02-10-2017, 03:51 PM
(02-07-2017, 12:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We face a polarization and conflict in our country. Though essentially beyond the partisan labels, it does cluster around Republicans and Democrats, which we now call red and blue.
What is this contest, or conflict?
I like to see it on many levels. I prefer most of the time to frame it as a contest between ideas, not people. The people on the other side are not my enemies, I like to think. It's the ideas, the delusions and deceptions they hold that must be dispelled.
Bob Butler likes to frame it as a contest between values; we can't hold the values of those we oppose, so we must accept this and accept that people have different values.
I think there's some truth in that, but on the other hand, framing it this way makes it harder to resolve; it says things can't be changed, because values are too hard to change. Whereas if one has a delusion or has been deceived, all one has to do is wake up from it.
Of course, framing the conflict in terms of deceptive ideas, also has its problems. Reading me saying to dispell the deceptions, sounds like I'm saying that I am right and the other person is wrong. Once in a while, a person can be in what's called a contemplative mode, and is willing to listen. In our society today, it appears that less than 10% of the people are capable or willing to listen to the other side. The rest have their minds made up.
When I speak of deceptive ideas, it is not just my ego speaking, because it is not only myself who "knows the truth" and others who don't. It is myself and many others, opposing another and many others. And I like to say that, if I know the truth, it is because I have been open and willing to listen. But the divide remains. If another person is not in contemplative mode, there is little chance I can convince them that I know the truth, and that they are deluded. And they may take is as an insult if I tell them that they have been deceived, and that I know the truth and they don't.
Let's see in my next post if I can frame the contest we are in a little differently.
You are sensing the issue correctly, IMO. I do not agree with Bob that the issue is about values. I think Americans for the most part agree of values. Both sides want to "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". The question has always been (and is) how?
How do you provide of the common defense? Through American global leadership and an expansive force projection of 700+ overseas bases (the "empire") or through narrow definition of homeland defense through a hemispherical naval doctrine and border defenses against illicit entry? Or something in between?
How do you promote the general Welfare? Through a moderately regulated, but otherwise laissez faire capitalism plus a safety net to prevent extreme deprivation, or through a less regulated, but governed, capitalism such as existed from 1942-1965? Or something in between?
How do you secure the blessing of Liberty in a world of creeping authoritarianism (in both parties) in a world than contains ISIS?