Having the Body of Democracy, but Not Its Soul

[_honorentheos]

But beyond specifics of how it may get expressed here, there is something that is damaging going on in American politics these days that has moved past disagreement. I would characterize it as: 1) a growing disregard for the value of opposing opinions, 2) a degree of disrespect that borders on dehumanizing those who do hold opposing political views, and 3) a disregard for the importance of preserving the mechanics of democracy that make oppositional input in government possible. Point 3 is most concerning to me as it starts to kill the body of democracy. But's it's only possible when we allow the soul to die.

I certainly agree that the things you've outlined aren't necessarily helpful, but I think all of them are undercut in the quest for reality. Reality favors those who embrace it most forcefully. Few people survive by just ignoring their cancer, for instance.

In reality, people tend to benefit from considering diverse views. As we get to know our political opponents, they become more human to us. And as we see our society begin to degrade because one party is making all the decisions, there is natural blow-back.

I think everything you're talking about is symptomatic of a general lack of motivation to find out what's real at all costs. Until that becomes the primary goal, societal progress will continue at its snail's pace, and democracy will always be threatened. We can't fix a reality we don't agree exists, let alone the content of that reality.

I keep coming back to this post I wrote a while back on the role of Newt Gingrich in creating this climate:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=44933&view=next


Sometime in December while listening to NPR, I believe Fresh Air but don't remember anymore, a guest said something I found slightly shocking and didn't immediately accept at face value: Newt Gingrich was the most influential politician of the last quarter century. The argument was that Gingrich was the deliberate architect of what we see today in Washington. Being the party of "no"? Gingrich. Treating American politics like a war to be won rather than a necessary tension between competing ideas? Gingrich. The modern form of corruption through earmarks? Gingrich. In effect, the road to Trump was cleared by Gingrich and rebuilt using a blueprint of his design. A bold claim, and one that got me interested in how history may look back at our current state of affairs and connect dots we may be too close to see.

I think both parties are playing this new game, and it's unfortunate. But it's also relatively new as far as developments go so we should not get lulled into imagining this might not also be fatal or severely damaging at the very least. It's already changed the Senate and the House in ways that have undermined the ability of the opposition party to do anything other than shout negative commentary out to try and get people motivated to participate in the next election so they can have a turn.

[_Some Schmo]

I think both parties are playing this new game, and it's unfortunate. But it's also relatively new as far as developments go so we should not get lulled into imagining this might not also be fatal or severely damaging at the very least. It's already changed the Senate and the House in ways that have undermined the ability of the opposition party to do anything other than shout negative commentary out to try and get people motivated to participate in the next election so they can have a turn.

But none of the new tactics work unless there is a culture of "multiple truths."

I just think the language and conversations had on both sides of the aisle are so different from each other that they might as well be speaking about different planets. A lot of that is made possible by differing priorities, but it's mostly out of a desire to ignore the other side's point of view. We haven't even gotten to the conversation about how the left and right actually have different priorities. People still talk to each other as though it's a given everyone's priorities are the same when they clearly are not. Most conversations between the left and the right are exercises in talking past each other.

[_honorentheos]

But none of the new tactics work unless there is a culture of "multiple truths."

I just think the language and conversations had on both sides of the aisle are so different from each other that they might as well be speaking about different planets. A lot of that is made possible by differing priorities, but it's mostly out of a desire to ignore the other side's point of view. We haven't even gotten to the conversation about how the left and right actually have different priorities. People still talk to each other as though it's a given everyone's priorities are the same when they clearly are not. Most conversations between the left and the right are exercises in talking past each other.

I don't agree that people talk as if both sides share priorities. Quite the opposite. I think both sides are guilty of letting symbolism take the place of conversation which leads to both sides talking past one another. If one assumes they know what someone else thinks, and why it's wrong, and is just waiting to get their obvious and correct point out then yeah, that's what we get.

But again, there is something bigger than conversation that I'm getting at in my comments. Or even the more recent rise of "fake news" as both a phenomena and as a claim used to distract from it. When Senators of the past talked about having dinner parties and genuine friendships with members of the opposition, and that this is viewed as treasonous today then clearly we've lost something that is more meaningful than having a grandparent who forwards every Hannity tweet to the family, or an uncle who jumps into every Facebook conversation with a political diatribe and then unfriends anyone who dares to disagree.

That is where I'm not sympathetic to Jersey Girl's or Moksha's comments. Democracy isn't people being nice on the interwebs. But Democracy DOES require belief in the inherent honesty and integrity of people who hold differing views. And it's in that sense that I'm very sympathetic to Jersey Girl's comment.

ETA: I think the challenge that Trump's PR team embodies of espousing alternative facts isn't easily overcome but if it can it has to come from trying to hear what is being said beneath the jargon and sound bites. God knows it's not easy to believe that subbie has a sincere bone in his body. Ajax, for all the disgust his racial views give me, is far easier to believe has sincere concerns that he has unfortunately neglected to examine deeply enough to recognize what the actual problem is at work, and what the solution space might be for addressing them. In that same sense, I am very dismissive of the argument Trump voters are best understood as having heard his racial dog whistles and crawled out from under their rocks to vote for him. Rather, I take serious the research and interviews that identified a spectrum of issues that motivated people to vote for him. And this idea that the US government isn't really serving the interests of the common citizen is at the center of concern for voters on both sides of the political isle. It wasn't popular in 2016 among Democrats to believe that Bernie voters were composed of many low-information voters as a block but that was and is my view. Promising to pay for college or bring coal back were both just different versions of the same kind of crazy in my opinion. So. There's that.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't agree that people talk as if both sides share priorities. Quite the opposite.

That's not exactly what I said, although I can see how you got that.

What I was saying was that the way the left and the right talk to each other is as if the work of coming to shared priorities was already accomplished, which is to say, we never talk about our base priorities (and assumptions, for that matter) as the launching point to have a productive conversation.

I think both sides are guilty of letting symbolism take the place of conversation which leads to both sides talking past one another. If one assumes they know what someone else thinks, and why it's wrong, and is just waiting to get their obvious and correct point out then yeah, that's what we get.

This is an issue with any conversation, not just political ones. I'm not sure I see a difference between symbolism (in this context) and conversation, since conversation is made up of the symbols we call words.

I believe I understand the issue you're getting at, and I agree that is an issue among politicians. It's unrealistic to expect civil conversations among the electorate when we can't get it from the people who lead them. If you want an honest, civil conversation from a Drumpf supporter, you're going to have to wait for Drumpf to either grow up or die.

[_honorentheos]

I don't agree that people talk as if both sides share priorities. Quite the opposite.

That's not exactly what I said, although I can see how you got that.

What I was saying was that the way the left and the right talk to each other is as if the work of coming to shared priorities was already accomplished, which is to say, we never talk about our base priorities (and assumptions, for that matter) as the launching point to have a productive conversation.

I think both sides are guilty of letting symbolism take the place of conversation which leads to both sides talking past one another. If one assumes they know what someone else thinks, and why it's wrong, and is just waiting to get their obvious and correct point out then yeah, that's what we get.

This is an issue with any conversation, not just political ones. I'm not sure I see a difference between symbolism (in this context) and conversation, since conversation is made up of the symbols we call words.

I believe I understand the issue you're getting at, and I agree that is an issue among politicians. It's unrealistic to expect civil conversations among the electorate when we can't get it from the people who lead them. If you want an honest, civil conversation from a Drumpf supporter, you're going to have to wait for Drumpf to either grow up or die.

These are fair point, Schmo. I don't mean to make it seem like I strongly disagree with your points regarding the difficulty of discovering common ground in order to recognize where we may share priorities on either side. And I certainly expect bad conversations to outnumber productive ones when I engage in political discussions.

But maybe I feel I can't complain too strongly about something that I have given up on as intractable.

Let's test this.

Ajax - Do you think there is a potential for shared priorities among conservatives and liberals?

[_Some Schmo]

But maybe I feel I can't complain too strongly about something that I have given up on as intractable.

I think progress in this area will take at least a generation or two. The various cultures need to learn to deal with the impact and reality of social media. It's still very new, from a historical perspective. The issue of outrageous discourse seems to me to be part of the growing pains of a global social connection, and there's no escaping it until culture makes the price too high to engage in it.

[_ajax18]

Ajax - Do you think there is a potential for shared priorities among conservatives and liberals?

We already do have shared priorities. We're citizens of the same country. What hurts the country hurts us both.

If you want an honest, civil conversation from a Drumpf supporter, you're going to have to wait for Drumpf to either grow up or die.

Honorentheos, what do you think after reading this?


It seems like me and Schmo hate each other more than any foreign threat to the US. I think the best thing to do would be to split the country.

[_Some Schmo]

It seems like me and Schmo hate each other more than any foreign threat to the US. I think the best thing to do would be to split the country.

I don't hate you, ajax. I hate stupid ideas, and the act of spreading them.

[_honorentheos]

Honorentheos, what do you think after reading this?


It seems like me and Schmo hate each other more than any foreign threat to the US. I think the best thing to do would be to split the country.

Ajax,

Stepping back to what you said first -

We already do have shared priorities. We're citizens of the same country. What hurts the country hurts us both.

- how far down do we have to drill before we hit foundational priorities grounded in our shared citizenship?

To float two examples that I think help shine some light on this, I strongly suspect that there was a time in our recent past where being a Democrat or Republican would not affect one's belief in the value of our NATO alliances, and in the importance of seeking to keep the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons. But both have been colored with polemics now. Yet what fundamentally changed? Where did our priorities diverge? Or did they really stay the same but we lost sight of our priorities due to getting caught up in rhetorical combat?

[_ajax18]

how far down do we have to drill before we hit foundational priorities grounded in our shared citizenship?

For the Democrats, we're all just citizens of the world. They're no more loyal to me than a citizen of another country, perhaps even less. So the fact that we're both US citizens doesn't really mean much more than the fact that we're both human. It probably means even less. But Hannity did say we need to come together. I'm just not sure how that's possible. I still think secession would be better for both sides.