Why both parties are destroying the country

[VolsMcGee]

We have come to a point in our history where Democrats and Republicans are unwilling to compromise with each other. The recent issues in Congress shows why this is dangerous. Both parties are becoming increasingly more extreme right/left, which is making it harder for us to create a middle ground. This is also causing a large division in the general population. Today you either have to be a Dem or a Rep. If your a Dem then automatically all Rep all wrong, and vise-versa.

A month ago my little cousin in Colorado ran out of his day care place crying because two of the boys called him a retard for his family being Republicans. Five days ago one of my friends had an axe put through his front window in the middle of the night in his own driveway, And on the rear window they wrote "leave now ******" in paint and an arrow pointing to his Obama 08 bumper sticker.

This isn't the general population's fault though, because the news corporations such as Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN so heavily lean towards one party it's ridiculous. It's like there's no attempt at writing unbiased journalism anymore. In turn, our political sphere has turned into a shouting match. It's the "you're either with us or against us" mentality.

I guess what I'm trying to get out of this is don't just watch one News channel to get your facts and shape your opinions. Chances are, they twisted the facts to look a certain way. Don't just write off what someone else says just because they have a different opinion then you. Listen to what they say, and try and look at it in their shoes. Empathy will take us far. And probably MOST importantly, don't believe that you have to subscribe to everything a political party believes just because you think conservatively or liberally.

YOU have the ability to think for yourself. And at this point in the United States, it's incredibly important for the population to start doing this. Remember the old adage "United We Stand Divided We Fall." We are all Americans, and we all want what's best for the country. Let's get congress to understand that things cannot continue in the direction they are heading.

I hope somebody read this, and I hope it managed to at least make somebody think.

 

[GAVol]

I don't think we're anymore partisan than we ever have been. It's just that everybody has access to a camera or a microphone at a moment's notice now and we can actually see and hear it all.

 

[n_huffhines]

One major issue is that the news sources have to play this game where they pretend they are balanced. Because CNN viewers think it is balanced, CNN can more easily mislead them. Same with Fox News. There is no such thing as objective journalism. It's an unrealistic ideal. I prefer news sources that are honest about where they are coming from (which basically eliminates all major news sources).

 

[sjt18]

I agree. Everyone should adopt my political pov then we can have harmony and prosperity....

In all seriousness though, there is a very real ideological fight going on. You may not like it but there really is no "compromise" between those points of view. They are libertarianism and statism. Libertarianism is not equivalent to "conservative" in our modern spectrum but they share alot. Progressives/liberals are not statists on the level of Stalin but they very much believe in a system where elites and intellectuals engineer society for the outcome that is best "for all".

L's believe that each individual is sovereign and the rightful inheritor of "rights". That the only just gov't is the one that respects the rights, freedoms, and responsibilities of the individual. They believe a society is more likely to be peaceful, just, and prosperous if governed by "good" individuals acting according to the dictates of their own conscience.

S's believe that the collective is sovereign... group rights... and that ultimately everything belongs to the state (collectively not individually). (That is where the idea of calling tax cuts "spending increases" comes from). They believe society is more likely to be just and peaceful if not prosperous when governed by "good" government acting according to the decisions of an elite political class.


What compromise would you propose between those who want a smaller, less intrusive gov't and those who want a larger gov't with more influence and control in our lives?

What do you call "compromise" between those who think gov't should shrink in real terms and dollars and those who believe gov't should grow and say that anything less than an 8% annual increase in gov't spending is a "draconian cut"?

 

[JayVols]

OP, glad to know that I'm not the only one out there that feels this way.

GA, I know that there have been very partisan times in the past, but you hit on something about the cameras. Before, most of the partisan wrangling was done away from prying reporters' eyes. Not so today. We also have (for the lack of a better term) more militant political commentators on the air representing both sides. They encourge the 'all or nothing' strategy. It seems to me that all candor and civility is in danger of extinction. This is an indictment of both parties.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

One major issue is that the news sources have to play this game where they pretend they are balanced. Because CNN viewers think it is balanced, CNN can more easily mislead them. Same with Fox News. There is no such thing as objective journalism. It's an unrealistic ideal. I prefer news sources that are honest about where they are coming from (which basically eliminates all major news sources).

I wonder if the OP thought about what he was asking for. When has a one party system ever been good for a people? When has one news source ever been reliable for presenting the truth?

We had the kind of unity the OP asks for in the political class from around 1910 to 1980. Pretty much all of the roots of our current mess can be found during that period.

What he's seeing is that someone has finally gotten their voice and screamed "the emperor has no clothes"... not necessarily popular to tell the truth.

 

[sjt18]

OP, glad to know that I'm not the only one out there that feels this way.

GA, I know that there have been very partisan times in the past, but you hit on something about the cameras. Before, most of the partisan wrangling was done away from prying reporters' eyes. Not so today. We also have (for the lack of a better term) more militant political commentators on the air representing both sides. They encourge the 'all or nothing' strategy. It seems to me that all candor and civility is in danger of extinction. This is an indictment of both parties.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Not even close to being true. In the early years of our country, the press divided and viciously attacked each other and candidates/leaders. Duels were fought over political differences. Leading up to the Civil War, a Senator from SC used his cane to beat a northern Senator on the floor of the Senate.

I have asked you before... what does compromise look like between those who want a smaller less intrusive gov't and those who want a bigger more involved gov't?

 

[JayVols]

Respect and rigid ideology are not mutually exclusive.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[GAVol]

We had the kind of unity the OP asks for in the political class from around 1910 to 1980.

Not sure I'd agree with that.

 

[sjt18]

Respect and rigid ideology are not mutually exclusive.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I would agree with that in principle. We CAN treat each other with civility if we choose to. But we MUST aggressively challenge ideals and ideas. I am attacked fairly often here for aggressively going after people's ideas and methods. In truth, I have nothing but good will for anyone here... except maybe gibbs because he's a fake.... maybe LG... but I want the best for him/her too.

If I go over the line and call someone names or mistreat them... I hope that someone will call foul. It should not be necessary to defeat someone's ideals.

 

[sjt18]

Not sure I'd agree with that.

Look at the history and policies of the era. Gov't grew under both Republicans and Dems. They did not really disagree about the idea of "good gov't"... only in what form it would be manifested. For a good portion of the century, both were hawkish. Nixon was about as Progressive as they come in many ways. He LOVED the power of gov't and certainly did not want it curtailed in any way.

Goldwater was landmark in that he gave breath and voice to the pre-Progressive ideal of American libertarianism. It crystalized, or began to, politically in Reagan and then in the 94 revolution. The Tea Party may represent the next stage of re-emergence of the original American ideal. In one respect, that makes me hopeful... but in another... I am not sure the country can handle it. Too many have become dependent.

 

[JayVols]

I foresee a future full of gridlock. 'My way or the highway' from anyone is not very conducive in getting anything done.

Both sides will continue a scorched earth policy. The rigid ideologues will fiddle while American burns to the ground due to paralysis. Politicians are too beholden to special interest groups to care about the average citizen.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

I foresee a future full of gridlock. 'My way or the highway' from anyone is not very conducive in getting anything done.

Why not? What do you want to get done?

My way or the highway is a very effective way of getting things done... not always the best things.. but you always get "something done". Compromise is very often the worst of all ways to get something done.

The best way is usually when people agree on a common set of values and ideals and on an ultimate goal. The left and the right in this country have very real and mutually exclusive values and goals.

If you stand at a crossroad, you can choose to go one way or the other... but it is disastrous to try to go two different directions at once.

Both sides will continue a scorched earth policy. The rigid ideologues will fiddle while American burns to the ground due to paralysis. Politicians are too beholden to special interest groups to care about the average citizen.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Doing nothing is better than throwing gas on the fire. Doing nothing is better than compromising to throw a little water and alot of gas on the fire.

What do you actually propose Jay? What is "compromise"? What would that look like and how would it actually help?

Let me propose a compromise. Gov't absorbs around 25% of GDP right now. In 1900... it was around 5%. I propose we reduce gov't and cap it at 15% of GDP. Agree? Why or why not?

 

[JayVols]

Why not? What do you want to get done?

My way or the highway is a very effective way of getting things done... not always the best things.. but you always get "something done". Compromise is very often the worst of all ways to get something done.

The best way is usually when people agree on a common set of values and ideals and on an ultimate goal. The left and the right in this country have very real and mutually exclusive values and goals.

If you stand at a crossroad, you can choose to go one way or the other... but it is disastrous to try to go two different directions at once.


Doing nothing is better than throwing gas on the fire. Doing nothing is better than compromising to throw a little water and alot of gas on the fire.

What do you actually propose Jay? What is "compromise"? What would that look like and how would it actually help?

Let me propose a compromise. Gov't absorbs around 25% of GDP right now. In 1900... it was around 5%. I propose we reduce gov't and cap it at 15% of GDP. Agree? Why or why not?

We have a fundamental difference of beliefs. I would sit down with you in good faith to work for a solution we both could live with and would help the nation. That's what I would do.

I believe in working with each other to find a solution.

You seem to subscribe to holding your breath until you get your way. It's the burn this mutha down mentality.

That's what I think is wrong with America. We are eating each other alive. I believe the most important thing is to resuscitate our nation, not get my way.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VolsMcGee]

I wonder if the OP thought about what he was asking for. When has a one party system ever been good for a people? When has one news source ever been reliable for presenting the truth?

We had the kind of unity the OP asks for in the political class from around 1910 to 1980. Pretty much all of the roots of our current mess can be found during that period.

What he's seeing is that someone has finally gotten their voice and screamed "the emperor has no clothes"... not necessarily popular to tell the truth.

You are vastly misinterpreting what I was trying to say. I'm not saying we need a one party system at all, that would be terrible, and one news source would be far worse.

I'm saying that the two party system needs to stop moving in such extremes, as it will make it impossible to compromise. Otherwise, we just have a room of people yelling at each other from opposite ends, and nothing will ever get done. Whatever progress the president of one party creates, the next president of the other party will just erase it. Nothing will ever get done. Civility, rationale, and the ability to look beyond our own stubbornness will help to ensure that our country doesn't end up being stuck in a rut because they can't make rational arguments when the other party is yelling at the top of their lungs. Both parties are responsible for doing this exact thing.

I'm saying people need to try and research the facts themselves instead of accepting what their favorite news networks says is happening. I'm saying people need to look at what the other person is saying, and try and understand where they are coming from.

Also, I don't really know what the whole "the emperor has no clothes thing" has to do with what I'm saying. I just want people to think beyond what the news corporations backed by their respected political parties are saying.

 

[VOLatile]

It's the system that's the root of the problem, not the parties. The system is too vulnerable to lobbying and other political influence. Replace the Republicans and Democrats with any other two parties and you'll get the same thing.

 

[JayVols]

You are vastly misinterpreting what I was trying to say. I'm not saying we need a one party system at all, that would be terrible, and one news source would be far worse.

I'm saying that the two party system needs to stop moving in such extremes, as it will make it impossible to compromise. Otherwise, we just have a room of people yelling at each other from opposite ends, and nothing will ever get done. Whatever progress the president of one party creates, the next president of the other party will just erase it. Nothing will ever get done. Civility, rationale, and the ability to look beyond our own stubbornness will help to ensure that our country doesn't end up being stuck in a rut because they can't make rational arguments when the other party is yelling at the top of their lungs. Both parties are responsible for doing this exact thing.

I'm saying people need to try and research the facts themselves instead of accepting what their favorite news networks says is happening. I'm saying people need to look at what the other person is saying, and try and understand where they are coming from.

Also, I don't really know what the whole "the emperor has no clothes thing" has to do with what I'm saying. I just want people to think beyond what the news corporations backed by their respected political parties are saying.

Your views are not libertarian (little L) enough and will be treated as nonsensical rubbish. There is no middle ground. Resistance is futile.

/sarcasm

I happened to agree with you.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

We have a fundamental difference of beliefs. I would sit down with you in good faith to work for a solution we both could live with and would help the nation. That's what I would do.

You are trying platitudes to answer concrete questions. you are a smart guy. I know that. Tell me what the compromise between two mutually exclusive things looks like.

Let's say you are a Progressive and want gov't to grow by say 8% plus the 15% or so Obamacare would cost. I as a conservative want gov't shrunk by 40% in real terms. I want to see SSI privatized. I want to see Medicare and Medicaid phased out in favor of private or state solutions. I want to see the federal gov't out of education completely.

What would compromise look like between us?

I believe in working with each other to find a solution.

A solution for what? Progressives and libertarians do not even agree on what the problem or goal is.

You seem to subscribe to holding your breath until you get your way. It's the burn this mutha down mentality.

However you want to characterize it. I do not consider it "compromise" if I want gov't to shrink and the "compromise" has it growing at 3X the rate of inflation. I am smarter than to believe that giving the other side what they want at a slightly slower pace is somehow a win/win... a solution we can both live with.

Tell you what. Let me set the terms for the negotiation and then we'll "compromise", OK? I want gov't to shrink at 40% but will compromise to 30%... What do you say?

That is in large measure what this is all about. The left has successfully set the choices as mammoth gov't, really big gov't, or big gov't... and characterizes anything less than big gov't as "extreme" or "radical".

That's what I think is wrong with America. We are eating each other alive. I believe the most important thing is to resuscitate our nation, not get my way.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

So we've come full circle... again. What does a "resuscitated" nation look like? What difference should it make to me if you eat me alive quickly or slowly? To me a resuscitated nation is a return to limited gov't. It is shrinking the size of the Federal gov't from around 25-30% of GDP down to around 15% max. It is about getting rid of the income tax that has been used to manipulate the nation's people and violate their rights. It is restoring the sanctity of individual rights and liberty, originalist constitutional rule of law, and personal responsibility. It is getting gov't out of our lives, homes, businesses, and pockets.

How are you not insisting on having your way? Ostensibly if you are arguing from the liberal pov you are simply demanding to get your way but not as quickly as you would have wanted.

What exactly does compromise between smaller gov't and larger gov't look like?

I'm not just trying to bust your chops. I am trying to get you to see this from the perspective of a libertarian/conservative.

The best analogy I can think of is UT's recent series with UF. It hasn't been pretty. UT hasn't won in awhile. Would you consider a 30 pt losses as opposed to 40 pt losses an outcome that we could live with?

The federal gov't in 100 years has grown from something around 5% of GDP to 25% plus. Obamacare would have carried us up to close to 40%. That is what "compromise" has gotten conservative/libertarians. Give a little... then a little more... pretty soon the frog is boiled.

 

[sjt18]

I'm saying that the two party system needs to stop moving in such extremes,

Define extreme. I think extreme is a gov't large enough to give you anything you want... and to take anything you have. I think a gov't any larger than 15% of GDP is "extreme".

as it will make it impossible to compromise.

Maybe you are willing to give me a straight answer. What does compromise between those who want the size and scope of gov't to shrink dramatically and those who want it to grow pretty dramatically look like? There are two fundamentally different visions in competition here.

Whatever progress the president of one party creates, the next president of the other party will just erase it.

What would you call "progress"? I am asking serious and not rhetorical questions here. I really want to know what you think and why. To me, progress would be shutting down the department of education and returning the full authority for education back to the states. To me, progress would be privatization of SSI. I would like to see an end to federal welfare from the board room to the boarding house.

I would call a trend back toward our founding ideals to be "progress". I would call a trend toward a larger, more powerful state to be "regression".

Nothing will ever get done. Civility, rationale, and the ability to look beyond our own stubbornness will help to ensure that our country doesn't end up being stuck in a rut because they can't make rational arguments when the other party is yelling at the top of their lungs. Both parties are responsible for doing this exact thing.

Once again, if you can't even agree on the goal or end you are pursuing... how can you make a "rational" argument to each other? What good would it do if you could?

I don't necessarily think the Progressive ideas and policies are "irrational" if you believe in group rights and gov't control/provision and social engineering. I disagree with where the left wants to go... how they want to get there is nowhere near as important as the end they have in mind.

I'm saying people need to try and research the facts themselves instead of accepting what their favorite news networks says is happening. I'm saying people need to look at what the other person is saying, and try and understand where they are coming from.

Could not agree more. That's what I am trying to do here.

Also, I don't really know what the whole "the emperor has no clothes thing" has to do with what I'm saying. I just want people to think beyond what the news corporations backed by their respected political parties are saying.

For years the establishment GOP has pretended to be the "conservative" foil to the Progressive Dems. Compromise has for 100 years moved the nation inexorably toward the policy goals of the left/Progressives. The whole thing has been a sham. So the Tea Party arises and calls it what it is... and refuses to play that game... and asserts conservative/libertarian/constitutionalist values... and who gets blamed for exposing the mess we've all sensed was there the whole time? You guessed it.

 

[VolsMcGee]

OK, I'll try to write in a way where maybe you can see where I'm coming from.

What would you call "progress"? I am asking serious and not rhetorical questions here. I really want to know what you think and why. To me, progress would be shutting down the department of education and returning the full authority for education back to the states. To me, progress would be privatization of SSI. I would like to see an end to federal welfare from the board room to the boarding house.

I would call a trend back toward our founding ideals to be "progress". I would call a trend toward a larger, more powerful state to be "regression".

Then we have a vast different idea as to what is progress. I think our founding ideals were very important, but I think they get misconstrued. Our founding fathers were, by far, some of the most intelligent people that ever lived. None the less, times have changed drastically since then. Black people are no longer slaves, we don't kill Native Americans because we want their land, and women have some form of equality. You have to understand that our ideals need to change with the times. It's a completely different world than it was 300 years ago, and even more different 100 years ago. In fact, each decade the world changes more and more. The invention of the internet (which was not invented by Al Gore) has changed the world more than the printing press. We can instantaneously communicate with anyone in the world at any time, and virtually everything is used by increasingly new technology. If we do not change with it, we are doomed to get left behind. The US is great, but it's not invincible.

That's why I also believe we need to fix the educational system. We are so behind other countries because school is basically a conformist environment where all that matters is the bottom line. Kids don't have the drive to learn, they just want to get good grades. Considering your Tea Party statement, and I'm just guessing, I'm assuming you want a limit on government control on education so that religion can be put back into schools. I'd be fine with teaching Christianity in schools, as long as it's an optional class, and there are other religious choices for classes for kids to take. Religion provides good moral compass, and it would surely help some kids. But if a kid does not want to take any religion class, he should also be free to do so. What's so much the difference between what the nation puts out and what the state puts out? I suppose you could say "Well the states should still have the freedom to teach what they want, and if a kid doesn't like it then their family should leave the state and find another place" I feel like that's not creating an environment of equality, people should be free to learn in an environment that's comfortable throughout the country. If a family just REALLY wanted a school a that instilled religious beliefs, then they can go the private school route.

I would try to say more, but I feel like I'm not gonna get anywhere, which is sad. All I can do is hope MAYBE you can see where I'm coming from here. Times have changed. People have changed. Society has drastically changed. And our country is in a state of economic distress. Right now is not the time to return to founding ideals, but instead we should focus on finding new and creative ideas to fix our economy. Otherwise, China and the other progressing countries will leave us in the dust.

 

[VolsMcGee]

It's the system that's the root of the problem, not the parties. The system is too vulnerable to lobbying and other political influence. Replace the Republicans and Democrats with any other two parties and you'll get the same thing.

I understand that. For some reason the two party system has always been able to work, because it divides people into this or the other. I feel like if people focus on electing PEOPLE and not PARTY MEMBERS, our country would be a lot less problematic. The issue is, how are we going to find a way to create an equal atmosphere for people to get their chance at showing why they should be elected? And how do we get people to actually try and care about the political system? It's a lot easier to vote when you someone has an R or D by their name, because you pretty much already know what they stand for.

If we can figure out how to get the general population more informed, then there may not be a need for political parties.

 

[sjt18]

Ideals do not change with time. They can be abandoned. You can adopt other ideals. You can apply the same ideals differently. But the concept that people should be sovereign and are entitled to individual rights is a concrete "ideal". The fact that the founders did not consistently apply the principles they so nobly espoused... does not negate the truth of those principles.

You seem to be a pretty thoughtful guy. Just decide what your hope and vision is then advocate things that will get us there. I truly can respect someone who differs from my ideals... as long as they have thought it through with consistent logic. Do you want us to be a free nation and people with rights and responsibilities or do you want a more centralized model where gov't provides more and makes more decisions for people?

 

[sjt18]

I understand that. For some reason the two party system has always been able to work, because it divides people into this or the other. .

There is a measure of accountability when they compete. However when they wink at each other and play games... it ceases to be. The remedy IMO is to "dissolve" the problem. If abuse of power and corruption are the problem... decentralize the power so there's little to abuse and less motive to corrupt.

 

[JayVols]

There is a measure of accountability when they compete. However when they wink at each other and play games... it ceases to be. The remedy IMO is to "dissolve" the problem. If abuse of power and corruption are the problem... decentralize the power so there's little to abuse and less motive to corrupt.

Serious question. Didn't this idea prove ineffective under the Articles of Confederation?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[NEO]

It's the system that's the root of the problem, not the parties. The system is too vulnerable to lobbying and other political influence. Replace the Republicans and Democrats with any other two parties and you'll get the same thing.

Very, very true.

Power structure breaks to rigidly ...

left plays to the poor and extremely (billionaire ) out ofd touch rich

right plays to the 50k to a couple million a year range.