Common Ground

[Pangloss]

This thread is intended to talk about the larger issue of common ground in modern politics, but I thought I'd actually start things off with a small set of specific examples. These examples come from a new book released October 9th by Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas. Beckel is a Democratic strategist who's mostly known as the guy who first translated the term "where's the beef" into the political arena. Thomas is a conservative columnist in national syndication. Both have had done their fair share of polarization over the years, but they say they're tired of it and their new book proves the point (or so they say; I haven't read it yet). They also do a regular column on the same subject for USA Today.

 

Here are a few examples of common ground that they raised in their column introducing the new book. The full article can be read here:

 

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/common-ground-a.html#more

 

Point #1: Revealing the Pork

 

If you ever want to unite voters, just fritter away their tax dollars on pork projects. Roll around like a pig in mud. Well, both parties have been comfy at the trough, but conservative Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois finally forced members of Congress to attach their names to any new pork barrel spending so that citizens know the cost and reason for such projects. No longer is Congress going to get away with slipping billions in hidden earmarks in the dead of the night. Coburn and Obama deserve common ground kudos.

 

Point #2: A Plan for Iraq

 

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., has earned an attaboy for providing leadership on a non-binding resolution that calls for "federalism," or decentralized power-sharing, in Iraq. In effect, it's the partitioning of the country. That's something we called for in this space last year. In September, Biden assembled a coalition that included 26 Republicans, and the measure passed 75-23.That's stunning unity in a largely divided Senate. Though non-binding, it's the right vision given the reality in Iraq today. Iraq's borders were arbitrarily drawn more than 80 years ago by Britain's Sir Percy Cox using a red pencil and an empty map of Arabia. Biden's proposal for partitioning the country might produce far better results.

 

Point #3: Hillary, Newt and health care

 

Bob: So Newt Gingrich, Hillary Clinton and a rabbi are sitting in a bar ... OK, OK, I know this sounds like a bad joke, but the former Republican House speaker and the New York senator really have teamed up on a common ground approach to health care reform to ensure more accurate medical records. Their idea would save money and likely some lives as well. The bill they support calls for electronic health networks that provide physicians instant access to patient records while eliminating costly paper records. It wasn't too long ago Gingrich called Clinton's previous efforts at health care reform effort — the 1993 debacle — "centralized bureaucratic socialism." Clinton has conceded, "It's a bit of an odd fellow, or odd woman, mix." I mean, if these two can see eye to eye ....

 

Cal: I like that, too. And I'll tell you something else. Rather than rushing headlong into a gigantic federal "fix" on health care, how about some confidence-building measures like the Gingrich/Clinton proposal? The government does not do many things efficiently or at a reasonable cost. On health care, I'd like to start small and measure success incrementally, before handing over too much power on a grand scale. What's encouraging is that a prominent Republican and prominent Democrat had a meeting of the minds on a very, very important issue. I'd love to see such efforts duplicated in Social Security reform, Medicaid reform and the other monumental issues of the day.

 

The article has some further points, but I'll stop there and let you read it. The point I want to get at in this thread is to try and answer the following questions:

 

1) Is partisanship helping or hurting?

 

2) Is it getting worse or no?

 

3) Can common ground be found in most issues?

 

My opinion is: Hurting, yes and yes. What do you think?

[Sisyphus]

1) Obviously it hurts quite a bit, since by definition it is more about beating the other side than accomplishing anything positive. If you oppose something because of who said it, you're pretty much guaranteeing you won't accomplish anything, because for that you need consensus.

 

That said, partisans - even unreasonable and inflexible partisans - do have a role, I think. Basically, they guarantee diversity of views (if no matter what I say, you argue the opposite, at least we'll have two opinions!), they force our leaders to work to keep the public on their side, and they prevent anyone from becoming too powerful. It's the same principle, really, as competition in a free market, or in the value of cultural diversity. If, for example, there is no religious majority, but only a weak plurality, nobody can establish a theocracy. Similarly in politics (or in science, or any number of things), controversy prevents complacency and thus promotes progress.

 

Of course, their function doesn't work if everyone is a partisan, because then there is nobody to win over, and no real discourse in which to inject their views. The ideal balance, I suppose would be a majority of open-minded, consensus-seeking "synthesizers," while still maintaining a healthy and diverse crop of inflexible idealogues. We should listen to our staunch partisans, we just should just try not to elect them.

 

2) I think it's very bad, but I don't think it's getting worse. Bitter, entrenched partisanship reached a peak around he 2004 elections, I think, and now it's not really getting worse, if only because it can't without an actual civil war. I'm optimistically guessing that people are starting to get tired of it, after seeing just how long not seeking common ground has gotten us nowhere. Interestingly, I think Bush's spectacular unpopularity is both a cause and an effect of this, since to most people he has come to represent (accurately, I believe) just that kind of, inflexible, black and white, why should I listen to you if I already know you're wrong kind of attitude.

 

3) Yup.

[DrDNA]

1) Is partisanship helping or hurting?

I think that political partisanship can bring out our worst tribal instincts. My tribe's good, your tribe is bad (I bang my drum all day and stick you with a spear tomorrow)......my team's number one, your team stinks....my party is the party of strong family values, your party is evil, it's the anti-God paty, the party of baby molesters....etc.

In theory, partisanship might provide some sort of check and balance. But, unfortunately in practice there seems to be too much politcal incentive to go on the attack, regardless of reality, whether a particular positision is "good" or "bad" for the country or the people. Of course the reverse is also true. I am convinced that the addition of a 3rd (and then a 4th, and so one and so forth) viable political party would help to dilute the negative effects of partisanship.

 

2) Is it getting worse or no?

I guess a logical response might be: as compared to when?

I belive that it has gotten worse in my adult, polically aware lifetime, but it could also be that I am more aware now than I was previously. Or perhaps I am just more jadded now than I was previously.

 

3) Can common ground be found in most issues?

Of course it can be found on most issues. But perhaps not at the extremes. For example, abortion may be an example of an item where it is often difficult to find common ground because there may always be people firmly for or against it; no matter what.

 

The bigger problem may not be finding the common ground on most issues. I think that the bigger problem is finding people with enough spine and fibre to actually move toward the common ground after it is found. For example, we only need one explorer to discover common ground, but then we need a few and later a whole bunch more brave people to move onto the common ground, defend it, and populate it, etc.

Logic is not the strongest quality of the human species, so unfortunately, even when common ground is on the horizon, .....little things like power, greed and our tribal nature too often get in the way.

[ParanoiA]

1) Helping or Hurting?

 

Hard to say since a party is essentially made up of people who have grouped together, found common ground between themselves individually up to a point where a line is drawn - their ideology, so to speak, their core lines in the sand - down to two major distinctions. Common ground between two parties becomes quite the surrender in that light.

 

The problem with today's "partisan" despite is not partisanship, it's the class of leadership we have put in office. They put power before people. War is serious and people die while they play games with the government. Modern politicians are more self interested and party driven, when the people are supposed to come first - and this a personal shortcoming, lack of ethical character.

 

2) Probably as bad as it's going to get for now. It will get worse over time if we let it.

 

3) Well sure, if that's as high as we're going to set the bar. I don't know that common ground should be found on most issues; it would never be my goal. My goal would be to find solutions and legislate by the principles agreed on. Common ground and compromise is valuable within these principles, but is not acceptable to breach them.

[bascule]

I'm amazed at common ground being found today, specifically between "the left" and Ron Paul. Here's a paleoconservative to the bone, arguing a radical Libertarian agenda, and his greatest support is among the "far left", not just brainwashed Alex Jones zombies but also among their greatest enemies: sane liberals/liberaltarians who are tired of the massive power Bush has amassed and his ravaging of our Constitutional rights. Bill Maher and Jon Stewart both eat this guy up with a spoon.

 

He's an opponent of abortion and doesn't support many spending bills lauded by "the left", not to mention several other nitpicks trumpeted by liberal bloggers like Kos, but "the left" doesn't care. They see him as bringing about change which is desperately needed in the wake of the Bush administration's savage disregard for everything this country considers holy. Ron Paul seeks to restore limited government and the sanctity of the Constitution, both of which the Bush administration has spat, trampled, and shat on.

 

If conservative Libertarians, paleoconservatives, sane liberals/liberaltarians, and crazy Alex Jones-loving conspiracist liberals can all unite under the same tent, there's something seriously wrong with the status quo...

[Pangloss]

If, for example, there is no religious majority, but only a weak plurality, nobody can establish a theocracy. Similarly in politics (or in science, or any number of things), controversy prevents complacency and thus promotes progress.

 

Interesting example. As you say, it doesn't work if everyone is a partisan, but I guess realistically there's not much chance of that happening on any one issue. Though I think there's a danger of creating a perception that everyone believes either one way or the other, the danger being that everyone becomes convinced that there's no room for compromise and we're just going to have to duke it out.

 

 

The ideal balance, I suppose would be a majority of open-minded, consensus-seeking "synthesizers," while still maintaining a healthy and diverse crop of inflexible idealogues. We should listen to our staunch partisans, we just should just try not to elect them.

 

You could be right. That's an intriguing expansion (or at least additional depth) to the usual "they point out the middle ground" argument.

 

I keep hoping that all this partisanship and awakening dialog is going to lead us to Eisenhower's informed, intelligent electorate. The possibility seems to be there -- never before has virtually all information been available to absolutely everyone, regardless of means.

 

But it's not just a matter of access to information, or even critical thinking skills. I think one of the things we're learning is that information quality and authority are important as well. It's hard for people to assess the accuracy and legitimacy of information when two sides spin it to suit. BUT that doesn't mean that it was better in the old days, when Walter Cronkite told us what it meant. Maybe this process will teach us how to REALLY determine the accuracy and legitimacy of information.

 

It seems like a stretch of imagination (even to me, and I'm the one who said it), but look at how the Wikipedia has changed how we look at information, and with such a simple little idea. It's not authoritative, but it's so much better than the situation we had before (each web site with its own level of validity and ease-of-use). We didn't even realize there WAS a step in between "hobbyist" and "authoritative source", or that it might have value. But there turned out to be one, and it's completely revolutionized access to information.

 

The bigger problem may not be finding the common ground on most issues. I think that the bigger problem is finding people with enough spine and fibre to actually move toward the common ground after it is found. For example, we only need one explorer to discover common ground, but then we need a few and later a whole bunch more brave people to move onto the common ground, defend it, and populate it, etc.

Logic is not the strongest quality of the human species, so unfortunately, even when common ground is on the horizon, .....little things like power, greed and our tribal nature too often get in the way.

 

I don't really have any kind of response here, but I thought this was an interesting point. The idea that the answers are already out here, we're just not able to "access" (for lack of a better word) them, is intiguing. I think generally we look at answers to society's tough problems as distant, unreachable things that will only be accessible to a brilliant hero. Maybe the brilliant hero is just the person who points out what we knew all along.

 

I'll bet there's precedent for that in history, too, if we stop to think about it. Was Martin Luther King really telling us something we didn't know? Or was his brilliance in his ability to make it stick?

[DrDNA]

I'm amazed at common ground being found today, specifically between "the left" and Ron Paul. Here's a paleoconservative to the bone, arguing a radical Libertarian agenda, and his greatest support is among the "far left", not just brainwashed Alex Jones zombies but also among their greatest enemies: sane liberals/liberaltarians who are tired of the massive power Bush has amassed and his ravaging of our Constitutional rights. Bill Maher and Jon Stewart both eat this guy up with a spoon.

 

He's an opponent of abortion and doesn't support many spending bills lauded by "the left", not to mention several other nitpicks trumpeted by liberal bloggers like Kos, but "the left" doesn't care. They see him as bringing about change which is desperately needed in the wake of the Bush administration's savage disregard for everything this country considers holy. Ron Paul seeks to restore limited government and the sanctity of the Constitution, both of which the Bush administration has spat, trampled, and shat on.

 

If conservative Libertarians, paleoconservatives, sane liberals/liberaltarians, and crazy Alex Jones-loving conspiracist liberals can all unite under the same tent, there's something seriously wrong with the status quo...

 

 

To be honest, I haven't thought much about how Paul might tickle the left's funnybones. But if sufficient numbers of "democrats" dislike Hillary enough and sufficient numbers of "republicans" hate Rudy enough.....he might stand......about an ice cube's chance in hell as a 3rd partyadate.....but if that scenario unfolds, there's a good chance he would get at least one vote (mine).

 

Three cheers for hate! It's the best we can hope for.

[bascule]

To be honest, I haven't thought much about how Paul might tickle the left's funnybones. But if sufficient numbers of "democrats" dislike Hillary enough and sufficient numbers of "republicans" hate Rudy enough.....he might stand......about an ice cube's chance in hell as a 3rd partyadate.....but if that scenario unfolds, there's a good chance he would get at least one vote (mine).

 

Three cheers for hate! It's the best we can hope for.

 

That, sadly, remains the case. I'm certainly hoping Ron Paul runs on a Libertarian Ticket, in which case I'd gladly vote for him over Hillary or whatever totalitarian stooge the GOP manages to shell out, considering that's all that's presently on the ticket otherwise...

[DrDNA]

I don't really have any kind of response here, but I thought this was an interesting point. The idea that the answers are already out here, we're just not able to "access" (for lack of a better word) them, is intiguing. I think generally we look at answers to society's tough problems as distant, unreachable things that will only be accessible to a brilliant hero. Maybe the brilliant hero is just the person who points out what we knew all along.

 

I'll bet there's precedent for that in history, too, if we stop to think about it. Was Martin Luther King really telling us something we didn't know? Or was his brilliance in his ability to make it stick?

 

Me thinks cojones. Big cojones and stubbornness.

 

I think a lot of people have a feeling for the answers to a lot of problems. The problem is might be that they don't have enough self confidence to follow through because they have been beat down so bad (as children, in the playground, in preschool, in school, at work, at home, in life, etc). The result is they adopt a pack or herd (aka partisan) mentality and act like wolves or sheep, respectively. Maybe a really good pack leader or good sheep herder just gives people the confidence to act in ways that they already know instinctively are right.

 

I think MLK made it stick and helped people be brave. Everybody, in the south at least, already knew what was going on.

[ParanoiA]

If conservative Libertarians, paleoconservatives, sane liberals/liberaltarians, and crazy Alex Jones-loving conspiracist liberals can all unite under the same tent, there's something seriously wrong with the status quo...

 

I don't know about that. I think it has more to do with the flawed, but popular mentallity that a 3rd party president can't unite and couldn't get anything done. I've always held the opposite perspective. A 3rd party guy doesn't belong to either camp, so both parties can pursue those interests that do happen to jive with him, without "caving" to the other side. I've always suspected a 3rd party president would be excellent for the bi-partisan intent.

 

Perhaps that's what you're seeing here, even though they have a full playing field to deal with yet. They're focusing on his character, while recognizing the common ground between them. Perhaps you're still right as well.

[JohnB]

Well if you yanks don't mind a comment from outside the fence.

 

Hurting. Yes and Yes.

 

Internally partisanship is delaying the solving of problems. Partisanship stops people looking for the compromise solution for fear of being seen as some sort of traitor to the cause. (No one side of politics in any nation has monopoly on brains or ideas.) It also stops you looking forward. Read the posts, often it's "Bush this or Bush that". He's going to be gone next year, the whole planet knows that, accept the fact and move on. Instead of complaining about the last seven years and rehashing old arguments, if he did things that were wrong, work out how to rectify the situation.

 

The left in the US seems far more interested in Bush bashing than actually considering the problems and providing alternative solutions. The right is wasting far too much time with sound bites and slogans. Neither of these approaches will solve any problem but intelligent discussion, thought and that rather admirable attitude of you lot to roll up your sleeves, spit on your hands and work, will.

 

Partisan politics is also hurting the way the US is perceived overseas. Outside the perception is that if one side of US politics said the sky was blue the other side would disagree and both sides will be utterly certain that they are RIGHT. If the two sides of US politics can't have a rational discussion then why on God's green earth should the rest of the world think you can have a rational discussion with us?

 

Through your heavy partisan politics your right gives the impression that they get their instructions directly from God (And they can't because he lives in Australia. ) and your left comes across as a bunch of condescending intellectual snobs. I mean, really, who actually gives a tinkers damn how someone pronounces the word "nuclear"? (A word for the left here. Making fun of how someone speaks as a point scoring tactic is best left in the Kindergarten where it belongs. It does nothing but give the impression that you are childish, petty and devoid of any real debating points.)

 

From the outside POV, anybody who is in command of the world's largest nuclear arsenal and is seemingly always convinced of the rightness of his side, is a cause for concern.

 

Yes it's getting worse. The left thinks Bush started it by "dividing the nation" and the right says the left started it by Bush bashing. You seem to spend more time arguing about who started it than you do finding a way to stop it.

 

As I said, these are the perceptions people outside CONUS can get, either from the mass media or the net. The perception may well be wrong but it's there nevertheless.

 

Yes, there is common ground on most issues. It is impossible to please all of the people all of the time but by reaching a consensus you can please most of the people most of the time. That's the best you can hope for, accept it and work from there.

 

A final point, the vitriol and hatred demonstrated by the two sides of US partisan politics is an example to the rest of the world that whether they lean left or right, it is perfectly acceptable to direct hatred at 50% of the US population. You do it, why can't everyone else? Is that really the message you want to be sending?

 

Just my 5 cents. (Inflation, doncha know. )

[ParanoiA]

That, sadly, remains the case. I'm certainly hoping Ron Paul runs on a Libertarian Ticket, in which case I'd gladly vote for him over Hillary or whatever totalitarian stooge the GOP manages to shell out, considering that's all that's presently on the ticket otherwise...

 

Same here actually. I'm going to vote for him in the republican primaries, for whatever good that will do. But I really wish he'd run as a Libertarian. Of course, I realize he has better access to the televised debates and so forth running as he is now. He has said - like a careful lawyer - that he "has no plans" to run on any 3rd party ticket. Hmmm..."no plans" doesn't mean it's not going to happen.

[Pangloss]

Instead of complaining about the last seven years and rehashing old arguments, if he did things that were wrong, work out how to rectify the situation.

 

This is a really good point that often gets overlooked in these discussions. Partisanship actually stands in the way of figuring out what actually went wrong and how to fix it.

 

 

Yes it's getting worse. The left thinks Bush started it by "dividing the nation" and the right says the left started it by Bush bashing.

 

I can see how it might seem that way from an overseas perspective. Perhaps the roots of this that we saw during the Clinton administration were not as internationally obvious (for lack of a better term). But you may have a point there about the current administration contributing to it more directly, at least in so far as they took direct action on a number of very divisive issues, especially in the wake of 9/11. Ironically many of those actions enjoyed bipartisan support when they were taken and would probably have been undertaken by a Democratic president as well. But that doesn't invalidate the point.

 

 

A final point, the vitriol and hatred demonstrated by the two sides of US partisan politics is an example to the rest of the world that whether they lean left or right, it is perfectly acceptable to direct hatred at 50% of the US population. You do it, why can't everyone else? Is that really the message you want to be sending?

 

Hmm, that's a really interesting point as well. I think Americans have generally become more aware, over the last few years especially, of public opinion overseas of American foreign policy. Most of the focus is on "getting people to like us again". We don't talk about how we may be setting a bad example. Maybe we should.

[ecoli]

I

He's an opponent of abortion ...

yet, the women's rights groups don't have to worry, because the states will be allowed to make their own decisions on this. Different states can decide if they want to legislate morality or not. People who live in states where abortion is banned can simply travel out of state if they need one. Everyone is happy.

[DrDNA]

yet, the women's rights groups don't have to worry, because the states will be allowed to make their own decisions on this. Different states can decide if they want to legislate morality or not. People who live in states where abortion is banned can simply travel out of state if they need one. Everyone is happy.

 

But what about the poor who can't afford to travel out of state? Don't they have the same rights as the wealthy?

 

PS: not my stance but it will come up if it goes very far (if it hasn't already).