Political Experiment: Common Ground
 

I would like to try something here regarding this alleged "common ground" so many of us refer to.

Where does this mysterious inhabitant live? Do we know? We talk about it, but do we really have any clue as to the areas that could be considered "common ground"?

In order to keep this discussion from going into left-field, I want to place some boundaries. Please try as hard as you can to stay within the boundaries.

I know that there a hundred different ways to describe ourselves, but to make it simple, let's stay with the generic "liberal" and "conservative" monikers. I know some of us want to sound eclectic and use fancy names to portray our positions, but in the long-run, most of us fall on one side or the other. So, to keep this from spiraling out of control, can we use these two terms?

Now, for many of us, we pretty much know where the others fall. I'll admit to being surprised every now and then, but for the most part, I think a lot of our positions are predictable.

My question is this:

Can you think of an area where you, for the most part, agree with the other side? Can you think of more than one? Or, are you so deeply entrenched in your own idealogies that there is absolutely nothing the other side can say or do that would appeal to you?

Are you willing to concede a little of your side and accept a little of the other side in order to actually find a solution to some of our problems, or is it more important to you to stand your ground and not give an inch? I'll admit, that on some issues, I feel that way as well. I am hoping, however, that by just finding a little bit of common ground, I may start the trend of looking for common ground (in myself at least). If you look for it, there is a good chance you can find it.

Basically, this is like the old pre-election thread, "say something nice about the other side's candidate", just not specific to a person's political beliefs, but rather the beliefs held by a side as a whole.

I'll start.

I am very conservative and I have no problems whatsoever associating myself with the Republican party, however:

1) I disagree with most Republicans on abortion. While I abhor abortion in principle, I do not agree with making it illegal. To me it is a cause-effect problem, with abortion being the effect. Rather than talk about doing away with abortion, I would rather see us do things that would make abortion irrelevant--in other words, deal with the cause, not the effect.

What I concede: As much as I hate abortion, I would concede to keeping it legal, as long as we work on ways of minimizing it.

How I benefit: Rather than fight about it, our combined efforts could significantly lower the amount of abortions that take place--that benefits all of us and would be much more effective than abortion protests and the like.

2) In regards to social programs, I do side with many Democrats in that some social programs are needed. However, like my abortion position, I think it is cause-effect as well. I would rather us work on ways to make social programs unnecessary rather than expand them and make them even more bloated. I think we spend too much time on the effect and, once again, ignore the cause.

What I concede: I would minimize my oppostion to social programs and "big government" in order to see us work together to make social programs and "big government" less needed in our society. In other words, I would agree to keeping/expanding some programs if given the chance to see some of my own programs implemented.

How I benefit: The hope would be that some ideas would work so well that the number of people recieving "social benefits" would decrease. Ultimately, we would all win. The liberals get to keep many of their programs and the conservatives would get the chance to see some of their programs have a chance to succeed. Right now, both sides fight so much that many plans and ideas never get a "real" chance to prosper (i.e. tax cuts--they have never been given a chance to actually create economic benefits because, in order for them to work, spending must be kept in check)

3) Universal healthcare. In many ways, I completely disagree with the very concept of Universal Healthcare, but, for one reason alone, I would consider it: Money. Our government has this nasty habit of thinking that throwing money at a problem helps solve it, healthcare is one such example. Our gov't spends more per person than any other country in the world, yet we still have millions of Americans uninsured--that makes no sense to me. If there was a healthcare plan proposed, that provided healthcare for all Americans, with no change in the quality of service, for less money than we are spending now, I would support it. Other countries do it, so I don't see why we can't. Hell, I would even agree with it if the proposed plan cost the same as we are paying per person now because we all know that per-person number will go up every year.

What I concede: My oppposition to universal healthcare which is founded in my deep-seated belief in private enterprise and non-government involvement.

How I benefit: Maybe nothing personally, but, if we can do it for less money than we spend per-person now, thana different goal of mine would be achieved. Meanwhile, liberals would get one of the things they have been asking for with great ferver.


Since we will never get anywhere by just pointing out how the other side is full o' shit (which I am guilty of as well), I thought this might give us a better understanding as to how we may be alike in many ways. Maybe the polarizing issues turn out to be less important than the ones we can find common ground.

Put a little effort into it and, who knows, we might all learn something.

And remember, you have to give up a little bit of ground to achieve common ground. Right now, we are all on opposite sides of the field pointing fingers at each other, getting nowhere. Unless we equally agree to give up a little, we won't be able to gain anything.

Side note: It would be interesting if we see themes emerge. Than take that theme and devote a specific thread to it and see if a "plan" could be developed that would have greater appeal than current "plans".

I agree with conservatives that free markets and free trade are damn useful, and generate wealth and efficiencies like no other economic system has ever done.

I agree with liberals that fetus's are not living, breathing, thinking human beings.

I agree with conservatives that the world isn't ready for international pacifism.

I agree with liberals that massive coalitions are the only way to prevent a newly polarized world.

I agree with conservatives that there isn't any such thing as a free lunch. Taxes can and do cause damage as bad as poverty and starvation.

I agree with liberals that there isn't any such thing as a free lunch. Debts can and do cause damage as bad as taxes, poverty and starvation.

I agree with conservatives that legally required discrimination is abhorrant.

I agree with liberals that Isreal is a nation that does many evil things every day.

I agree with conservatives that the Palistineans are a people that do many evil things every day.

I agree with conservatives that raising the barrier-to-entry in the game of MAD is a good idea.

I agree with liberals that the missile defence program is a boondagle.

I agree with conservatives that the government should allow people to take their education dollars elsewhere than public schools.

I agree with liberals that the drug war is stupid.

Few quick ones, I'm for civil unions. I think the drug war is stupid, mostly and pretty much limited only in regards to pot however, I don't think the harder stuff should be legalized or even decriminalized really. Prostitution, meh I could care less, I don't want my dick falling off, nor am I that desperate. Something needs to be done with health care, although I'm more for hardcore regulation of the insurance companies, doctor's, prescriptions, etc. then straight up universal health care.

I'm for the legalization of marijuana

I'm against this dumb bankruptcy law

If I think of more, I'll post them later.

OK, but are you guys willing to concede anything in order to find middle ground on any of this?

I am not looking to see just where you agree with the other side, but how you, individually, can consider another position that, on the surface you might not like.

We are still going to be left with contention, in that not everyone on your side agrees with you.

It is interesting to see where your positions fall outside of your "normal" political convictions, but I would also like to see where you would be willing to give a little ground.

I'll use one of Yakk's as an example:
OK, so where do we go from here? Is common ground possible on this issue? Is there something that can be done, on the conservative side, that would make you more willing to consider it?

Do you see what I mean?

My biggest issue with the left is foreign policy, for me there is no middle ground because to me they are wrong. When the stakes are high, you don't concede to make nice, you don't work to find middleground when you find your opposition to be completely wrong and backwards.

Hmmm...I think that I see where you're trying to go with this, KMA-628. The problem is that it's difficult to keep things on track, in this venue. I think that you're going to have to pick a specific...say, Mojo_PeiPei's assertion that he has no middle ground, as it pertains to U.S. Foreign Policy. Now, find someone with a polar viewpoint and have the two of them hash out a workable foreign policy. Just a suggestion.

BOR -

Rather than me arbitrarily picking a position, I wanted to see if a trend developed that could then be removed from this discussion and worked out in a different thread.

For example, if enough people said they were open to some form of concessions on, say, Drug Laws, then I would know that it is a topic that might be discussed to a fruitful compromise.

Hand-picking one position will just lead to what we have already--pages and pages of "you're wrong" and "no, you're wrong".

Does that make sense?

Then maybe we can start a string of "Compromise" threads, following the trends that develop. Rather than hash out an opinion, we could see if compromise can be reached.

If enough people say, "I can't compromise on foreign policy" then I know to not start a "Compromise" thread over that topic, because it would obviously go nowhere.

I agree to disagree, politely.


I think that middle ground is established through discussion--there is no line in the sand that I draw and refuse to cross.

I see what KMA is trying to get at. However, I don't think that FP is the way to find common ground. I just don't see why or how conservatives should find a middle ground with lefties (sorry host ;)) that have been on the wrong side of every FP issue in the past 40 years. Perhaps we could expand this into a drug laws thread and see just where exactly people draw the line.

And oh, I thought of another one. I don't like the idea of govt capping pain and suffering compensation. It just seems to sterile and is in fact, IMO, immoral

Therein lies the problem. It is very rare that on such a huge issue there is one 100% right way and an absolute wrong way to do things. It's that kind of thinking from both sides that blows it all to shit.

Foreign Policy was an example, not a suggestion.

Baby steps, Foreign Policy is a big issue to tackle when we aren't very good and agreeing on much to begin with.

Maybe start small, drug war, lawsuits, bankruptcy law changes, etc.

Once we see what we can do, then we tackle bigger subjects.

Make sense?

One issue that came up in a topic recently, which I agree with the Republicans on is capping law suits against physicians , except in extreme cases. I feel that this would allow insurance companies to lower their premiums to physicians and thereby lower our total medical costs and our own insurance.

Unlike the Republicans (and Mojopeipei too, I guess) I feel that war should be a last ditch solution, and we should not preemptively strike another nation. The Democrats don't want to place our country at risk any more than the Republicans, it is preposterous to insinuate that they do.

this is an interesting idea, kma: good luck with it.

but doesn't it assume that the existing political spectrum in the states represents something like a spectrum of possibilities, and that debate can be coherently framed within that spectrum?

there is a line about the united states that i like: it is a single party state with two right wings.

how exactly would you imagine people who operate outside this framework would be able to find "common ground" with you, if you define the range within which you are willing to work in such a narrow way? more specifically: why would you frame this common ground thing with exclusive reference to the republicans and democrats?

if you want a debate or a dialogue, you should probably concede up front that you cant stipulate all the terms and expect folk to participate...unless what you really want is less a common ground than an affirmation that the context within which political thinking operates at the mass politics level in america right now is either adequate to frame and address problems, or legitimate in itself. if that is your idea, then i dont know why you would go about finding that affirmation in such a backhanded way.

just saying--if you want the kind of conversation you claim you do, open things up and you might find it easier to generate one.

Well, I'm trying to see if we can keep it under control. If I limit it to just the generic "left" and "right", that brings the fences in a little closer and makes it managable.

If you operate too far out of the mainstream political spectrum, common ground would be too far extreme for the rest of us.

Example: For me and guy44, we might be able to come to terms that are agreeable to both of us. Middle ground to he and I would be exactly that, somewhere between left and right.

For you and I roach, middle ground is left of left for me, nowhere near the middle where I am willing to go.

It might exclude you, and I apologize, it is not on purpose.

Unless you see another way that offers a way to actually reach middle ground we two people are so extreme of each other?

so wait...your "common ground" thing then really is about setting up terms of agreement and/or debate that simply erases folk who you decide are too far to the left of you--whatever that means--

interesting conception of the notion of "common ground" you've got going there.
its kinda of like tv that way--positions that take too long to outline or dont fit into the format for other reasons simply get no airtime--between the positions that do talk in nice soundbites and look pretty on camera, it is a kind of parlor game, this talk of consensus or common ground. you can congratulate yourself on points in common in discussions amongst people who basically agree with you up front, and simply pretend the others are not there, do not exist.

i notice that some of the forum's more consistent hardline conservatives have no problem posting here...i expect that even some of the militia set would be fine with all this...but no-one from the left of the dlc-dominated democratic party though.

how about that?

how about that?

you might think that that in itself makes your understanding of common ground into a bit of a problem.

why are conservatives so obsessed with controlling the terms of discussion while pretending they are interested in consensus?

but whatever--i have other things to do. have fun with whatever this really is.

roach -

read my last sentence.

I specifically asked you if there was a better way.

Criticize all you want, that is your option. But don't complain about being excluded when I gave you the opportunity to device a better "plan" and you don't respond.

I am the one reaching out to you for an idea, complain away, but that just furthers my point that middle ground between us is potentially unreachable--even when I offer to look at your input.....which you decide not to give.

I think this is a noble experiment, KMA, and I appreciate the name check, but I think that the political spectrum is just too difficult to define.

For example, I don't have a problem with the free market. It isn't perfect, but it is the best system we as humans have created.

However, I would add many qualifiers to that statement: I think the government needs to regulate heavily on safety, labor, fairness, anti-trust, and environmental grounds to ensure a functioning free market system that creates non-monopolistic "good" companies. I think that without such regulation, companies will do untold evil (gilded age anyone?).

I'd be more than willing to stand with self-identified conservatives who are sick of corporate welfare that is little more than rich donors getting the politicians they have bought to subsidize huge and already succesful businesses.

I'd be more than willing to stand with self-identified conservatives who are sick of America violating our free trade agreements, such as NAFTA, with alarming regularity. And this isn't even a partisan issue - Clinton did it, Bush does it. We should stop giving huge subsidies to such industries as agriculture that wind up punishing third-world producers who only have one or two viable exports. When we undersell countries with a competetive advantage in agriculture because we redistribute billions of tax dollars to large agribusiness, we wind up creating severe market inefficiencies while simultaneously supporting the rich few at the expense of both American tax payers and third-world farmers.

But what defines conservative? If you are talking about those in Congress, I doubt they would give more than lip service to those ideals. True conservatve ideologues might agree, but not most so-called conservatives. I don't mean to berate conservatives, but rather demonstrate the difficulty inherent in dividing everyone into two categories.

So do my above positions make me a "liberal?" Tough to say. I mean, I also believe in a far greater socialist state, with taxes on the richest at levels between 40-60 percent, more or less where Europe is at. I believe in universal health care, the legalization of marijuana, and am a staunch civil libertarian. I believe in fully federally funded election campaigns (for the federal level, of course). I absolutely adore the United Nations, while at the same time believe strongly that it needs significant reform. So, I'm way to the left of other self-identified liberals as well.

Still, I agree that on so many issues - and really, I think the main one is abortion, because quality sex education would reduce abortions far more effectively than abstinence only education or no sex ed at all - there is middle ground to be found. (Of course, on issues such as a ballistic missile defense, that can't and won't work, I don't find all that much middle ground.)

Also, Yakk:
I think you may be misunderstanding the economic concept of a "free lunch." Conservatives tended to be the ones to use this language in the 1980s to describe the way in which cutting taxes would result in greater government revenue. The argument went something like this: taxes are cut, this improves the economy significantly, which creates a much larger taxable economic base, which allows the government to take in more revenues than before taxes were cut. The "free lunch" now is considered by most people to be as rediculous a theory as "voodoo economics."

Edit: roach, I think I'm way, way to the left of the DLC on most issues. Of course, the biggest problem with the DLC isn't its ideology, but rather its outdated and complacent campaigning and spin practices. If you want to find someone to push for the permanent retirement of Al From, I'm your man.

Economics major here. I don't know what "free lunch" means in politics, but in economics TNSTAAFL usually refers to opportunity cost. The way it was explained to me was if someone gave you your lunch for free, it wouldn't really be free, is because you could be doing something else with your time.

no time to respond really.
kma: i hope you take the objections i raised in the spirit i meant them to be taken in--not hostile, just perplexed. in terms of actual policy options within the existing order, i am in general agreement with guy44, above.

i'll check in later to see what happens here.

Personally, I agree with quite a few of the "conservative" views. While I am also for abortion rights and quite a few other "Liberal" stances. I am simply of the opinion that both sides are far too corrupted by power (or the seeking of such) to be worth my support as parties, or platforms.
I would hope that some level middle ground exists between these two labels, but there seems to be so much disrespect for each other as to make that unlikely as a general rule. It would seem I have been privy to an interesting position, as I get to try to keep the two sides from killing each other with sarcasm, and subjective disregard for opinion.
I have come to the point in my political understanding that I dont really much care what the Party stands for, or the label entails. I just dont care much for assholes.

I agree with the above. Both the major parties seem to be so corrupt that I (and others probably) are more concerned with what damage the ruling parties are going to do rather than what good things they can do. Their stance on issues depends on where they are getting their money. Just look at the recent bankruptcy bill and then look where the supporters are getting their money. It is so obvious they don't even hide it anymore.

One area I would like to hear different views on is healthcare and health insurance. While I generally believe in capitalism and competition and therefore free open markets, I just don't see that happening in the healthcare field. I have yet to figure out how to shop for healthcare and compare prices of doctors and such. Since there is no (or little) price competition I am willing to concede that we may as well let the government control it. I would welcome opinions of capitalists from either party why we should not and if not how does one compare prices for medical care.

i am a conservative who can not find any meaningful redemptive qualities about liberal philosophies (or, at least what is commonly described as a liberal philosophy in a contemporary sense). the only sympathy i have with liberals is that there are many who are sincerely well-meaning.

i think there is some confusion on this thread between what is a conservative/liberal philosophy and the distinction it has from republican/democrat agendas. you may say that you favor the legalization of certain types of drugs on the grounds that the government has no domain in that part of society (just ask an uber-conservative libertarian). if you're likely to have more sympathetic ears on the issue from the democratic side that does not mean that your stance is coming from a liberal point of view. rather, that is a conservative view that finds a better home among the democratic party.

i am a republican simply because they are the political apparatus through which a conservative agenda has the most force. when that changes... so will my vote. it's important not to think of parties as one in the same with a particular philosophy or ideology. some people struggle with that, hence the mistaken idea that the current congress practices a policy of small government/fiscal restraint. i can find common ground with democrats and the democratic party. i cannot say that about the current iteration of liberal-minded people.

Nice post KMA, I am with you all the way. You have obviously given a lot of thought and careful attention to this discussion and deserve the same in kind. Please be a little patient so we can have a little time to "think things through" instead of shouting out partisan opinions.

I will attempt:Affirmative Action

I am a moderate-conservative, but not Republican, so I tend to straddle the line on many issues.

I am against Affirmative Action as it is currently in place (It is very possible that I do not fully understand how it works) in so much as it applies a quota system in an effort to introduce diversity.

I believe that social engineering has not worked as well as its noble intentions and that we need to hit the drwing board agian if we must. I would rather the government stay out of it though but I am willing to compromise "fixing" the problem versus outright elimination.

What I concede: I would be willing to compromise on a "mend it don't end it" concept but it would have to be pretty well thought out. I believe the problem is in the "cause" and would prefer to fix it there as oppose to trying to fix it at the "effect" level.

For example: instead of quotas of underrepresented students into colleges, or busing programs, fix the point of origin. The schools where they come from. Allocate adequate resources to prepare under represented students for college and life. I my opinion, this would better prepare students for college (better preparation, higher self-confidence, self-esteem) instead of accepting underprepared students who will end up requiring remedial programs in college.

How I benefit: In what I see to be a win-win, a quality education can be dipensed to traditionally under represented and under resourced districts giving the students the necessary tools for academic success. Additionally, by removing "quotas", there can be no doubt or question to the qualifications of minority students.

I'm a conservative. I know what a shock that is to everyone.

I couldn't care less if gay marriage is legalized.

I know some social programs are necessary, but I subscribe to the philosophy that what gets rewarded, gets repeated, so government funds should be difficult to obtain. (To clarify further, collecting the money of others should be as hard as having a job.)

I think the concept of a fetus being non-human is scientifically absurd, but I support abortion in the case of rape.

I accept that the US would be worse off without illegal immigrants, but I oppose our present "give them whatever they want" policies.

The current state of broadcast censorship sucks loudly.

Some type of universal health care is necessary. However, it's definitely going to have to be tiered.

Hard-core Christians need to understand that other people are entitled to different beliefs.

The US government needs to start displaying some sanity in regard to marijuana. Current policies are quite idiotic.

The influence of big business on our government should be drastically reduced.

That's all I can think of right now.

Affirmative Action is a good idea--there is a current thread about it, but it really isn't going too well. You could probably script the discussion and name the players without ever reading the thread.

The only problem I see it is always ends up in a heated argument with numerous accusations of racism hurled by both sides.

I do offer a different side to it, though, as I consider myself a "white" victim of AA--I got hurt by it pretty badly in the early 90's--but that isn't really pertinent here, we'll have to see how it goes.

In terms of a mend, how about an automatic grant/student loan for the first year of college for every person that wants to go to college--regardless of race/color/gender? After that, they are on their own for financing.

While it may be a large payout up front for the gov't, the money would be paid back ten-fold in higher income tax payments made by people with degrees that might not otherwise have had them.

I dunno, just a thought.

Libertarian, here (obvious for those who know me). So what do I believe in that runs counter to my side?
1. I belive firmly in pro-life. 9 times out of 10, the girl going in for an abortion was simply irresponsible and shagged either without protection at all, or did so knowing full well the risks that come even with protected sex. It disgusts me that these girls are not made to deal with their decision as an adult. If you are adult enough to have sex, you are adult enough to deal with the consequences. How many wonderful people have died because little suzy wanted some dick? Imagine how many happy parents are out there that are willing to adopt a baby into a healthy home that go wanting because a doctor thought it was okay to take a hook to the babie's head. Hypocritical oath, says I.

2. There are moments that I think that the best solution for overpopulation is to allow those who are evil and self serving to rule. As horrible and inhuman as it seems, my lower nature does tell me that in order to take care of overpopulation, people have to either die, or not reproduce. Can you imagine Congress passing laws that limit reproduction? People would lose their minds. When I have suggested not allowing people with the genetics attacked to apathy and hate and ignorance to reproduce, I am always shot down. I know I sound like a monster for saying it, but someone has to be devil's advocate in this. I honestly thing that some people should be discouraged from breeding.

3. Free market. One of the most important parts of being a libertarian, and I have trouble with it. I don't think that the government should interfere with the market, BUT right now very few corporations are responsible enough to operate fairly without someone watching over their shoulders. While governmental intervention in the economy imperils both the personal freedom and the material prosperity of every American, without governmental involvment, international banks and their corporations would quickly take over. We want liberty and freedom, but a lot of us aren't willing to be free and liberated responsibly. Kinda like communism, a few selfish jackasses ruin what could be true peace and prosperity for everyone.

Aside from that, I'll always say the only justified function of government is the protection of the lives, rights and property of its citizens. Each citizen is responsible for never infringing on the rights of any citizen of the world and always being eternally vigilant in protecting our freedom and liberty. Each life is worth more than money can offer and taking a life is unthinkable.

I'm a conservative.

I agree with liberals on the topic of gay marriage. I know gay people and I don't really care if they decide to marry someone, doesn't effect me.

I agree with some social programs but I am FAR from socialist.

Most other stuff I lean conservative but I am pretty moderate. I agree that abstinence should be taught and focused on, but other methods of contraceptives should also be discussed in sex ed classes. I am not a pacifist, but I do think war should always try to be avoided (I agree with the war in Iraq but ideally I would have liked to seen it worked out in a more peaceful manner). I however, do not support abortion at all and when I am older and married if financial situations are looking alright I do plan to adopt a child.

I'm either psychotically far to the Right or psychotically far to the left, depending on who you ask.

I believe that abortion should be legal until the fetus is born, on demand and without apology.
I believe that anybody should be able to own as many guns as they like, as long as they are not legally disabled (ie not a felon)
I believe that animals are just that, animals. They have NO rights.
I believe that AA is counterproductive at this point. Once it was necessary, now it hurts African-Americans.
I believe that homosexuals should be able to do whatever they want, in the privacy of their own homes.
I oppose the war on drugs.
I support the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and Communist China.
I think France stopped being a US ally in 1946.
I oppose foreign aid unless there's some direct quid pro quo arrangement in place.
I oppose the US bowing to "world opinion".
I think the UN should be disbanded, or at the very least expelled from the US and the US withdrawn from the UN.
I think antitrust laws should be enforced.
I think every congressperson who voted for the Bankruptcy Reform Act should be investigated for influence peddling, let the chips fall where they may.
I support the death penalty, even for those who were juveniles when their crimes were committed.
I don't believe in "LIHOP" or "MIHOP" WRT 9/11.
I believe we should give Israel and Taiwan whatever they request as far as military aid.
I believe that if you shout "Death To America!" you should RECEIVE death FROM America.
I believe George W Bush is an idiot.
I believe George W. Bush was a much better choice for America than the alternatives.
I believe that when the chips are down, an idiot with resolve can be better in a leadership position than an intellectual who has no moral compass.
I believe Republicans are misguided.
I believe Democrats are misguided AND that they'd do ANYTHING that they thought would work to hold onto power. They're basically power-whores in my book.
I believe that they DID find WMDs in Iraq, that were left over from the 1980's.
I believe that Clinton should have been removed from office for perjuring himself in court.
I believe LEGAL immigration should be made much easier to accomplish, and that quotas should be eliminated.
I believe all illegal immigrants should be rounded up and deported if they fail to comply with US immigration law.
Immigrants who come to the US in accordance with US law = GOOD.
Immigrants who come to the US in violation of US law = BAD.
I support massive education subsidies.
I support removing the teacher's unions from having anything to do with setting the curriculum. Collective bargaining over salaries = OK. Control of curriculum: BAD.
I oppose using the education system as one of political indoctrination as is done now.

I believe that extremism in defense of virtue is not a vice.
And I believe that for every new law enacted, TWO existing laws should be removed from the books.

/nomex ON

Except for the first one, I'm with you.

Somehow or other, I think this post should be set to music!

I am socially liberal, fiscally conservative (believe it or not).

I believe that we need social based programs and that along with a much needed health care program and education they should be our primary concern.

I will concede, however, that there are far too many programs and that a vast majority are so caught up in red tape that the people needing the money and programs are often left out or don't recieve all they can.

Solution is to condense programs, make it easier for those that need it to know it is available to them. By cutting down on redtape you allow the money to truly get where it needs to go.

Example: I am trying very hard to find all these grants and loans that the government has to set up recovery houses. What I find is redtape and people saying go to this office..... which when I do they refer me to another office who in turn refers me to another that refers me to the original. This is a waste of money, time and effort and could be reduced to one office that know wtf they are doing.

I disagree with a foreign policy that pays countries that hate us. There is no need to send money to countries such as Saudi Arabia, Isreal, many in Africa, most of the ex-USSR and China/Taiwan that have policies or leadership that do not respect human rights, that take the money and keep it while their people starve. If we want to send aid it should be in the form of food and medicines, it should be sending engineers and workers that can teach those countries how to build an infrastructure.

I cannot concede on this point whatsoever.

I do not agree with "free trade" to countries that subsidize their industries so that they may undercut ours. I believe if China tariffs and subsidizes then we need to tariff their imports or cut all trade relations.

We are in a trade war and we are losing badly because we have gotten fat and greedy and we want everything cheap. This causes jobs to be sent overseas and wages to decrease. For the first time in our history our children will make less than their parents...... there is something seriously wrong here. This is not capitalism, and should not be considered as such when countries are subsidizing industries to destroy ours.

My concession.... tax imports to the point they are taxed by their originating country. Implement a WORLDWIDE MINIMUM WAGE, and retrain laid-off/fired workers for jobs that will pay more. Put more fed money into research and development grants and loans. Implement income taxes on companies that ship jobs overseas.... IE you (the company) send 200 jobs overseas then you (the company) MUST pay the income taxes on those 200 workers, equal to the 200 jobs you (the company) cut over here, until the people you told to walk find jobs. This money goes into retraining the workers.

I agree very strongly that healthcare should be regulated, price freezes should be implemented on all but the elective procedures. That medicines should be sold on a sliding scale basis so that those who have money (but too much to get help and not enough to truly pay for the medicines) should be able to afford their medicines and not have to suffer. That everyone is entitled to and should recieve an annual physical and 2 yearly dental checkups.

Benefits are healthier workers = more productive and happier workers.

I also disagree with Healthcare insurers having carte blanche on what they will pay for and what they won't. If you want lawsuits to go away allow the DOCTORS to determine what a patient needs and how to treat and not worry about cost.

I concede the industry needs to make money, but how much is enough? I think only a doctor can truly know what is best for the individual. The industry must either recognize this or be forced into a strict regulatory situation.

I believe we need to get off the fossil fuels and OPEC addiction and put massive monies into finding cheaper fuels.

NO CONCESSION I CAN THINK OF BUT WOULD LISTEN AS I AM SURE THERE ARE PLANS OUT THERE THAT COULD WORK AND BENEFIT BOTH SIDES. While again, I agree this industry has a right to profit, they need to be held responsible for their prices and that if necessary price controls should be implemented. If they cannot police themselves and find cheaper ways, then the government should.

There are a few more but those are my primary ones.

I have a problem with the statement about Taiwan not respecting human rights. They're a liberal democracy that does indeed respect human rights. Communist China doesn't respect human rights, but Taiwan isn't part of Communist China. Also, without the US's subsidization of Israel, it would cease to exist within short order due to military intervention by it's enemies. It would not be in the best interest of the US to allow that to happen. Israel isn't the best ally we have, but they certainly still are an ally, and a valuable ally at that. I firmly believe in what JFK said about the "aid any ally, oppose any foe" bit.

yeah I think pan6467 has Taiwan and China a little mixed up. When did the U.S. government start sending money to China?

What Daswig says about Israel being in immediate danger without U.S. aid was true in 1967 but it isn't exactly the reality today. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is nothing compared to that of Israel and Egypt's army would be paltry without U.S. aid. I think also the muslim world understands that today, unlike 1967, an attack on Israel would mean immediate U.S. retaliation. Just because a country is our ally doesn't mean we need to completely fund their military or support its every political venture. That's not what JFK was talking about.

Well, it's not exactly "sending money," but by granting NTR (formerly called most-favored nation) status to China, imports from China have a maximum tariff of 2% while China maintains a 30% to 40% tariff on US goods.

At least, that information was correct in the 90s. I'm sure someone will let me know if it's different now.

I forgot to mention before, this is an EXCELENT thread, KMA-628. I hope efforts like this might help unpolarize everyone.

That's exactly what I meant. Aid can be given in many ways.... lower tariffs, such as we give China AND Taiwan is one of them. While they continue to tariff the hell out of our products. Plus, they sacrifice workers rights, financials and safety (not to mention subsidize their industries) so that they can sell their products for less. Taiwan is not as bad as China in doing this but they still do it, as does Japan.

We are in an economic trade war and we are losing because we refuse to tariff imports and we refuse to pass on our standards of operating to others. In trade wars it makes no sense to have a deficit to countries that oppose you politically and in every aspect. I am a firm believer that a company producing something overseas should pay the same wages and have the same workers rights as we do.... otherwise, as we are seeing, we cannot compete because other countries will do whatever it takes to take us down.

I find it pathetic that we allow this to the point where our infrastructure, education and standards of living (without massive debt) have fallen so far.

I firmly believe that if we trade with a country, their standards on workers rights and pay must be equal to ours.



As for Isreal, they are a thorn in our side. If they can truly show that they will give Palastinians rights, protect their borders and not in any way show agression to their neighbors, then I would agree to aid them. Also, Isreal is a faux ally, if we were to stop sending aid (because we cannot afford to anymore) they would be every bit as hostile toward us as any other country in the Middle East.

But they do neither. I am thoroughly a believer in what Bernstein wrote in "An American Jew in Racist Marxist Isreal." (I have yet to meet anyone that can argue Bernstein..... link so that you can see for yourself: http://www.worldnewsstand.net/history/Zionist.htm).

When Isreal can show that they support human rights and show true freedom TO ALL in their country, then they can have aid. I am not anti-semitic in any way, but it seems if you argue against Isreal you are labelled as such.


I hope this clears up any confusion on my previous post.

PS Daswig: I agree with the JFK quote also, but whether it is aid or buying their product, shipping jobs overseas and not tariffing the way they do us... it is still aiding those countries that would want us to fall. We cannot continue to have trade deficits with these countries.

Disagreeing with Israeli politics does not make you an anti-semite. It sickens me to know how some Palestinians are being treated. Hating someone for being of Hebrew decent of being of the Jewish faith is anti-semitism.

I agree with everything above. It seems odd how America is supposedly supporting democracy and freedom in all these small countries, when the largest threat is being granted more and more power, some of it seemingly willingly. Everyone talks about China's military buildup, but nobody really seems to want to talk about their economic threat. They have an inherent economic advantage-huge amounts of extremely cheap labor. And they also have little respect for copyright laws of other countries. If they have 40% tarrifs on our goods while paying their workers 10% of what that same person would make for the job in the US or EU, we put tarrifs on their goods of 100, 200, hell 300%. If an American company relocates there for the cheap labor, their products get the same treatment. Make the economic battle more about how efficiently you can produce, and not how much you can screw your workers.

This should be counterbalanced by labor concessions. I think that many of our factory workers are overpaid for what they do. Their pay does not match the quality of their goods. I don't want to make this into a labor discussion, but I have heard numerous first-hand accounts from employees, supervisors, and large scale buyers that GM products made in America are inferior to even those made in Canada. And I doubt that people would accuse Canada of short-changing their employees.

i note that after a few days away there seems to be a consensus here on some basic points: for example, that markets are (a) seperable from the rest of social life an--more problematically--(b) that they are somehow "rational"..both of which are basically conservative discourse markers.

i also note that folk seem to have a hard time with the reality of globalizing capitalism and its implications for nation-states: for all the nationalist rhetoric of most political positions in the american "mainstream" the fact that both republicans and moderate democrats understand capitalism as an unqualified good works at cross-purposes--globalizing capitalism will result in a basic reconfiguration of most aspect of social existence that previously were shaped/regulated/maintained by nation-states. the period of nation-states is on the wane. the mainstream of american politics typically deals with this by not dealing with it--the assumption--wholly arbitrary conceptually, obviously false historically--that markets, left to themselves will result in the greatest good for the greatest number is little more than a political figleaf placed across the more massive problems globalizing capitalism pose--not just for working people, but for the entire spectrum of (increasingly) outmoded nationalist ideologies. the effect is to say dont worry, the invisible hand (or god, take your pick) will take care of everything.

i cant help but think as i read through this that the "common ground" being sought here is a reflection of the extent to which conservative discourse shapes political debate.

Adam Smith aside, I see a different trend so far.

Here is my take so far:

1) Healthcare/Health Insurance seems to be something that crosses over the parties quite a bit.

2) Free Market Issues (as related to the United States, not the world) - this seems to have some common ground on both sides. The trend seems to follow better regulation, not more. I also see some agreement on enforcement of regulations.

3) Social Programs (i.e. reform or decrease the amount) - seems to have some appeal to both sides

4) I might be stretching a bit, but it seems that Abortion could hold some common ground--I see that pro-lifer's and pro-choicer's seem to both want the number of abortions to be a lot less than they are. This would tell me that both sides may be able to find ground regarding ideas to limit the need for abortion rather than the typical for/against abortion tirade.

Am I reading this right? Do you agree? Disagree?

So far, I must admit to being pleasantly suprised.

Any one care to add more?

I'll add that I've been in agreement with the posts of some people whom I never thought I'd find common ground with.

It will probably make me be less of a smartass when I reply to them, at least for a while. :lol:

I second the statement that this thread was a good idea.

I do not believe in government handouts. I feel that the current welfare system hurts the economically impoverished more than it helps, in many cases. I do not think that these people should be abandoned, therefore I propose the following welfare reform:

Welfare shold be available to those who are not working in the following circumstances. It should be distributed in the form of food stamps, housing credits (for rent, basic utilities, etc,) and a small cash allowance.
-They are permanently disabled
-They are actively searching for a job (let's be generous and say applying for one job per week,)
-They are actively persuing higher education in order to be better able to enter the workforce. The current system of federal student loans and grants would cover most education related expenses
-They are unable to hold a job due to care for a young child. After a certain point (again, let's be generous and say a year and a half) they would recieve child care credits for use toward daycare while they persued education and work

Every Friday, welfare recipients would be tested for ilegal substances. Those who tests came back clean would recieve their welfare payments on the folowing Monday. Anyone found having used illegal substances for two consecutive weeks would be given vouchers for treatment at a rehab facility. After completing the rehab program, any further use of illegal substances would result in detention in a state-run rehab facility (a nice way of saying prison hospital) until they were certified to be clean of whatever they were in rehab for.

I could agree to most of what you said until the last paragraph. I am an addictions counselor and I work with these people that you would have in a "state-run rehab facility. You would rather pay far more to incarcerate than to work with these people. Forced recovery and that is what you are talking about WILL NOT AND WILL NEVER WORK, plus getting a job with the record that would be hanging over your head would be very detrimental. So in the end you are paying far more for addiction. Don't believe it? Look at how much the "War on Drugs" and incarcerating non violent drug addicts has already cost us.

If you want to reform welfare into something that truly helps and lessens the political red tape, abuse and waste then great. I can see a need for that.

BUT, I would say get rid of corporate welfare, loopholes and deductions for those making over $1 million and severely cut aid to other countries.

Unlike some who believe globalization requires a lowering of our standards, I argue, that if a country wants to do business with us they must raise their standards to a degree where we are on equal footing.

To lower standards for one country, only leads to looking for the next country with lower standards so that labor can be even more cheaper and the profits even bigger.

I truly find it sad we must lower our standards and fight over crap while we allow countries to undercut us and laugh as they are on the plus side of a huge trade deficit.

Yeah, let's support more third world countries and China while we shit on our poor and give workers even less pay, fewer benefits and tax them more.

It is certainly your right to focus your attention on screening and possibly detaining welfare recipients who fail your proposed screening.

I am distracted by the spectacle of the U.S. House of Representatives majority leader, who is repeatedly investigated for ethics violations that have resulted in repeated findings by the house ethics committee, that he has engaged in questionable conduct, including seriously abusing the authority of his office.
As "freepers" enthusiastically reported,Tom Delay struck back at the Democrat who initiated etihics complaints against him:
Tom Delay holds the second most powerful office in the 435 member house.
He has been the subject of a still to be concluded crminal investigation by a
Texas prosecutor in his home congressional district for a number of months.
Apparently anticipating that he would be indicted and criminally prosecuted, Delay attempted unsuccessfully to persuade a majority of House members to vote for a rules change that would have reversed a house rule that would require him to relinquish his leadership post if he is indicted in Texas.

Now, the NY Times reports that two corporations with close ties to Tom Delay, one been indicted by the Texas prosecutor and the other also under scrutiny in the same investigation that is examining Delay's activities, have "donated" large amounts to Delay's legal defense fund:
Tom Delay's misconduct and alleged criminal activities, and the complicity and
the corporate financial support he is receiving from already indicted Bacardi and by the unindicted list of major corporations, IMO, is a much greater cause for concern than whether there is welfare cheating going undetected.
Delay and his corporate supporters flaunt the law, and by their disappointing and appalling example, because they should know better, make it more difficult to send a message to the public that they should, of their own volition, respect and obey the law because it is good citizenship to do so.

Host -

What did that have to do with anything discussed here?

That had nothing to do with the topic at hand and it had absolutely nothing to do with MSD's post that you quoted.

Were you just looking for a place to post this? Why here?

Nice segway though, to get from MSD's post to your point, I almost thought your point was going to be relevant.

I like your thinking for the most part, but they use food stamps as a medium of exchange. Example: Someone pays them for the food stamps, and they buy cigarettes or drugs with the money.

I see suggestions such as your $1 million limit a lot, but I usually don't see anyone considering that:

1. That number is completely arbitrary. There's no reason you can give for it, and even if you could, people would simply make sure they earned $999,999.99, and you couldn't blame them.

2. The alternative minimum tax is a great example of what happens when you try to do such things. Intended to punish people for being rich, it now ensnares a policeman married to a nurse, at least in California.

I understand what you are saying, but you accusing me or the idea of trying to find a fair tax rate ALL can live with, is the same as those who argue that the welfare system needs fixed but THEY don't see a problem with their corporate welfare, and tax loopholes.

I just feel if you ask one side to sacrifice something THEN FOR THE BETTERMENT OF ALL the other side must sacrifice or make concessions also.

Just as you see the taxes being thrown around and it being "arbitrary", I see the same from the other side.

I believe FREEDOM AND OUR SOCIETY needs compromise and sacrifice from both sides. And I believe the reason we are in such problems is the fact we have lost sight of compromise and sacrifice and we have 2 sides demanding their way is the only way, neither wants to compromise and neither is willing to sacrifice.

This is a great idea and thread and I applaud KMA for doing it. It does allow us too see what drives the other side and perhaps as a whole we can find compromise and sacrifice.

KMA...... I'll cite roachboy's earlier comments on this thread in support of my
response to Mrselfdestruct's outline of a proposal to add a new dimension of
"hoop jumping" controls as a prerequisite to continued eligibility for welfare financial aid from the government:
I responded to MrSelfdestruct's post on this thread just as I would if I encountered it on any other thread here at TFP Politics.
The post struck me as containing similar controlling tendencies as I see used as the excuse to back the "bankruptcy reform and consumer protection" 2005 senate bill. IMO, it is a mindset that attempts to justifiy an agenda of huge inconvenience and penalty for the compliant majority in order to make ABSOLUTELY sure that no abuse of the bankruptcy law or of welfare eligibility rules (or whatever class of ordinary public, practitioners of this controlling mindset targets next......).

I ask you, KMA, is it fair to disqualify huge numbers of legitimate Chapter 7 bankruptcy filers from the same debt protection that currently exists, in order
to prevent abuse of the system by an assuredly smaller number? Is it fair
to add new hurdles and new privacy invasion on all welfare recipients to prevent system abuse by a small number?

Is it fair to hold ordinary people to tough new levels of accountability even as
those who control this agenda isolate and exempt themselves and their wealthy corporate benefactors?

Posting on these threads is how I deliver my message of (hopefully) well documented opinion, and of informed and reasoned protest. I engage those who disagree with me. For the most part, they support and give a "pass" to a
federal executive and legislative regime that I believe is the most malignant in U.S. history. The current government, and by extension, it's supporters, is the greatest threat to my family's and heirs' future. The number of abortions performed, welfare checks pilfered, and abusive chapter 7 filings, are, in comparison, non-issues for me and mine, compared to the damage that Bush, Delay, et al, inflict on this country every day.

I doubt that many TFP Politics readers were aware that indicted corporation
Bacardi Rum is propping up Tom Delay financially while they both pay lawyers to provide legal representation to defend against the same investigation.
I accept that I have little in common with you and with those who often agree with you. A propagandized voting public has unwittingly ceded control of our national government to one political party that shows itself to be incapable of running an open, accountable, ethical, or fiscally responsible
federal government. Forgive me for posting evidence and commentary about this disturbing tread on this TFP Politics thread.

Your comments seem to me to be unrealistically sterotypical and prejudicial towards the least of us in American society. Would that you find the enthusiasm to launch a post filled with similar contempt at Tom Delay and those who vote "yea" for this "bankruptcy reform" bill, changes in air quality enforcement, and Bush's advocacy for the wealthiest, instead of for the many who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own.........just for starters.
Do you offer similar stereotypes and prejudice toward predatory lenders, or corporate executives who skirt or break securities laws and act above the law to the detriment of their employees, consumers, and small investors?

I offer this information to rebut your comments,

host -

I will tell you the same thing I told roach - rather than complain, offer something of substance up. If you think it is a bad idea, suggest something else. No one is trying to shut anybody out, but if your only addition is to complain and not offer anything of value, the commentary is more about you than it is about the discussion at hand.

So far, this thread has gone really well.....for both sides.

what is curious about your reactions, kma, is that you seem to have decided that it is you who gets to determine what constitutes "something of substance"---you refuse at every point to consider what i have been saying, what host is saying--that your "common ground" experiment presupposes a particular ideological control over the terms of debate. those terms of debate are conservative. period. you are not interested in common ground--you are interested in seeing the extent to which your frame of reference is THE frame of reference.

so that when objections to that frame of reference come up, you choose to either ignore them or declare them "without substance"--which is something i have come to expect from the talking heads that enforce this tiny debilitating frame on others in the context of opinion management shows on cable news networks.

example no. 1: you have no problem with wholly reactionary posts about welfare, that are predicated start to finish on the right's conventional "wisdom" concerning its origin, function and effects. every single element of that "understanding" of the welfare system is historically false, intellectually vacant and politically dangerous. but you are fine with it....as if it is obvious that the problem with the welfare system resides with th poor--which is insane outside the narrow world of rightwing ideology...that this bigger problem can be reduced to some kind of absurd "moral" question (see above)--and that from this it follows that unbelievably draconian, wholly illegal tyeps of searching/screening can be put into place.
you accept this kind of crap as rational.
it is really unbelievable.

example no. 2:
you say above:

just after i tried to raise a question about the notion of the "free market"--which you ignored--and which you then follow with a series of empty propositions that echo conservative buzzwords (not more regulation but better regulation--what does that mean? anything?)

and yet, after a post like this, you demand of host that he "add something of substance"???

you could at least be up front about it: you are interested only in a very particular type of "common ground" that you are trying to enforce this very particular type of "common ground"--that you are not really interested in anything approaching this "common ground" that might include positions which are critical of your frame of reference itself.

just dont pretend that you are or this thread is interested in finding some points of agreement across different political positions. you--and this thread--are about trying to find commanlities amongst political positions that do not have significant ideological differences between them. what is the point of that? you know that there is agreement about basic positions up front.

It is very simple roach, I followed a trend.

The topic of free-markets was brought up by both sides, not by me. I merely echoed the fact that this topic came up on more than one occasion and seemed to have some similarities in opinion.

#1 - I am not setting any course, I am just looking for ideas that have real room for discussion.

#2 - I asked for opinions on what I observed--nothing tyrannical here, I wanted input on the trends I thought came from this discussion. If you'll notice how I ended my post you would see that I asked for opinion on my take.

#3 - host was just looking for a thread to post his DeLay comment--I think it is just chance that it ended up here in this thread. Usually he starts a new thread for his comments like this, why he added it here I don't know.

#4 - I have refused nothing, rather I have asked for more input from you that is constructive. I know how you feel roach, I didn't need to see it repeated several times. As I said before, if you view this as flawed, offer up some options. Give us some alternatives that would help you accept the idea more. Asking for your suggestions is the polar opposite of refusing anything, yet you still do not offer anything.

As to some of your other comments:

My first comment was my answer your post, yes it was flippant, but that was my response

Very simple, enforce the regulation we already have. Why add more regulations that won't be enforced?

You will notice that issues related to "welfare" came from both sides--not just the "right wingers".

You can call the people who hold such opinions "intellectually vacant", but I think you only hurt yourself by doing that. At this point, I am simply ignoring your "right wing" and "conservative discourse" comments--as mentioned earlier, I have been pleasantly surprised by comments made by people on the other side of the aisle, and I think the opposite is true as well.

I will pose this to you....my final try: You will notice that when I posted my own personal opinions (i.e. the irrational crap) I offered up what I wanted and then I offered up where I was open to negotiation. You will also notice that many other people did the same thing. So, what we did was find areas where the discussion could continue and possible be fruitful, rather than just continue the endless bantering we usually see here. We can sit here and pound on everbody's opinions all day long and get nowhere, but that is not the idea for this thread. So, where are you willing to negotiate? Can you bring anything in that might help us? In order to promote some of your ideas, what would you give up?


And, I missed this when I first read your post:
First, several opinions came forth that I didn't expect. Further, I saw wiggle room for discussion that I have not seen before. Many things came out in this thread that were not "basic positions up front". Willravel would be a one example; I saw places where discussion could continue that I wasn't aware of prior to his comments here in this thread.

Judging by comments by others in this thread, I think many disagree with your assessment/dismissal of this thread and the participants in this thread.

ok, last try. in what follows, i use the word conservative consistently. it refers to the dominant political frame of reference, which is dominated by conservative discourse. it encompasses right political positions and those of moderate democrats who agree with this frame of reference while quibbling about tactics and implications.


on the welfare system: if you understand it historically--that is in the context of the situations that gave rise to it, what its functions and effects were--you find that you have nothing to say about the ways conservative ideology tries to frame the issue. in historical terms, the welfare state is linked to several factors: fear of the left first of all--it was a compromise forced onto the states because the state felt a threat from a possible revolutionary mobilization of the poor. that this was rooted in a very narrow understanding of marxism is beside the point. it is also a result of two or three other recognitions:
1. that market capitalism does not and cannot provide the basis for social stability
2. that the continued existence of the political framework that operates around capitalism requires that social stability be assured
3. that this stability is a public function.
4. that the previous models of "charity"--what would now be called "faith-based initiatives"---were hopelessly inadequate.
but the americans in particular never were able to break with the illusion that poverty is the fault of the poor, so you get a largely punitive welfare system.

the conservative line on this is wholly without context.
it departs from treating taxation as if it was an end in itself designed to punish those who accumulate wealth. this "logic" seems to me obscene. it seperates the fact of wealth extraction from the fact of the social system that enables it. from this viewpoint, the position is incoherent.

it refuses to acknowledge a meaningful role for instruments of public power in redressing social problems--of course infrastrcture for corporate activities is split away from this, and understood as part of creating a "business-friendly environment"
from this split, you can see following arguments that business activity need not take account of social consequences. i do not accept this split.

this position blames the poor for the dysfunctional effects of a system that from the outset was designed to be punitive.

what i think is going on behind the facade here is that the american state--particularly the right--understands that it has no idea how to deal with teh social consequences of integrating the american economy into a more global context. so it is looking to cut its political losses by looking to dismantle state action in problematic areas. the calculation is based on a notion of how to cut political losses for the state in a context of great uncertainty.

i think that conservative views of the welfare state are not adequately thought out in terms of consequences. i think they are not concerned with social stability. i see them as short-term, short-sighted, cynical and misinformed attempts to reduce the political risks for the american state of navigating a transition that will effect working people in particular in very serious ways.

does this mean that i imagine the existing system to be without problems?--no but i think the conservative line on this question is so wrong, so misinformed that it courts disaster if it were to actually be implemented.

see, i live here too.
i do not want to see this kind of damage be done on the basis of such fucked up suppositions.
i do not relish living through the period where the implications of this ideology become obvious to everyone, the right admits gradually that it screwed up or returns to living under an political rock for 30 years, leaving the mess to be cleaned up by others.
i do not see why you would look forward to this either.

that is what i think is up with conservative discourse about welfare. i find the whole of it both disengenuous (in that it does not make its motivations obvious) and false logically and historically.

is there common ground to be found here?

on the matter of the market--it is conventional wisdom in the conservative-dominated american political mainstream to treat markets as quasi-natural formations, ones that float about in an abstract space apart from, say, the legal frames that create them and shape activity within them. from this it follows that this ideology sees nothing specific about capitalist markets--instead it prefers to treat markets as transcendent. i do not see how anyone outside the bizarre world of econ 101 classes can manage to seperate markets, their nature and effects, from history and from politics. conservative ideology is keyed around performing precisely these seperations.


is there common ground here?

does the fact that one might see these basic issues in a fundamentally different way than you do mean that saying so is "not constructive"?

on abortion: the questions raised by opponents of abortion on demand are not compelling to me at all. i think that women should be able to control the disposition of their bodies. period.

i do not accept the conserative suspicion of organization in forms like unions--when they themselves are highly highly organized, when the business interests who are the real constituency of the republican party are highly highly organized--when everyone knows that without organization you have no power--no power at all--in this system. conservative ideology on this is a recipe for wholesale self-disempowerment.
this does not mean that i like the afl-cio model fo thinking about union activity--i think it was a mistake for the americans to opt for sector monopoly models for thinking about trade union activity--this was a result of a particularly american fear of politics--this has a history--you should read about it.


at every point, nothing that i say fits within the terms of debate you woudl prefer to see here. but the question i keep trying to raise is: why are you so unwilling to consider problems with your terms of debate, your frame of reference?

you could have an interesting conversation here if you would open it up.

See this is where I think you are wrong. Plus, I think you misunderstand the concept here.

The main concept is: Are there topics that we can discuss that might actually be fruitful?

We have tons of threads here with everybody pointing out the problems with the other person's position. Has one of these threads led anywhere? Nope, they just go on and on and on until everybody gives up.

What was accomplished? Nothing. We went nowhere. Everybody ended up exactly where they started.

I am trying to see if there are topics that could be discussed, where common ground could be achieved through equal concessions of both sides.

Example: Universal Healthcare.

Did the previous threads about Universal Healthcare go anywhere? No, because nobody was willing to give in a little to their opinion.

Now, after several comments in this thread, we see that the idea can be brought up again and it might actually lead somewhere. We see that people that were against the idea, might consider it, if the discussion was framed correctly.

Are there still topics where we will never be able to find common ground? Of course.

But, as I mentioned in another thread, most of those discussions are way too similar to banging one's head against a wall.

My second thought relates to habits. Right now the habit is to disagree with the other side simply because they are the other side. I think the habit can be broken, but it will require steps.

We start with the easy ones. Both sides give a little and the next thing you know, we have a conclusion that is agreeable to most of us. Sure we started out with an idea that had existing middle ground, but we showed to ourselves and each other that we can move forward--we discover that middle ground isn't a fantasy.

Kinda like football, you don't start out pro, you start out pee-wee.

Then we move on and the chances for success are greater because we have already overcome the hurdle that has been holding us back this whole time.

You are never, ever going to get everything the way you want them to be and neither will I.

So, how do we progress if we aren't willing to give a little to get a little?

Right now, I will not concede one inch to your positions because you offer up nothing in return. That is the core of any negotiation. Why would I concede everything when you concede nothing, it just ain't going to happen.

That is why I am not responding to any of your comments about the free-market, capitalism, welfare, etc.

What is more important to you? To move forward or to stay stuck in the mud, because right now we are spinning our wheels? Wouldn't it benefit you more to get a few concessions made to you rather than none?

What are you willing to hedge on in order to get other people to take a more favorable view on your stances?


As to your last question: open it up how? (the question I have asked you several times)

I am beginning to get stuck in the very quagmire I was trying to avoid, so I would like to move on.

Do you guys think we can take a couple of ideas from this thread and move them onto their own thread? Do you think the ideas will be more fruitful this time?

Based on your reading of this thread, what do you think would be your first choice for a new thread? Second choice?

I will chime in later so as not to appear as I am framing the path for discussion.

I haven't commented on this thread because I didn't understand its purpose. We are looking at how some people's views match, to various degrees, other people's views and then assigning those people to "left" or "right" based on previous discussions? Odd.

But then I saw this and now I understand what the thread is about - finding a "solution".I oppose the concept of concession or compromise. I am not willing to sacrifice my opinion on abortion for the sake of my opinion on welfare. I do not consider compromise or concession to be a solution.

no problem, kma. no need to respond. no need to think about your frame of reference. do as you like. just dont pretend that those who are stuck are those who have tried to raise problems for your "common ground" experiment--it seems to me that it is you who refuse to move--or even think about--the terms that you decide are the center of this "common ground" fabrication.

negociation as a model? negociation presupposes an element of coercion as external parameter. here there really is none of that, except if one chooses to participate in this thread---in which case, the "idea" seems to be to work within a framework that i do not recognize as compelling in order to arrive at some sort of common space with folk i disagree with from top to bottom--you ask of folk who share your political position that they shift a little in order to participate in some well-meaning circle jerk--for others of us, you ask that we trade away everything in order to play with you. and you refuse--still---to acknowledge that you are doing it.

whatever. there are other things to do in the big world. this is a waste of my time.

I think for one to say there is no compromise and that their beliefs are THE only way.... is as small minded and damaging as they claim the other side's ideas to be.

If neither side compromises than one or both have to play to win it all. And we have seen who has won it all..... which I am not happy over but the Dems polarizations cost them far more than helping them.

If you play to win.... you cannot truly be worried about the true health and wealth of our nation. You have in fact lost sight of what will truly help and care only about your agenda.

Abortion: compromise==== allow the states the right to vote, IT is not and should never be a federal case because some states are religious (UTAH) and should have the right to decide how they want to handle the issue. I am sure there are states that would keep abortion legal. IT IS NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE.

Welfare: compromise==== simple if you clean up social programs you must clean up corporate and give workers back rights to form unions and have benefits and decent wages.

Taxes: compromise: find a tax system that is fair, raise tariffs and promote factories to come home and hire people thereby in and of itself raising the tax base. To say factory work is dying is an excuse to keep sending jobs overseas while our workers are stuck in temp jobs, Wal*Marts and McDonald's.

Social Security: compromise==== allow the worker several different plans to pay into and secure their money. I posted an idea a while back that I think could work if people with far more expertise on the subject tweeked out the problems I am too unaware of because I am not an expert in the subject.

Some may say Country states are dead or dying and blah blah blah... it's bullshit. When the USSR broke up countries fought and still fight to be independant. A country is far more than where you live it is your heritage, it is you culture.

For too long we have had people within our own country try to destroy what we have here (i.e. political correctness and all the hyphenated - Americanisms.) We need to be proud of what our country has achieved in her 200+ years and the beauty of the freedom, land and oppurtunities. Granted the oppurtunities are dwindling but not because of government per se, but because of the polarizations and the hatreds the 2 political sides have for each other.

So stop the fucking bickering, look deep within and ask youself what is best for the country and the future for my children and their children and find common ground to work on.

Otherwise, we WILL just be numbers, our freedoms will truly disappear and we will be waste land because people wanted things their way and wouldn't bend.

pan6467 -

Your first few sentences denounce anyone who would not compromise because they therefore only care about their own agenda.

Then you follow that with a list of "compromises", which are, in fact, nothing more than your own "agendas" on specific topics. Why should your offer be considered anything different than my offer?

Abortion: compromise==== it is a womans choice.
Welfare: compromise==== it needs to be increased and optimized to negate class division
Taxes: compromise==== The rich must be taxed far more than the non-rich to negate class division
Secularism: compromise==== the gov't will not endorse, explicity or implicitly, any religion

etc.

Those are all "compromises". Why won't you accept them? Why won't KMA accept them?

I have spent, literally, my entire life formulating my opinions on any of numerous topics. And now you suppose that I must change my opinions in order to reach a solution? I cannot agree to something that is not what I believe to be correct. Changing my opinion for the sake of compromise is not a solution at all. If you want me to agree to something, you must convince me it is right. I will not sacrifice what I believe in to appease you - and that is what compromise is and exactly why I'll have none of it.

Nice compromise, considering it comes from someone whose mother made the right choice and did not abort him.

Reward the lazy.....


....punish the producers. Do you really see that as a solid strategy for advancing the economy?


So we should scrap the Judeo/Christian principles of not stealing, killing, ect...
because of it's implicity?

Well, that's odd. I completly agree with you.
Ever lost your job?
It's a little more complicated then that.
Not stealing, killing ect. is not just Judeo-Christian. It belongs to a whole array of religions, but more importantly it is morality that happens to come from religion. Morality should never be compromised.
I'm assuming you mean "simplicity". It's not a matter of complication or simplicity, it is a matter of safeguarding us from a theocracy. God is not the president of the US, though the president is free to worship God.


Edit: why are we picking apart other peoples beliefs? This post is about finding common ground (I think), not about arguing. There are plenty of posts for arguing in politics.

Very intresting.

We could probably do a whole thread on this, but I'll try to keep it short. So do you think morality comes from religion or does religion come from morality? If the former, does "moral" laws constitute relgious values imposed via govt laws?

I'm not trying to stump anyone here (nor do I really have any answers worth posting), I just find it an intresting topic.

I have many friends who are not religious who are very moral. I have a good friend and ex-roommate from China, where he obviously grew up nonreligious, who is a good and moral person. Morals don't originate solely from religion, and even if they did, certainly not just from Judeo-Christian religions.

Hmmm. Sounds a lot like this philosophy:

"No Compromise is Permitted in Defending Unborn Life"
Pope John Paul II, 11/1/1999

You two could have a very lively conversation.

Yeah, we seem to be degrading here.

Did you guys see my questions to you in my last post? Any input?

If we move forward a bit we may be able to take this to the next step (I hope).

What is the next step? Compromise? What for? Is a mutually agreed upon blending of opinons going to become federal law?

Hardly.

What is the point of this thread? Since when are we not here to continually and endlessly discuss issues? Since when are we supposed to sacrifice our opinion to find "common ground" with 5 or 8 TFP members? What is the benefit of blending opinions into something no one fully agrees with? Is the intent to file the issue away and whenever its brought up again to point to it and say, "oh no need, we've already figured out what to do with that issue"? Or is the intent to pretend like something valuable is being accomplished when we mututally agree upon a solution that no one likes? And if it is neither of those things, what is the intent?

Someone once said:

If you and I both agree on everything, one of us is unnecessary.

This is a discussion board - we're not supposed to agree.

Trying to respond to your last question, shown above above.

So you're trying to make this a jumping point to other threads that have the potential to actually have people switching sides and opening up on issues, yes? Nobel, indeed. What would be my first choice on a spin off with potential? Hmmmm..... I'd be interested in continuing the conversation about the chicken/egg relationship between religion and morality, but that's philosophy. As far as Politics, it seems to me that much that has been mentioned here has been mentioned before and has eventually boiled down to a partisan, polarized left vs. right battle royale...and that's not what we want. I'm going to still read this thread with great interest waiting for the holy grail of Politics: the convergent issue!

Edit: look over in philosophy in a few minutes for the religion/morality thread...

What is the point of your post?

It is for the fun and edification of the people who wish to participate; nothing more, nothing less.

It is an attempt at a different form of communication here that doesn't leave us all with bruised foreheads.

It is an attempt at a better understanding of the people we normally dismiss.

It is because there is an obvious interest, regardless of the numbers.

Everyday we see the same people clashing back and forth (myself included), accomplishing nothing other than getting a chance to type their own rhetoric. Up until this thread, there were things I honestly didn't know about some members here. Some of the things I learned have had a profound affect on how I perceive that member. Other people just reaffirmed my belief that, for some people, the desire to move forward and actually achieve something is over-ruled by the desire to always think they're right.

If this was as bogus as you would like it to be, then the number of people responding here and the number of PM's I have gotten would be a fraction of what they are.

And, for the record, nobody is being asked to lose their principles or to completely change their way of thinking, the idea is to see if there is a meeting place in the middle--that is how progress is usually made. You never get 100% of what you want, you just hope to get as much of what you originally wanted as possible.

Example: I would like to see a flat tax replace our system. You are completely opposed to the idea. Can I convince you that my idea is good and should be 100% accepted by? Not in a million years, regardless of the evidence/argument/whatever. Could you convince me to adopt 100% of what you want? Not a chance in hell.

So, where does that leave us?

Nowhere and getting there fast.

However, if we both sat down and tried to negotiate a plan that would possibly be acceptable to both of us, we might actually get somewhere. Are we both going to get everything we want? Nope.

What do you want more? 100% of nothing or 50% of something?

If you wish to participate, then please do so. If you don't want to participate, then don't. Nobody is forcing you either way.


I will close with a quote from Barbara Sinclair, professor at University of California, Los Angeles that was just sent to me by someone who thought it appropriate (to which, I agree):

LINK

What about Universal Healthcare?

I know it was discussed previously and pretty much went down in flames; I am wondering if it can be brought up again.

Using this thread as a launching point, we know what we expect of each other.

We also might consider agreeing to some basic groundrules and guidelines for any threads that spawn off of this one. That way, we something mutually (well, for the most part) agreed upon that we can hold each other accountable to.

Whaddya think?

p.s. I think it is a bit lofty to look for the grail in the initial stages, but who knows how this will progress.

That's true. It might be good to go after the holy plastic cup first. When you say "using this thread as a launching point", you mean starting another thread right? Sounds good to me. I think the real deciding factor will be the ground rules and the willingness of our respected members to stick to those rules. A lot of good people in Politics have trouble avoiding flaming and being a bit disrespectful from time to time (I've even been giulty a few times myself). I guess all we can do is hope.

On to Universal Healthcare.....

will -

What would you like to see regarding groundrules and guidelines?

I would like to have as many ducks in a row as possible before we start the spin-off thread.

Our chances of success aren't very high, but the chances will go up if we can all pretty much agree on our expectations of each other. If we can keep it civil and if we can hold each other accountable to the standards agreed upon beforehand, it might just go over.

I have spoken with guy44 about a few, but I would like your input before I post my ideas.

/actually laughed out loud on the plastic cup comment.

Oops...I kinda jumped in the pool a bit early. Please feel free to tell me to fix any problems you see with our "first draft" of the experiment. You and guy are probably the fathers of this idea, I'm only the crazy uncle.

Common Ground Experiment #1: Universal Healthcare

Check it out and have fun.

Fair enough.
Desires are nice to have - but there is no "moving forward". TFP is not going to come to a consensus on an issue and then have that consensus enacted into policy. And you left out the most obvious and realistic desire: the desire to have a discussion to enhance perspective.
Nonsense. Britney Spears is a popular musician - that doesn't make her a good one.
But we're not setting policy here. I don't expect, want or need anything from you except for you to provide your perspective on issues. The better you provide your perspective, the more likely I am able to understand it, the better the chance that I will adapt my perspective if I come to the conclusion that it makes sense to do so. But this thread is not designed to educate (outside of your new viewpoints on other members) but rather, it is designed to distill issues down into something that all people agree is not what they believe is right.

Nothing is accomplished by me and you sitting down and mutually agreeing to compromise. Nothing at all.
I wish to question the purpose and effects of this thread. And so I have.
Even if I were to agree with Barbara Sinclair (to be clear: I don't): TFP is NOT Congress. We are not here to make decisions and have them enacted.

Compromise is giving and recieving. Look NOONE is going to give up values and beliefs and not get anything in return. Thet is human nature.

We can go on and keep polarizing our country and eventually we will have all rights taken away because there is compromise in our rights.

Read the battles Jefferson and Addams had when writing the Constitution and why the "Bill OF Rights" were amendments and not placed in the Constitution. It was because of COMPROMISE.

Someone above stated that my examples were pushing my agenda.... no, they weren't.

They were taking what I see as trying to allow both sides footing.

Abortion IS NO, NOT, NEVER, supposed to be a FEDERAL issue. To have made it one cost our country BILLIONS in lawsuits, legislation, enforcement and so on.

Issues such as abortion should be issues dealt within the individual states and therefore both sides have a common ground. If Ohio votes no.... and Illinois votes yes.... then a woman still has her rights to her choice.

(BTW I am pro-choice provided the father signs off.... I do not believe it is just the woman's decision.... that is my view BUT I am willing to compromise for the better of society.)

To offer no compromise and to say "only my views are the truly educated and right views" is to be arrogant, assinine and egotistical. Much of which both sides claim the other to be.....

It's the same as a Baptist Evangelical saying "if you do not believe in Christ as your saviour and in the way we tell you the Bible says, then you are a sinner and going to burn in Hell and blah blah blah." That's very one sided and doesn't tak into consideration any other religion or even other Christian Denominational views.

I have my opinions and I freely give them out and some suck sewer water and some are very interesting to others. BUT I will never claim that my view is the only view and that there aren't better ways or a halfway point I could meet someone at.

It's like saying "I will work but only at what I want to make." Well, you maybe unemployed for a very very long time if you do not compromise.

Without compromise, without seeing both sides and finding the common good for all, mankind will cease to exist. We need give and take and to interact with each other in respectful and beneficial ways. Otherwise just fucking become a hermit, because anyone on this board that says they do not compromise and will not in any way is lieing to themselves and everyone else, or totally insane and someday will snap at a McDonald's or Luby's.

Every day you interact with any other human being (or animal) for that matter there is compromise. And unless you are a psychopathic mass murderer every compromise is for the good of each person or animal.

To me it's like abortion and the death penalty. How can you oppose one yet support another? One side says abortion is murder yet the death penalty is ok because it is an eye for an eye. The other side says, it is a woman's choice, her body and the embryo is not a human (which allows this side to say it is ok), yet the death penalty is evil and murder.... I see both as murder and I see both as necessary.

The death penalty is indeed needed in some cases, and abortion, to me is a necessity, because women will have one legal or not, if they want one bad enough (which is a compromise, because personally, I believe abortion to be murder, however, I cannot nor will not pass judgement on how others live. Not my situation, not my life, I don't truly know why they make the choice they did and they have to live with it.)

So, let's stop this pious, holier than thou bullshit and act like your views are the only ones out there and let ALL OF US work to find ways to better society as a whole.

I don't believe KMA intended this thread to be one for people to say only their beliefs are the ones that are right or to further any agenda of his. I believe KMA may have thought people would discourse and look at the other side and find common ground with which compromise then becomes possible.

COMPROMISE IS NO, NOT, NEVER A SIGN OF WEAKNESS BUT A TRUE SIGN OF STRENGTH.

What are you talking about?

TFP is a place of discussion. There is zero need for compromise in discussion. In fact, compromise is the enemy of discussion.

And no, you were not offering a "compromise" in your issue list above. You presented your opinion on what you believe should be acceptable to other people. And that is exactly what I did. Your list of solutions to issue may not be what you believe is right but that doesn't make them any more of a compromise than my solutions, which I do believe are right. And this is exactly my point: you sacrificed what you believed was right for absolutely no purpose. And not only that, but by virtue you are not presenting what you feel is right anymore - and that hinders discussion.

What, in your opinion, is the ultimate goal of a discussion? Just curious.

To experience alternate perspectives.

And if we're going to actively attempt to turn our perspective into something that is not our perspective but we feel someone else will swallow, we're destroying the ultimate goal of discussion.

In experiencing alternate perceptions, we chance actually broadening our own perceptions. Thast's what we're talking about. This is a reminder that sometimes it's alright to become sympathetic and become more aware of all perspectives. The more perspectives you experience, the more likely you are to have a complete understanding of something. Complete understanding is one of the great goals in life.

This thread is explicitly arguing against broadening perspectives - the goal of this thread is to find a single perspective in which "everyone" has sacrificed the portions of their own perspectives which make them unique.

Everything you said I agree with - except where you attribute it to what you are talking about, because you are not talking about that at all.

I admit to sacrificing if it is to better society as a whole.

I won't sacrifice and compromise with someone who is unwilling to because it would neither be sacrifice nor compromise.

But if someone offers compromise and sacrifice to help better the whole then I should be willing to, and common ground should then be easier to find. Thus society as a whole benefits.

Just because I allow society to do one thing, does not mean I have to participate nor believe in that which I do not believe is right for me.

I believe in order to achieve peace within oneself is to understand self and the only way to understand self is to understand others. Once you understand others, and realize that there maybe common ground IF both want to truly better the society they are in, then you achieve inner peace. (Or at least in my belief.)

I argue things yes. I am very opinionated in other threads ..... BUT this thread presupposes that one can find compromise when BOTH sides are willing. Therefore there is a discussion because you learn that there may be common ground to better mankind, instead of just shouting "MY VIEW IS THE ONLY WAY...... YOURS SUCKS"

However, yes, technically this thread in and of itself promotes that the side that says compromise can be found and is necessary to mankind moving forward.... is an opinion that states it is the only way to move forward, and in a way says that no compromise is wrong.

I still stand by my statement that compromise is not weakness, but true strength.

My opinions are just that. I will not nor will I ever dictate to one my beliefs as being the only way to live. I have not walked in another's shoes nor have they walked in mine. I can share my experiences strengths and hopes with others and they can share theirs and we can learn from each other, thereby, broadening our perspectives and thereby allowing growth.

But then again....... these are my beliefs and opinions.....perhaps, if more people shared them, society would quite possibly get along better. On the other hand... I am just a traveller as everyone else is and therefore my opinions and beliefs are only as valuable as I put value on them.... no more no less.

When I was on a debate team many years ago we were sometimes assigned to take a position opposed to the way we really believed. As you might expect the best debators usually got the upper hand no matter which position they took.

But I did find that debating in favor of and doing research into positions and policies that I did not believe in caused me to re-think some issues and soften my objection to the other side. In the real world I have flip-flopped several times on issues.

I believe it is a lot harder to try and stay open minded about issues that we feel are important instead of taking a hard line and defending it to the bitter end. Universal health care, tax reform and social security private accounts are a few of the hot topics that I am unsure of. I generally approach things from a Libertarian point of view but I am starting to question that in regards to these issues.

At the core.....A lack of compromise, is a lack of growth in understanding. A failure to be flexible simply means we have stopped gathering information that could sway opinion. What possible benefit is ignorance, and what is to be gained in stagnation?

Some of the points made here, especially above by tecoyah, about the ability to be flexible and empathetic, demonstrate what I a few months ago took issue about with this idea of 'flip-flopping'. Id never heard this term previously, yet people seemed to think it was a major negative to possess this characteristic. I could understand that it might demonstrate a lack of conviction or strong belief, in some cases, yet I also saw it as an absolute positive. I thought to myself that life, politics, human interaction is about compromise, empathy and understanding. To be born with a set of rigid ideals and to never sway from them, no matter how the social and/or political climate changed would be folly and backward. Anyway, sorry to derail the thread in anyway, just my two cents.

I completely disagree. To the point that I would not compromise my understanding of the word.

Compromise is not a lack of flexibility or understanding. Compromise is sacrifice. Take what you believe is right, change it so that you can gain supporters. Change it more so that you can gain more supporters.

Flexibility is the ability to digest and comprehend what others are saying and then allow those alternate perspectives to potentially influence your own viewpoint. Flexibility is the ability to change your perspective based on new information. Compromise is flexibility to reach a final solution that you don't agree with but since you are not the only person who has a say in the final solution, you must agree to a perspective that you know is wrong.

Non-compromise does not require non-flexibility.

Compromise is not the inverse of ignorance or stagnation.
I don't know what that means. What is "to better society"? That's entirely subjective. Unless someone is intentionally harming society, everyone is working to better society. KMA might suggest a flat tax system and I'm sure he believes it will better society - I entirely disagree and I'm not going to compromise by agreeing to lower taxes on the wealthy.



Convince me I am wrong and I will change. Tell me I should change so that we can pretend like we're solving something and I will point out the fallacy of that concept. This thread is dedicated to the latter.

Perfection in compromise on TFP:

You: I think we need a flat tax system.
Me: Not even close. The rich require higher taxes to help alleviate the negative effects of class division.
You: But the rich are paying far more than their share in taxes.
Me: OK, I'll agree to a flat tax. I know it's wrong, but we need to compromise.
You: Really? Cool.
Me: ...
You: Now what?

Compromise in an environment of discussion leads to silence.

all this business about compromise makes sense in the abstract.

but in this thread, compromise requires a prior agreement about the terms of debate.
if you feel that you cannot enter into a space shaped by these terms of debate
then compromise becomes nearly impossible.
and the thread has been operating de facto to censor/marginalize attempts to raise questions about these terms of debate.

so in this case difficulty encountered at the threshold of the compromise/common ground game has no relation to stagnation whatever.

in fact, you could easily argue the opposite:
debate oriented toward finding commonalities in a context shaped by terms that remain unexamined, unquestioned serves to work those terms into a naturalized space by moving these terms from problems to assumptions.

once you make that shift, then no amount of debate shaped by them provides the chance to revisit problems that might persist at the level of assumptions--it is the old question of proofs--you cannot examine axioms from within a proof shaped by them.

if the above is the case, then debate (movement, consensus-building) in a space structured by false and/or damaging and/or poorly framed assumptions provides nothing like a counter to stagnation--rather this kind of debate sets stagnation into motion, and by doing that enables folk to pretend that they are moving and growing and so forth while in fact they turn in little circles that prevent them from being able to push at the problems analytically that they claim to be addressing.

this is not a conversation about the value of compromise as such--it is a debate within a very particular space that involves a very particular set of problems. because there is no external coercion involved with shaping that space, there is no requirement that anyone accept the frame of reference within which the it unfolds.

to claim the opposite is simply arrogant.
it assumes that only those who have allowed the shift in terms of debate from problems to axioms have put any intellectual work into the game.
that assumption is simply false.

think of it as a prior cost/benefit thing: the cost of accepting the frame of reference imposed on us by the conservative apparatus is so high, the results so debilitating (if actually trying to understand what is going on around you can be taken as the goal of the political) that the cost of any pseudo-compromise in this or any other space far far outweighs any benefits that you might be able to derive.

but maybe this matter is itself a symptom of the present degenerate state of affairs: you render yourself intellectually abject by accepting the current terms of debate and then get to congratulate yourself for having done so.

yes this is quite a democracy we have in the states.
and quite a fine microcosm we have here.

roach -

Although I agree that the lack of defined parameters to this "common ground" concept would be very problematic to the degree of voiding the concept, it seems that even attempting the concept is a misguided endeavor.

My understanding of your viewpoint on the lack of definition is that without some sense of where each participant is begining, there is no way to justify an act of compromise to reach this thing called "common ground". In essence, there can be no common ground because such a thing presumes that there is a definitive "left" and a definitive "right" which can meet in a definitive "middle". And in that viewpoint, I agree.

But, in the realm of discussion, to even consider it a positive step to chip away at the "left" or "right" viewpoints for the singular goal of achieving a "balance", this common ground, is false. We are not here to set policy, we do not even want to achieve agreement. Agreement, by definition, is the exclusion of alternate viewpoints. Without alternate viewpoints, there is nothing to learn.

or.....
Me: I think we need a flat tax system.
You: Not even close. The rich require higher taxes to help alleviate the negative effects of class division.
Me: But the rich are paying far more than their share in taxes.
You: [insert your comment here]
Me: What if the tax level of the flat tax is consistent with the current tax rates the "rich" pay?
You: No, I want them to pay more than they are.
Me: How much more? To pay for what?

I don't know how you would respond to those questions, so I am not goint to suppose anything.

My point being that any restrictions placed on a discussion are placed there by you.

As you can see, in this case, you might possibly be able to get some of what you want in a flat tax system.

For example (and this is just an example, I don't want to use this thread to debate a flat tax):

Let's say, the flat tax is progressive (which is entirely possible--just because the word "flat" is in there doesn't mean it is a proportional or regressive system).

Let's say the "rich" pay the same amount they are paying now. You could at least be happy with the fact they don't pay less in taxes.

Let's say, as is the case in many countries that instituted a flat tax, government revenue goes up and some of that extra money is earmarked to fund a few social programs that you really believe in. As revenues go up, the "flat tax" goes down (which is something I want). We could negotiate that it doesn't go down as much as I want to help fund some of your programs. You get extra money. The rich still pay a buttload in taxes. I get a flat tax. And, hopefully, the flat tax begins to go down (What I want).

So, in this case, we both give a little and we both get a little. And, rather than remain stagnant, we have moved forward.

I don't know, I look at it this way. You get from the discussion what you give to the discussion. If the only thing you bring to the table is hardline stances that aren't negotiable, that is what you are going to get in return.

Personally, I would rather get some of what I want than none of what I want. The only question for me is what am I willing to concede in order to get some of what I want.

I have no problem whatsoever with conceding.....I do it everyday......I'm married.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion - I'm expressly arguing against the restriction of intentional compromise for the sake of compromise.
I'm not clear what I am supposed to have "gotten" from that, beyond the fact that you are presenting a discussion of the topic. What you then suggest is that we should all agree to disagree. Since this compromise you speak of is not actually going to be implemented anywhere, you are ultimately arguing that we all disagree too much and we need to start agreeing by chipping off bits and pieces of what we each feel is correct in order to reach that agreement. An agreement that we all disagree which can then be used to end the disagreement. To end the discussion. That is most certainly NOT moving forward.
I can repeat myself for you: I am flexible, all you need to do is convince me that I am wrong. I am not flexible in the sense that I will accept anything you have to say if I do not think it is right. Why should I? What is there to gain in a discussion by agreeing to something I know is wrong?
Again: what is it that you think you are "getting" here? At the end of the day, TFP is not setting policy. We can compromise until the sun goes out and its not going to change the law. You get nothing other than the end of a discussion.

But ultimately, what I suspected has come to pass: the Common Ground Experiment 1 Universal Healthcare thread is not what was claimed it was to be. It is nothing different than a discussion. It has been weakened because people are altering their positions on health care in order to find someone else on TFP to support them (which I find unsettling) but ultimately, even those unnecessarily weakened positions are simply launching pads for additional discussion. Maybe if everyone weakens their position enough, or one position finds a small majority of support which everyone must then accept (or risk being accused of being stubborn and inflexible), you will reach this final solution, this common ground. But to what purpose? All you have succeeded in accomplishing is the blending of opinion into a singular viewpoint. Now what?

Damn. I actually agree with Manx.

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan20...reezesOver.jpg

First, you make this sound like convincing you of something is an easy task--I would argue that it isn't possible.

Example: Flat tax

Your core belief is that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. Nothing on this planet will convince you to change this opinion.

I don't see you as flexible at all. I don't see you as a person willing to consider another person's viewpoints.

You can agree/disagree with my take on you, but it really doesn't matter as that is the impression of you, left on me, by you.

I have a question for you: Why is this such a big deal for you? Nobody is forcing you to do anything here, so why all the contention?

If this is a form of discussion that some people mutually agree to participate in, what gives you the right to say we are wrong? Why go through this brain damage if it bothers you so much. What gives you the right to judge how we view this exchange? I don't remember ever seeing rules for how a discussion must progress, so why should we think that your way is the only way?

It's not like this is the only game in town.

um..kma ...if you were to isolate the question of the relative percentages paid by the wealthy in taxes from the social functions the redistribution of wealth might serve, then your position might--might--seem reasonable. however the fact is that you cannot simply assume that this separation is itself reasonable.
for myself, i think splitting the conception of taxation/redistribution of wealth from its various functions is insane. untenable at any level.

so i reject the whole of conservative discourse on the matter--i understand that the accumulation of wealth is contingent upon a stable social order (not the "hard work" of horatio alger characters on their own) and that those who benefit from the accumulation of wealth are obliged (ethically, legally, politically) to contribute to the maintenance of the social system from which their profit comes. and at a higher rate than those who do not so benefit. period.

a flat tax is predicated on an entirely abstract--and untenable--illusion of fairness. your proposal presupposes an entire ideology--which you act as though is not operative. that you act in this way changes nothing. and that you would then accuse manx--or anyone else--of inflexibility seems to me absurd. simply because your proposal is not self-contained not self justifying--and that you try, in the name of common ground, to force others into pretending as you do that the situation (your flat tax proposal, the question of whether it is even logical apart from the ideology within which you operate) is otherwise seems to run against the idea you are advocating.

i think this is the kind of thing that those of us who have objected and still object to the parlor game being carried out here are complaining about.

Nonsense. Now you are claiming that if I don't agree that a flat tax system is acceptable, I am therefore unwilling to consider another viewpoint. I could just as easily claim the opposite: I see no evidence that you will ever agree that the rich require higher taxes. Does that mean you are unwilling to consider another viewpoint? No, I don't make that judgement of you.

That you have determined that it is impossible to change my mind is a judgement born of your own perceptions. Much like your judgement that I am unwilling to consider another person's viewpoints. That they are both false is one thing, that you falsely hold me responsible for your judgements is another.
Because this is how we learn. I am actively demonstrating my point.
What gives me the right? I was born with the right to say you are wrong. And as I have said, whether you agree with me is irrelevant. If and when I feel like expressing my judgement that you are wrong, I will do so. I'm not interested in your agreement. If you agree with me, either you have given up (sacrificed) or the argument I have made was compelling. A compelling argument is not a perfect argument so though it may have worked on you, it may fail for someone else - I'm not going to rest on my laurels if it works on you. I'm going to continue to use and adapt my argument based on the quality I perceive in any counter arguments. Your agreement is the furthest thing from my intention - because we are not here to find agreement, we are here to disagree and discuss our disagreements. Why are we not here to find agreement? Because there is no sense in agreement on a discussion forum other than popularity or the intention of winning. Neither of those things hold even a semblance of value. Our agreement does not produce real-world results, it only produces the end of the discussion, the closure of alternative viewpoints.

I really don't understand something here. What is wrong with a constructive thread that leads to some form of hypothetical agreements?

We do not know who all reads these, and with TFP's enrollment, perhaps maybe enough would read a compromise reached that makes sense and people actually started talking about it to friends and so on. Perhaps things could change. Perhaps we have future politicians on this board and if they experience compromise here they can learn.

To say TFP is a small little community and this could never change anything, I think is wrong and small minded. It has helped me change my outlook somewhat.

There are 100's of other threads in Politics to argue, why can't there be one trying to find common good? One where people can say they compromise and find common ground.

I must ask this question. If 1 ONE, thread that reaches for compromise and tries to presuppose we can find common ground and work out some issues doesn't matter and won't change anything.......... then why argue or debate in other threads? In the context you are refusing to try to find common ground because it won't matter, then to debate at all on here won't matter or change anyone's ideas. So what is the purpose? Neither side can win, it just becomes a screaming match and a flame pit.

However, if you can open your mind, think through some scenarios and just imagine for 1 thread, that common ground and compromise could be reached then perhaps a truly constructive and peaceful thread could appear. For just 1 thread having common ground, compromising on issues .... it would have both sides winning and could be perhaps the most optimistic and positive thread on TFP.

Absolutely amazes me people are so filled with hate, anger and self-righteousness that they cannot for 1 thread even TRY to find peace and solutions.

Whoa, any chance we could change your mind on this one? :)

Seriously Manx, this is silly. You're smarter than that.

You totally and completely fail to comprehend my point, though I have repeated myself atleast a dozen times and made significant efforts to describe my point from multiple angles.

I have reached the end of my desire to discuss the matter. So I will do as you are suggesting:

Let's agree to disagree.

Now that we have reached a compromise, this discussion is over.