Yes, a political post, sort of.
I'm saying this here as well as G+. I'm tired of the extreme partisan politics in this country and particularly tired of the way conservatives and liberals see each other as 'enemies'.
I've talked to a lot of conservatives. Most of them are perfectly sane, reasonable people. A few are complete nutjobs. Guess what? The same's true of liberals. The brand of nuttery is different, but the basic root of it is the same: An inability to tolerate the views and opinions of the 'other side'.
There are people who say liberals can't be intolerant by definition...but many are. They're intolerant of people who hold firm religious beliefs, in many cases, for example.
Now, it's true that 'liberal' views *should* leave the freedom to hold conservative ones. Allowing same sex marriage does not affect the ability of opposite sex people to marry. But many liberals would want to take away the freedom to oppose same sex marriage in one's own community, circle of friends and church. There are people out there who want to sue churches for discrimination.
I'm not a Christian, but I AM a religious person. I don't want my religious freedom taken away, and I refuse to touch anyone else's, even if I disagree with them.
So, I'm posing the question here as well: How do we bring the two sides together, how do we build a society in which there is freedom for everyone, not just those 'just like you'?
I'm serious here. I'm really tired of the intolerance and hate being spouted all over the place. Oh, and could we have some respect for the office of President. Please?
I can't really say that I have any solutions myself. The trouble, I think, is partially in the atmosphere of negativity that has infested our political system. Take a look at the current election (and really, at several before this): it's no longer about "here's what I would do that's good," but about "here's what my opponent is doing that's bad." So I think step one to fixing all this is to somehow get politicians to focus on the positives instead of the negatives.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we need to have a rule in political ads that everyone has to run one political ad complimenting their opponent too? (And no backhanded compliments allowed?) :-P
I also think there's a major problem with the whole two-party system idea these days. It may have been good in the past, but what it seems to do now is prevent moderates from really having anyone to support. Republicans really emphasize their differences from Democrats, and Democrats from Republicans, so they serve as battle lines with extreme viewpoint differences. So...what if I'm against abortion (with some exceptions), which aligns with the Republican platform, but I want the government to take an active role in healthcare, which aligns with the Democratic platform? Sure, there's surely going to be an independent candidate or two who aligns with my views, but the two-party system pretty much ensures that only a Republican or a Democrat will be elected, with independents only serving to affect which of the parties gets more votes by pulling a few away from one or the other.
I honestly think the "two sides" thing is a result of the two party system. If we didn't have every political discussion ever telling us we had to align with one side or another, I think a lot more people would come down to a more moderate view on a lot of things. The ads, the speeches, the interviews...everything encourages you to see someone with a different view as "the other side" and, honestly, to hate them. That's not what this political system is supposed to do. It's supposed to allow the will of the people to be expressed...instead, it has allowed the hate of angry mobs to be expressed. So...I don't know how we do it, I don't know if it's even possible, but I don't see this situation getting better if we don't somehow get rid of this two party system. I don't know that I'd say we have to get rid of parties entirely--again, I can see positives--but somehow we have to spread this out to let more voices matter, and level the playing field to let new voices in at the same level as the others. We need more than a binary choice in government. We need some room for nuance.
If we can't go that far, I don't know...maybe we can let independents vote in the party primaries? That could really benefit things...the party candidates and platforms could both end up more moderate as they have to cater to the voices that don't strongly support one side or the other from the beginning. Right now...independent voices aren't heard until after the candidates are selected, so the strategy tends to be "make a platform that most satisfies my die-hard party line supporters, and then try to scare independents into coming my way too once I'm the candidate." Not good.
We need candidates to stop...I'm not going to say lying, because honestly there's a ton of facts to keep track of in politics and I'm not going to say people are always or even often being intentionally dishonest...but we need them to stop being mistaken about their facts. We need them to do a much, much better job of speaking the truth in a campaign, both about themselves and their opponents. Sure, there will always be "coloring" the facts to look better for you, but...a quick look at fact-checking sites reveals that both "sides" aren't even getting close to accuracy this election. (To be con’t)
Regarding the office of president: absolutely. We've seen the man and the office disrespected to an incredible degree for years. Clinton, Bush, Obama...all of them have received virulent and insulting criticism that shows an utter disrespect for the highest office in the land. And it isn't just because people are in the other party, sometimes! I recall having to defend Obama's reputation from people for months after he was elected...when I didn't vote for him, and they did! (to be con't)
DeleteOn religion...it's depressing how much negativity I see about it on an almost daily basis. I can see why, on some level. I mean, we see self-righteous religious zealots all over the place, from every faith, and we see the violence caused at least in part by religion around the world, but...can't we remember that extremists are extremists, regardless of the origin of their extremism? Extremists "affiliated" with a particular faith shouldn't be taken as representative of the whole. Religious people have been violent, but they have also provided comfort and peace, beautiful art, help for those who most needed it...the same as atheists have. A person isn't evil simply for being an atheist, and nor is a person evil simply for being religious.
People are absolutely free to express their opinion and I believe strongly in the freedom of speech...but I think somewhere along the way we've forgotten our manners, and forgotten that when we disagree we can just step back, cool down, and even if we can't resolve our differences, we can still like each other. A person who holds an opposing view isn't someone to hate or to speak of with extremist language or describe in over-the-top terms.
To conclude my wandering, multi-topic post, a note on freedom. We want freedom of speech. We want freedom of religion. We want freedom to do and to speak and to believe and all sorts of things. We need to recognize that as part of that, we are inevitably going to encounter people who believe or say or do something we find disagreeable or even offensive. That's part of freedom. Yes, there are people who abuse freedoms to do things that are horrible (such as the recent film that caused such a stir)...but that is part of freedom. If we want to form a society which provides freedom for everyone, we have to actively pursue protecting the rights of those who disagree with us or even hate us to say that they disagree with us or even hate us. If you want freedom, support the freedom of the person who opposes you. Don't shut them down, or they'll shut you down. Let them speak--heck, encourage people to hear them. Show your openness to opposition.
You know what? If you do that--if you show that you don't mind if they talk and indeed you'll even encourage people to hear them out rather than trying to shut them up by yelling louder--I think you'll be changing some minds in the process. What'll get a better reaction from you? A person who tells your friend to shut up every time he expresses his view, or one that says to others, "Hey, listen...I've got a different view on things, but this guy's presenting a well-reasoned point. Why don't you come and hear him out, and then later maybe you can hear me out too?"
Sorry...this ended up huge, but you hit on an issue that I definitely have felt strongly about for years now. I think we've been seeing the rise of extremism all over the place in this country and this world, and I very much hope we can step back from the brink before something terrible comes of it.
In some states, independents are allowed to vote in party primaries, actually. I know...I live in one of them.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I have voted in both Republican and Democratic primaries (you aren't allowed to vote in both on the same day, but there is no rule saying you can't vote in, say, the Republican primary for President and then the Democratic one for Congress). Some people say THIS is dishonest, but I disagree.
And while we don't agree on some things...we agree on the most important thing.
Reasonable, sane people can discuss, for example, abortion, with nobody getting mad (Now, don't get me started on it or you'll be here all day, but...)
I think that one of the contributing factors to the increasing polarization and craziness on both sides is the Internet, Cable-TV and the 24-hour news cycle.
ReplyDeleteThe Internet (and 500-channel Cable/satellite TV) make it possible in a way that it wasn't previously to really isolate oneself and only ever hear from/interact with people with whom you already agree. It's much easier to see folks on the other side politically as "the enemy" when you rarely if ever have to engage with them, and you're constandly living in a bubble of people who share and reinforce your views 24/7.
The 24/7 news cycle means that politicans have to be constantly on the attack or immediately responding - there's no time for reasoned debate, no time to think something through. It's shoot first, ask questions never, all the time. And as a politican or candidate, you can't not do it, because then you'll find yourself on the defensive, and quickly out of office.
And the 24/7 cycle (along with the 500 channels) means both that there's endless time and space for news - but that means that you need to be louder, edgier, more aggressive, more shocking, in order to be heard above the constant noise. And that leads to more extreme polarization, too.
The problem is, I don't see how we can easily address those things without losing all the benefits that we get from the Internet and a 24/7 connected world.
I go out of my way to engage people I don't agree with on G+. I've had to block two or three of them for personal attacks, deleting my comments, or otherwise not engaging in a civilized manner, but...amazingly...I can talk to MANY social conservatives about the hot button issues without anger on either side.
DeleteI think that each side sees the other as a danger to their way of life, and that doesn't have to be true.