The amazing part about the subject of this post is the fact that all political parties and people acknowledge the existence of a problem. Yet, we continue running around in circles. Scores are rarely settled, compromises are rarely achieved and "issues" are rarely resolved.
In the introductory post on this blog, I alluded to the problems with a partisan system of politics. After viewing way too many hours of CNN, NBC and FOX News -- hours that I will never have back, by the way -- I have seen no progress made towards compromises or settlements. In fact, the opposite is more true. Each party's ideals seem to drift further apart each day.
For those who don't believe this a problem, I'll present to you a metaphoric situation. Imagine a disagreement between a married couple. Both have an equal measure of interest in the successful resolution of the conflict. How can they best accomplish this resolution? The way I see it, they have two options.
On the one hand, the male could retreat to his buddy's pad where they would share their disgust for femininity in all it's emotionally confusing grandeur, as they watched the Cougars beat UCLA soundly. The female could retreat to Kneaders (a shnazzy little breakfast nook) to analyze the baffling simplicity of the male mind. In the end, both have had their opinions validated by people who agree, but the problem has not been solved.
On the other hand, we have a situation where the male and the female come together and discuss in a rational, objective, non-threatening manner the source of the conflict. Opinions are shared, irrationality is vanquished and a deeper, more respectful love is formed.
I hate watching CNN and feeling like I'm being emotionally manipulated. I love to listen as Sean Hannity tells me how right my viewpoints are. I love watching him bring lunatic Democrats on his show only to demolish their beliefs and never let them get a word in. But what good does that do? The only thing such behavior accomplishes is the further division of our "United States". We tell those who agree with us how good we are and it stops there.
Lets not forget that our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were not drafted and signed by two opposing political parties, but rather by a room full of intelligent, extremely different citizens seeking to overthrow a giant. Is our situation so different? We'll discuss the size of our government at a later date, but suffice it to say, we have much to conquer.
If you are reading this blog in hopes of finding a detailed description of my plans for fixing this problem, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed for a while. I am in no position (mainly due to age and experience) to draft detailed plans of action. If my ideas don't fit into the constraints of your idea of how the world works, be patient and optimistic. There is more to come.
If you are, however, looking for an uncommon way of looking at our current situation, stay tuned. My goal at the present is to create awareness for another option and mentality. Our current system is not bettering our current situation.
Wise man once say, "Never listen to or take advice from somebody more 'screwed' up than you." (pardon my wise man's French) Take a break, for a moment, from listening to corporate broadcasting and listen to a real wise man. I submit the following:
17 All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
18 However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796
In the introductory post on this blog, I alluded to the problems with a partisan system of politics. After viewing way too many hours of CNN, NBC and FOX News -- hours that I will never have back, by the way -- I have seen no progress made towards compromises or settlements. In fact, the opposite is more true. Each party's ideals seem to drift further apart each day.
For those who don't believe this a problem, I'll present to you a metaphoric situation. Imagine a disagreement between a married couple. Both have an equal measure of interest in the successful resolution of the conflict. How can they best accomplish this resolution? The way I see it, they have two options.
On the one hand, the male could retreat to his buddy's pad where they would share their disgust for femininity in all it's emotionally confusing grandeur, as they watched the Cougars beat UCLA soundly. The female could retreat to Kneaders (a shnazzy little breakfast nook) to analyze the baffling simplicity of the male mind. In the end, both have had their opinions validated by people who agree, but the problem has not been solved.
On the other hand, we have a situation where the male and the female come together and discuss in a rational, objective, non-threatening manner the source of the conflict. Opinions are shared, irrationality is vanquished and a deeper, more respectful love is formed.
I hate watching CNN and feeling like I'm being emotionally manipulated. I love to listen as Sean Hannity tells me how right my viewpoints are. I love watching him bring lunatic Democrats on his show only to demolish their beliefs and never let them get a word in. But what good does that do? The only thing such behavior accomplishes is the further division of our "United States". We tell those who agree with us how good we are and it stops there.
Lets not forget that our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were not drafted and signed by two opposing political parties, but rather by a room full of intelligent, extremely different citizens seeking to overthrow a giant. Is our situation so different? We'll discuss the size of our government at a later date, but suffice it to say, we have much to conquer.
If you are reading this blog in hopes of finding a detailed description of my plans for fixing this problem, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed for a while. I am in no position (mainly due to age and experience) to draft detailed plans of action. If my ideas don't fit into the constraints of your idea of how the world works, be patient and optimistic. There is more to come.
If you are, however, looking for an uncommon way of looking at our current situation, stay tuned. My goal at the present is to create awareness for another option and mentality. Our current system is not bettering our current situation.
Wise man once say, "Never listen to or take advice from somebody more 'screwed' up than you." (pardon my wise man's French) Take a break, for a moment, from listening to corporate broadcasting and listen to a real wise man. I submit the following:
17 All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
18 However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796
6 comments:
First of all, congrats to starting the blog. Second of all. I like the way you think. Compromises are a part of life. In a country with around 300 million people no one can get their way all the time so you have to submit to the "better" idea. It was valid on the playground at kindergarten and on the schoolyard. It is a fact in the corporate world so why won't the politicians understand it?
I'll be watching this one closely :)
/Vanim
I look forward to seeing some of your ideas. I totally agree that the news media has gone a long way toward blind divisiveness when we need to focus be coming together. A few points for anyone interested in productive politics (actually, pretty good points for life in general):
1. If you can't explain how your opponent may be right, you don't understand her
2. If you can't present the antithesis to your argument coherently, then you don't understand your own argument
3. If your argument hasn't been adapted in the past few weeks, you're either omniscient, hang around too many people like yourself, or are pitifully obstinate
So Republicans, argue the liberal side for fun and see what you discover about yourself. Democrats, watch Fox News and pretend like you enjoy it. You'll find your own opinions become much more acute.
Sorry for my delayed response to your reply to my comments...I had a moot court brief due about prisoner's Miranda rights--it took a while becuase I had to argue like a liberal.
I really do wish you'd include some measure of specifics to this blog. It's really easy to say "can't we all just get along" without saying just exactly what we should agree all upon or how to "compromise." In my last comment, I mentioned the inevitability of factions/parties in the political process and it appears you responded with a no-commentary quote from Washington. While I agree with his idealism, I don't think he meant it in your context. In response, I would invite you to read "Federalist 10" for a more expansive view on factions. Considering that the Federalist papers were written by the first "partisans" who wrote to convince America to have a Constitution, and that Washinton's first chief of staff (Hamilton) began the first real American political party (the Federalists), I think there is probably more to his thoughts than what you've included. Too often I believe our great "compromises" only delay greater conflict. The founders are a great example of this--that whole slavery thing, maybe? My point is that if you have not realized yet that this country is basically in the middle of a cultural civil war, you are very naive. The ultimate goal--like was Lincoln's goal about 150 yrs.--ago is to win. Fortunately the way to win today is by voting and by influencing our elected leaders.
Regarding Mr. Hannity, I think you may be on to something. It's true that he brings lunatic Democrats on his show. The reason being that the majority of the Democrats are lunatics. I would agree that more academic radio/tv programs exist...but that's what you call freedom of speech and debate.
Finally, I think wise men just take good advice regardless of the source.
Anyway, little bro., I'm not trying to hate on your parade here...but you invited me!
So, I'm still waiting for the "uncommon way of looking at our current situation" (let's have some specifics...or I'll probably never vote for you).
Kendall,
I don't think I took Washington's words out of context at all. After your claim I went and read the whole speech. This was quite a task, as Washington's writing style is anything but direct.
My conclusion is as follows:
The "Federalist" party existed to promote the passing of the constitution. After the goal was accomplished, the "party" should have been disbanded.
I agree that we should choose sides on important issues. But once the majority has spoken, the bickering should die, as it is useless thereafter. The most successful organizations in our society have very heated debates about which course of action to take. But once a decision has been made, support is given by ALL to ensure that the plan fulfills its maximum potential.
I don't think it's right to say "I'm a Republican". Rather, I think we should say, "I'm for/against 'x proposition' because of...."
As far as Hamilton being Washington's Chief of Staff, I think this is a great example of what a good leader does. I see no evidence to suggest Washington's approval of partisanship. But like any good leader does, he chose a person who didn't agree with him to help him lead. This brought objectivity into the equation. Look at how a church leader chooses his counselors?
Differing opinions only serve a purpose if they are used to identify flaws. As we define ourselves based on how much we disagree with the other party, we only alienate ourselves from our countrymen.
To revisit the "Hannity" issue, let me just say that I think that his right to speak should be protected. But that doesn't mean he's doing any good. I might be showing my ignorance here, but please tell me when you last saw or heard of him doing anything but talking.
I agree that unity is important. After all, it is part of the American Trinity: E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty. We also know that God requires his people to be of one heart and one mind. However, (and I know you will agree) true unity can only be based on correct principles and eternal truths. During his 2008 presidential campaign, President Obama repeatedly called for unity. We now know (and some of us knew from the beginning) that the President only wants unity around his values. And the same goes for most, if not all, politicians. In other words, unity for the sake of unity is not as important as uniting around correct principles. Unity should not thwart foundational truths. We believe in E Pluribus Unum AND In God We Trust AND Liberty, not just in E Pluribus Unum.
Also, the two parties are more divided on issues than the North and the South were during the 1860s. So realistically, besides on minor issues, there is an unbridgeable gap between the left and the right in the US.
Also, if you want intelligent talk radio, drop Hannity and listen to Dennis Prager, Bill Bennett or even Michael Medved. But especially Dennis Prager.
Great blog and blogpost by the way, very thought provoking.
Post a Comment