Left and Right—should stop using over-the-top rhetoric. It only encourages us to view our fellow Americans as enemies, to see ourselves as members of warring tribes rather than citizens of a nation, and desensitizes us to violence. The nation has real divisions, and singing Kumbaya won't heal them, but our society still functions remarkably well.

Civil wars take place when neither side sees any hope under the current arrangements. I see lots of hope. If you spend hours on social media, you might conclude otherwise. But try taking a break from reading the odd thoughts of your Aunt Agnes or arguing about politics with a "friend" you may never have even met in person. Do you see people at each other's throats when you head to the bank, store or office? Of course not.

We may not be united, but this remains a wealthy and generally peaceful nation. Even the latest conflicts can be resolved with reasonable solutions that are entirely attainable within our system. Before the riots, Americans seemed to agree on the need for police reforms. We don't need a revolution to, say, reform the union protections that keep bad officers on the force. Whatever one thinks of Trump, his administration will one day pass.

Instead of bloviating about civil wars, we need to talk about restoring civil society. Everyone has been quoting Martin Luther King Jr. these days, so I'll finish with one of my MLK favorites: "There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies." Better yet, let's stop thinking of our political opponents as enemies instead of as misguided fellow citizens.

This is a nice sentiment, however when someone like Dusty Smith, a.k.a. “Texas Mormon”, shows up to a community thread to defend the use of the Confederate flag as a symbol of heritage, whatever that means, it’s hard to see how the center will keep this country from tearing itself apart:

https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=151673547

- Doc

Part of the social unrest is coming from the fact that a radicalized minority party is ruling as a majority party and the intellectual elites in the majority are realizing there seems no way out with a larger swathe of the public seeing the gears grind to a halt. Redressing grievances through peaceful compromise seems less possible when the mechanisms for that are broken in a self-reinforcing loop. The author of the piece cites broad agreement on issues while offering no response to the fact that broad agreement isn't enough in the current political environment. People have watched issue after issue with wildly popular policy solutions go unaddressed because the Republican party said "no" and it has soured some on the possibility that anything meaningful will ever get done. And that's before courts stacked with Republican operatives start shooting down Democratic legislation with sham legal reasoning should they ever get the opportunity to pass it. Minoritarian rule tends to breed a certain amount of unrest.

The frame of this piece is also kinda ridiculous in that it portrays pining for a civil war as a "both left and right" issue when it's commonplace in mainstream political discourse on the right and a radical fringe position on the left. That it's only the right-wing posters on this board who talk favorably of civil war is not unrepresentative.

I think the best place for finding a solution to extreme minority takeovers of both parties is through changing the primary processes. There is as realistic chance to effect change there as anywhere, and the results of a better primary process would favor representative democracy over an even steeper dive into the breakdown of the system that comes with fighting fire with fire.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:33 pm

This is a nice sentiment, however when someone like Dusty Smith, a.k.a. “Texas Mormon”, shows up to a community thread to defend the use of the Confederate flag as a symbol of heritage, whatever that means, it’s hard to see how the center will keep this country from tearing itself apart:

https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=151673547

- Doc

Community took his post down.

EAllusion wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:49 pm

The frame of this piece is also kinda ridiculous in that it portrays pining for a civil war as a "both left and right" issue when it's commonplace in mainstream political discourse on the right and a radical fringe position on the left. That it's only the right-wing posters on this board who talk favorably of civil war is not unrepresentative.

A month ago I'd have agreed. Since Memorial Day there's been a marked increase in volume coming from the left about needing to dismantle the system and take on the right if that's what it takes. Nascent increased rumblings for a serious rumble aren't best addressed by one siding the problem. Closed fist, extended palm...the hand that maintains either is equally deformed.

[quote=honorentheos post_id=1228633 time=1592247838 user_id=7137]

Community took his post down.
[/quote]

The thread is still there. He's just defending the stars and bars on it. I'm not sure why you can't see it.

- Doc

I think nextdoor is closed to people outside of the neighborhood.

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:03 pm

I think the best place for finding a solution to extreme minority takeovers of both parties is through changing the primary processes. There is as realistic chance to effect change there as anywhere, and the results of a better primary process would favor representative democracy over an even steeper dive into the breakdown of the system that comes with fighting fire with fire.

What would you change?

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:53 pm

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:03 pm

I think the best place for finding a solution to extreme minority takeovers of both parties is through changing the primary processes. There is as realistic chance to effect change there as anywhere, and the results of a better primary process would favor representative democracy over an even steeper dive into the breakdown of the system that comes with fighting fire with fire.

What would you change?

I'm in favor of open primaries so that independent and third party registrants can participate in a meaningful way.

I'm in favor of alternative primary formats to the most common one that comes down to a contest between the winning Democrat and winning Republican of their closed primary by default. I'm curious how you feel about the system in Washington where the top two vote getters move on? It's not my first option, but am interested in a model like an instant run off combined with a top two approach. I suspect a ranked system that winnows down to two candidates who may be a second or third pick of any party would be less likely to favor extremist candidates. For Presidential elections, it would difficult to get away from the two party system but if it could be done, I suspect it would also help. Maybe that's a good case for having a national primary that also ditches the electorial college...then the general election basically becomes a run off election. It would be interesting to see how lessening states and parties in deciding the executive would influence both presidential politics as well as Congress if Congress became the primary venue for states to assert themselves. Would that be more in line with the intent of the Constitution? I'd have to think on that.

Watching the Democrats this winter and early spring was interesting. Sanders represented different things to different people which affected the primary. To some, he represents the direction the party needs to go towards. To others, he is an ideological outsider who isn't an actual Democrat. Both have some truth to them. The response of the party to identify the most broadly acceptable alternative and see everyone else bow out of the race was unusual in modern politics. But it's possible had Sanders not been in the race we'd still be watching a three or four way battle that would likely have included Buttigieg and Warren. Would we have been better off seeing Biden contrasted with those two? Or is having the focus on Trump right now the best thing that could have happened to Biden? Who knows. But that's politics. I do think in a fundamental way not tied to electability but governance the nation would have benefited from seeing another person not named Gabbard still be a viable contender for the nomination. The crisis might have been a chance for Warren or Buttigieg to shine. Both seem like the types who could rise to a challenge. Not bagging on Biden. I do think the primary process for the Democrats with a fringe candidate like Sanders who seemed locked in around 25% of Democrats hurt the process, though. We saw the failure of the Republicans to deal with a similar situation with Trump and that didn't work out so well.