Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Can the Right compromise?

Politics-American Conservatives Liberals Compromise

  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#21 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 01:08 PM

Quote

Until both sides turn off the fire-breathing antics, the American public are not being served.

I think that's pretty accurate. I also think that it's a MASSIVE generalization to claim that all of the right are influenced by religion. I have several conservative friends who aren't religious at all.
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#22 Orpheus

Orpheus

    I'm not the boss of you!

  • Administrator
  • 17,757 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 01:23 PM

Quote

I believe this to be no more true than to say that the left is "heavily influenced" by the labor unions and environmentalists and therefore hate big business
I realize that you're not espousing this view, but I suggest that people consult the FEC records of the last presidential year election -- or the two before that. "Big Business" contributions to the Democrats were almost twice those to the Republicans, across the board. I couldn't care less who business supports, but that's one of those stubborn wrong impressions I feel obligated to correct, because it only poisons accurate debate.

There is a big difference between campaign rhetoric and legislation. The businesses know where their bread is best buttered.

Edited by Orpheus, 01 August 2004 - 01:25 PM.


#23 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 01:25 PM

Quote

I think that's pretty accurate. I also think that it's a MASSIVE generalization to claim that all of the right are influenced by religion. I have several conservative friends who aren't religious at all.
I specifically seperated (at least in one post) the right, and the religious right. However, the religious right does seemed to have hijaked the president, and the party at the moment.

I think I used to be far more moderate. I feel like I'm being pushed to the extreme by what I see the current adminstration doing, and I don't like how it makes me feel. *sigh*

#24 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 01:34 PM

I'm wondering if anyone realizes that compromise begins with the individual first, not the other guy first.  I always get the feeling that each poster wants the 'other guy to compromise first', admit some 'gross error in judgment', come to some realization of wrongness, and 'see the light', AND then, and only then will compromise be attempted.  It's just not how it works folks, and those of us in the center want to spank all of you guys on the fringes for not seeing what is so painfully obvious to the rest of us watching these debates.

I'll be happy when I see both sides of the aisle begin a sentence without pointing a finger at the other side in some sort of "he did it first" or "what about him?".  Unless and until we can debate out POV's without the necessity of being 'morally right' we won't have any compromise unless it is one of expediency.

It is painfully clear in this election year more than any I can remember, that the self-righteousness of BOTH sides prohibits any meaningful discourse.. Because MANY believe that they are morally RIGHT in the view they hold.  These are no longer personal opinions of what is right or true and good, they are fixed ideas that have become almost dogma. The belief in their absolute RIGHTNESS is at the core of the animosity between citizens, and consequently any opposition to the ideals held are of necessity wrong.

When the truth is, we all pick and choose our political philosophies based on personal experience and personal ideals.  The small business owner turns to the Republican party, not because it is morally superior, but because it most closely meets his needs.  The Environmentalist turns to the Democratic party not because it is morally superior but because it more closely meets his needs.  This is the nature of politics.

But we make a grave mistake not to see and understand that these are ALL valid life experiences and needs.  Each party serves a component of the American landscape.  BUT neither is morally superior, or absolutely RIGHT.

Until we actually agree on this, there is no hope of discussion let along compromise.

~ Cait

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#25 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 01:34 PM

Josh, on Aug 1 2004, 11:06 AM, said:

Quote

Until both sides turn off the fire-breathing antics, the American public are not being served.

I think that's pretty accurate. I also think that it's a MASSIVE generalization to claim that all of the right are influenced by religion. I have several conservative friends who aren't religious at all.
Thank you Josh!

Believe it or not, but my religion has nothing to do with my politics.

While there is a certain part of the right that is based on their religious conviction, it does not represent the whole of the conservative side. Furthermore, your example of the gay marriage amendment presupposes that there could not be any arguement against homosexuality except for one based on relgious faith. It also either overlooks, or outright rejects, the possibility that said amendment has something to do with combatting judicial activism.

As for compromise, we only have to look back to 2001, when the Republican leaders of the Senate decided to share power with the Democrats, even though they did not have to.

Edited to add:

Quote

Community is about compromise. What is right has to be defined with consideration for the community, not in a black box. Person A wants to paint something red. Person B wanted to paint something blue. They discuss it. Person B decides that although he still believes blue is the right color, Person A is important to him, and he cares more about that then the color choice, so he agrees to red.

That's not a compromise, that is someone changing their mind. A compromise would be A and B agreeing to paint it blue with red trim.

Quote

I specifically seperated (at least in one post) the right, and the religious right. However, the religious right does seemed to have hijaked the president, and the party at the moment.

Where is that post? I've looked through your posts again and the closest I've seen you come to making that distinction was to say that the right is influenced by the religious. Otherwise, it seems clear to me that that you are painting with a broad brush.

Edited by HubcapDave, 01 August 2004 - 01:50 PM.


#26 Anna

Anna

    Island Native

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 01:47 PM

Yay, Cait!! Couldn't agree more!

Anna
Seldom do we regret words we do not speak.

--------------

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

#27 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 01:48 PM

Hambil, on Aug 1 2004, 06:23 PM, said:

I specifically seperated (at least in one post) the right, and the religious right. However, the religious right does seemed to have hijaked the president, and the party at the moment.
How so? Because he's opposed to gay marriage? He might just have his own religous conviction that tells him that it's wrong. I am not saying he's right but that issue could be his opinion and just happens to go in line with Religous Right's.

Or is it the news that he begins his cabinate meetings with a prayer?


The amendment to the Constitution was a positio he took and rtightly or wrongly rode it till the end. That could say nutcase or simly guy who thought it was the right position to take as a president and man rather than a politician who would have jumped boat after it was annonced and recieved with such disapproval.

That he stuck with it is something I admire about Bush even when I disagree with the choice of action he took.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#28 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 01:54 PM

^I have a number of very conservative friends who aren't very religious, as well.  I think the heavily religious element we sometimes see in the Republican party is a very recent thing.  It seems like it really started with Reagan, and was reinforced by Bush Sr & Quayle.  (remember the Murphy Brown nonsense?)

But it sortof makes sense.  A lot of it is rooted in the culture of the South, which became heavily Republican only recently.  So naturally, the Republican party is going to adopt that which is so important to the core elements of their constituency.

The Democrats do it too, but it isn't to the same degree usually.  I mean, let's be realistic: Politicians will *always* be wholesome church-goers regardless of their actual beliefs--it's part of the image they have to portray to actually get elected

As for the whole "right vs. left" thing . . . both sides have been getting louder and more extreme.  We're living in a very polarized time, with very imaginative ratings-driven commercial media that likes to simplify things as black and white as they can (and make stupid things sound important . . . :whistle:) . .

I think this election's gonna show that most of America is pretty sick of the extremism on both sides and we'll see things toned back done over the next decade.

*sigh* where have all the moderates gone?

-Nick

#29 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 02:00 PM

Hambil, on Aug 1 2004, 10:03 AM, said:

But, because the right is heavily influenced by religion, taking abosulte viewpoints and refusing compromise is part on the very principles their platform is built on. "God is all knowning, God cannot be wrong, so if you disagree with what I see as God will, then you are wrong."
The left is just as beholden to their religion as the right is, if not more so. The only difference is that what they worship is socialist government (i.e., themselves in a way) instead of God. Seriously, replace the word "God" in your quote with that phrase, and it works exactly the same. That's what IS their God.

Edited by Delvo, 01 August 2004 - 02:05 PM.


#30 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 02:34 PM

Delvo, on Aug 1 2004, 10:58 AM, said:

Hambil, on Aug 1 2004, 10:03 AM, said:

But, because the right is heavily influenced by religion, taking abosulte viewpoints and refusing compromise is part on the very principles their platform is built on. "God is all knowning, God cannot be wrong, so if you disagree with what I see as God will, then you are wrong."
The left is just as beholden to their religion as the right is, if not more so. The only difference is that what they worship is socialist government (i.e., themselves in a way) instead of God. Seriously, replace the word "God" in your quote with that phrase, and it works exactly the same. That's what IS their God.
OK, I'm going to wade in here and use this as an example.

Delvo, how does this response address the concerns moderates have about the 'appearance' of the Religious Right's influence in the Republican party?  

I can see it is somewhat useful to imploy as a counter at times, but how does this kind of reposnse lead to discussion?  We moderates (well me in particular) want to know that the Fundamentalists aren't dictating religious doctrine in a legislative fashion.  

That's a bona fide concern to some, and instead all that comes out of the discussion is "look at the other guy, he does it too" AND still the question goes unanswered.   It's almost as if the issue itself gets caught in the deflecting responses of the most avid debaters on both sides, but the issue never gets addressed by either side.

Some issues remain a concern even for moderates and dismissing them by pointing a finger using yet another spin is not fostering a good discussion.

On this particular issue, the whoe country is basically religious in some fashion or another, it's no surprise that each party has an appeal to certain religions sects.  BUT, that is different from using religious doctrine to fashion legislation beyond the practice and intent of the Founders.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#31 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 02:41 PM

HubCapDave said:

Where is that post?

I said: "I honestly believe the right as a general rule, and specifically the religious right..."

I'd love to be the first to compromise. Name and issue and I'll give a go at it. I've never had much success when I try, but I'm always willing to try again.

As for my example not being compromise, but one side changing their mind, that is incorrect. Since I stated that Person B still believed blue was the right color, changing the color to ANY other color makes it a compromise. Had I said that Person B was convinced that red was the right color, then it would have been different.

#32 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 02:45 PM

SubwayCait, on Aug 1 2004, 07:32 PM, said:

Delvo, how does this response address the concerns moderates have about the 'appearance' of the Religious Right's influence in the Republican party? 

I can see it is somewhat useful to imploy as a counter at times, but how does this kind of reposnse lead to discussion?  We moderates (well me in particular) want to know that the Fundamentalists aren't dictating religious doctrine in a legislative fashion. 

That's a bona fide concern to some, and instead all that comes out of the discussion is "look at the other guy, he does it too" AND still the question goes unanswered.   It's almost as if the issue itself gets caught in the deflecting responses of the most avid debaters on both sides, but the issue never gets addressed by either side.

Some issues remain a concern even for moderates and dismissing them by pointing a finger using yet another spin is not fostering a good discussion.

On this particular issue, the whoe country is basically religious in some fashion or another, it's no surprise that each party has an appeal to certain religions sects.  BUT, that is different from using religious doctrine to fashion legislation beyond the practice and intent of the Founders.

Thank you Cait. That more accurately brings out the issue I was poorly trying to express :) I have grave concerns over seperation of church and state in this country at the moment, and I don't feel like I can even bring it up in most political discussions.

Edited by Hambil, 01 August 2004 - 02:46 PM.


#33 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 02:49 PM

Thank you Cait for two excellent and suscinct posts.

Quote

It is painfully clear in this election year more than any I can remember, that the self-righteousness of BOTH sides prohibits any meaningful discourse.. Because MANY believe that they are morally RIGHT in the view they hold. These are no longer personal opinions of what is right or true and good, they are fixed ideas that have become almost dogma. The belief in their absolute RIGHTNESS is at the core of the animosity between citizens, and consequently any opposition to the ideals held are of necessity wrong.

I am wiccan/pagan and run with people that are mostly either pagan/agnostic/seekers, and it seems that we are all rather terrified how strong this belief in their absolute rightness has become for both sides. There is a give and take inherent in all life, or so we believe and it seems to be just being shoved aside with people blindly shouting that theirs is the ONLY way.

Quote

That's a bona fide concern to some, and instead all that comes out of the discussion is "look at the other guy, he does it too" AND still the question goes unanswered. It's almost as if the issue itself gets caught in the deflecting responses of the most avid debaters on both sides, but the issue never gets addressed by either side.

To me this seems to be as aspect of peoples seeming unwillingness to take responsibility - its much easier to deflect than engage the brain and activly think, reason and conduct productive discourse - things like that means you make mistakes, and have to take responisbility for those mistakes.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#34 Rommie's Ronin

Rommie's Ronin

    Out Of The Silent Planet

  • Islander
  • 815 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 02:54 PM

Hambil, on Aug 1 2004, 02:34 AM, said:

For example, I have yet to hear someone on the Right say "There are no weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq."
Bill O'Reilley did.  :cool:
"Sure I wave the American flag. Do you know a better flag to wave? Sure I love my country with all her faults. I'm not ashamed of that, never have been and never will be." ---John Wayne

http://www.smokingse...n.com/swafr.htm

#35 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 03:55 PM

SubwayCait, on Aug 1 2004, 07:32 PM, said:

the whole country is basically religious in some fashion or another
http://www.gc.cuny.e...ey_findings.htm


As of 2001 29,481,000 people in the US say they are not religious. 14.1% of the population. And it is the fastest growning group.

Edited by Hambil, 01 August 2004 - 03:55 PM.


#36 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 03:57 PM

Rommie's Ronin, on Aug 1 2004, 07:52 PM, said:

Hambil, on Aug 1 2004, 02:34 AM, said:

For example, I have yet to hear someone on the Right say "There are no weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq."
Bill O'Reilley did.  :cool:
Did he? Good for him. I stand corrected.

#37 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 04:01 PM

SubwayCait, on Aug 1 2004, 11:32 AM, said:

I'm wondering if anyone realizes that compromise begins with the individual first, not the other guy first.  I always get the feeling that each poster wants the 'other guy to compromise first', admit some 'gross error in judgment', come to some realization of wrongness, and 'see the light', AND then, and only then will compromise be attempted.  It's just not how it works folks, and those of us in the center want to spank all of you guys on the fringes for not seeing what is so painfully obvious to the rest of us watching these debates.

I'll be happy when I see both sides of the aisle begin a sentence without pointing a finger at the other side in some sort of "he did it first" or "what about him?".  Unless and until we can debate out POV's without the necessity of being 'morally right' we won't have any compromise unless it is one of expediency.

It is painfully clear in this election year more than any I can remember, that the self-righteousness of BOTH sides prohibits any meaningful discourse.. Because MANY believe that they are morally RIGHT in the view they hold.  These are no longer personal opinions of what is right or true and good, they are fixed ideas that have become almost dogma. The belief in their absolute RIGHTNESS is at the core of the animosity between citizens, and consequently any opposition to the ideals held are of necessity wrong.

When the truth is, we all pick and choose our political philosophies based on personal experience and personal ideals.  The small business owner turns to the Republican party, not because it is morally superior, but because it most closely meets his needs.  The Environmentalist turns to the Democratic party not because it is morally superior but because it more closely meets his needs.  This is the nature of politics.

But we make a grave mistake not to see and understand that these are ALL valid life experiences and needs.  Each party serves a component of the American landscape.  BUT neither is morally superior, or absolutely RIGHT.

Until we actually agree on this, there is no hope of discussion let along compromise.

~ Cait
Once again, Cait is in my head.

Eloquently put.  :)
Posted Image

#38 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 04:02 PM

SubwayCait, on Aug 1 2004, 01:32 PM, said:

Delvo, on Aug 1 2004, 10:58 AM, said:

Hambil, on Aug 1 2004, 10:03 AM, said:

But, because the right is heavily influenced by religion, taking abosulte viewpoints and refusing compromise is part on the very principles their platform is built on. "God is all knowning, God cannot be wrong, so if you disagree with what I see as God will, then you are wrong."
The left is just as beholden to their religion as the right is, if not more so. The only difference is that what they worship is socialist government (i.e., themselves in a way) instead of God. Seriously, replace the word "God" in your quote with that phrase, and it works exactly the same. That's what IS their God.
Delvo, how does this response address the concerns moderates have about the 'appearance' of the Religious Right's influence in the Republican party?  

I can see it is somewhat useful to imploy as a counter at times, but how does this kind of reposnse lead to discussion?
Hambil said that the right is influenced by religion and the left isn't, to explain why (s)he says that the right doesn't compromise like the left does. To maintain my point that the left is NOT more compromising, I countered the reasoning that religion is the cause of the difference by saying that the left's decisions are just as much a matter of religion as the right's. Where is the problem with this?

Quote

all that comes out of the discussion is "look at the other guy, he does it too"... the issue itself gets caught in the deflecting responses
No, that's what you infused into it. I don't excuse one person's or group's faults by pointing out others. But the claim that the right doesn't compromise like the left does, which I am disputing, was just explained as a result of the right being influenced by religion unlike the left. And my point is that that reasoning just doesn't work because it's not a difference between the two. That's not diversion; it's the actual point.

Quote

AND still the question goes unanswered... the issue never gets addressed by either side.
That WAS addressing the issue, by debunking a false premise that it started with. If we're not allowed to do that, then we have to act like false premises are valid just because somebody expressed them as a premise to something else. That's silly.

Quote

that is different from using religious doctrine to fashion legislation beyond the practice and intent of the Founders.
Yes, but if somebody starts off with claiming that only the right does it and the left's decisions aren't just as much a matter of religion, then pointing out that the left's religion drives them the same way isn't just finger-pointing and spin; it's directly countering a specific point made by the other side. The real finger-pointing and spin here is to act like THAT was finger-pointing and spin just because you don't like it.

#39 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 04:10 PM

Hambil, on Aug 1 2004, 01:53 PM, said:

As of 2001 29,481,000 people in the US say they are not religious. 14.1% of the population. And it is the fastest growning group.
No disrespect, but 'fastest growing' is one of the most useless statistics ever.

To make some fake numbers:

Group A grows from 1 members to 2 members. (grew by 200%)
Group B grows from 1,000,000 members to 1,500,000 members (grew by 50%)
Group C grows from 10,000,000 members to 11,000,000 (grew by 10%)

Group A, is, then, the 'fastest growing' group.... even though it only gained one member. Put another way, when you're starting from such a small base, it's easy to be the fastest growing group.

In any case, it is curious, isn't it? The atheist vote is a good sized chunk, but nobody talks about courting it... and surely atheism is more of a common bond than, say, being Mexican. I suppose since both candidates are so overtly religious, there's no point.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#40 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 04:14 PM

I think that most people are influenced by religion one way or another.  They may be influenced by it in that the paradigms they grew up with have become a part of their moral fabric, indistinguishible as a practical matter from whatever part of their moral make up is not a result of religious paradigms.  Or they may be influenced by religion in that they have become so disenchanted with it for one reason or another that they automatically dismiss any moral precept that is in agreement with a religious concept (regardless of whether that precept actually originates in religion).  Or they may be influenced by it in any other of inumerable ways.  It's not very realistic (imo) to say that this country or one party or another is not *influenced* by religion.  However, it is important to me that, regardless of that influence, folks running for political office convince me that they not only understand what the Constitution says about religion (both freedom to practice and the establishment clause) but that they respect it.  It is on this last point that I distinguish the two candidates.  I believe that they both understand the concepts in the Constitution.  I just don't think Bush cares about separation of Church and state.

As I said above, my opinion.

Lil
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics-American, Conservatives, Liberals, Compromise

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users