Common Political Ground

[Phi for All]

When it comes to national politics, is there some common ground that the vast majority (say 80-90%) can agree on, and move on from there? I think we spend a lot of time redesigning the wheel when it comes to a great many of these things, arguing without ever recognizing those things that the vast majority probably already accepts.

 

I think most people don't want to deny aid to people who truly need it, but don't want to give tax dollars to those who could help themselves but find excuses not to. Yet both get lumped under the general term "welfare", and I think some people oppose welfare programs because of it.

 

The Interstate Highway system seems like pretty good common ground. I don't hear many people talking bad about having federally funded thoroughfares that bring down transportation costs in a multitude of areas. You might disagree about how it's maintained (I know I do) but in general it seems like the vast majority of citizens benefit from having this program.

 

I would think the vast majority of people want to pay for enough military defense to protect ourselves and our allies if we're attacked. National defense is more complicated, of course, but I'm just looking for common ground (Yes, the vast majority support the troops who are fighting in our defense - can we move on now? Can you stop questioning that?!). Are there any more common ground additions to national defense? Does the vast majority want the capability to retaliate if we're attacked?

 

What other common political ground can you think of?

[jryan]

I think there is common ground in immigration so long as everyone understands that opposing illegal immigration is not the same as opposing all immigration. Too often the fact that someone opposing illegal immigration gets labeled as a xenophobe when in reality they are not.

 

This also dovetails with your welfare comment, as often people opposed to giving aid to illegal immigrants gets them labeled something even worse.

 

So I think there is fairly common ground in this country in the notion that foreign nationals should not be free to cross our border as they please and without our permission and supervision, and should not be allowed to live off of our system when they do.

[Phi for All]

I agree, immigration is OK with the vast majority when the immigrants are here legally.

 

It seems clear that few oppose social services for those that really need them, and don't abuse them or use them illegally. People get testy when they think about their taxes paying for someone else to party. It's similar to the outrage you hear about prisoners getting to pump iron and watch cable TV while incarcerated, or politicians using public funds for "junkets" and "fact-finding trips" to exotic places.

[Mr Skeptic]

Almost everyone agrees that the government needs to cut spending. Just not on any programs

We all agree politicians are corrupt (or are at least forced to act similar to a corrupt person).

[Moontanman]

The sad thing is that as long as no one is being heard but the extreme left and the extreme right the majority of the people are left with no voice and slowly everyone is being expected to take sides or remain silent.

[Phi for All]

What about regulations? I think the vast majority can agree that we want the government to set some limits that keep us from being poisoned by waste products, but are there any free market types who would argue that if toxins are present in consumer goods, the market and our present laws will self-regulate those products?

[bascule]

We all agree politicians are corrupt (or are at least forced to act similar to a corrupt person).

 

I really detest blanket statements like this. Hate to cause dissent in a "common ground" thread.

[Phi for All]

I really detest blanket statements like this. Hate to cause dissent in a "common ground" thread.

I thought the smiley on the first sentence reflected a similar whimsical approach on the last sentence, tbh.

 

But many politicians do play the beltway games that could make them look corrupt in the eyes of the vast majority. While I don't think all politicians are corrupt, it would be interesting to know if 80% of the population felt that way. It might even make establishing the rest of our common ground more important than ever.

[D H]

We all agree politicians are corrupt (or are at least forced to act similar to a corrupt person).

*My* congresscritter isn't corrupt. I don't like him much, but I do admire his more or less complete lack of corruption. The most corrupt thing my congresscritter does is to abuse the franking privilege a bit; for example holiday recipe books sent to his constituents with treacly-sweet pictures and descriptions of his family.

 

 

it would be interesting to know if 80% of the population felt that way. It might even make establishing the rest of our common ground more important than ever.

Given the perpetually low ratings Congress has received over the last many years (lower than used car salescritters!), that unfortunately is the common ground you mentioned in the OP.

[Phi for All]

Given the perpetually low ratings Congress has received over the last many years (lower than used car salescritters!), that unfortunately is the common ground you mentioned in the OP.

But this tells us that the vast majority don't like the way politicians in general operate. I see all of this common ground as a way to start political discussions as if we're climbing a mountain together rather than shooting at each other over a fence. We can choose our own routes to the top but we can all start from the same base camp.

 

 

 

 

Another piece of common ground: the vast majority of people do NOT want to turn the country towards communism. When a program is referred to as "socialized", it simply means that the program is supported by federal tax dollars, like the interstate highway system.

[bascule]

But many politicians do play the beltway games that could make them look corrupt in the eyes of the vast majority

 

Do we just assume, de facto, that every politician is corrupt?

 

Is Ron Paul corrupt? Is Dennis Kucinich corrupt?

[D H]

Is Ron Paul corrupt?

That is exactly who I was talking about in post #9.

[jryan]

That is exactly who I was talking about in post #9.

 

Well, Paul has lots of skeletons in his closet regardless of his corruption.

 

It's a strange thing to pick Kucinich and Paul since the first sees UFOs and the latter warns of the coming race wars. Are there any sane congresspeople that aren't corrupt?

[Mr Skeptic]

I really detest blanket statements like this. Hate to cause dissent in a "common ground" thread.

 

Corrupt politicians is however something that has been agreed on for thousands of years. I recall reading that Socrates said he couldn't be a politician cause he wasn't corrupt enough.

 

I don't think that every politician is corrupt. A majority, perhaps. But also, a politician does not have the privilege of doing as he thinks is right. You see this, for example, when a politician decries earmarks and then seeks earmarks for his district. Or, fails to do so and gets voted out by the people...

[Phi for All]

Do we just assume, de facto, that every politician is corrupt?

I think most would instead say that current political dealings have an aspect of reciprocity that is rather removed from the way most people do things. It has more of an under the table, dirty business feeling to it when a politician has to make so many you-scratch-my-back concessions to get his bill voted for.

 

I don't think every politician is corrupt, but I don't cheat on my wife and taxes either. It's possible for some of them to be immoral people while not being a corrupt politician, but many Americans, possibly the vast majority, find it hard to distinguish the two.

[ParanoiA]

It's a strange thing to pick Kucinich and Paul since the first sees UFOs and the latter warns of the coming race wars. Are there any sane congresspeople that aren't corrupt?

 

UFO's are unidentified flying objects. Are you saying that people are crazy if they can't identify every flying object?

 

And do you have anything recent on Ron Paul and this race war thing or are you still pretending as if he believes this today? And further, what is it about this prediction that you find fault with? Does it suggest racism to you, or just naive paranoia?

 

I think most would instead say that current political dealings have an aspect of reciprocity that is rather removed from the way most people do things. It has more of an under the table' date=' dirty business feeling to it when a politician has to make so many you-scratch-my-back concessions to get his bill voted for.

 

I don't think every politician is corrupt, but I don't cheat on my wife and taxes either. It's possible for some of them to be immoral people while not being a corrupt politician, but many Americans, possibly the vast majority, find it hard to distinguish the two.[/quote']

 

I think you nailed it here. The supreme court ruling overturning McCain-Fiengold carries that same reciprocity suggestion. Even though, there isn't anything inherently corrupt about donating money to the candidate of your choice, it's not the way the rest of us do business in our personal lives, and just feels dirty.

[ewmon]

Regardless of whether anyone thinks Social Security is good or bad, I think we can all agree that what the federal government did/does to Social Security was/is wrong, dishonest and perhaps criminal or even treasonous (seeing as how the people hold the ultimate power in America).

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, ewmon, I think that's common ground.

 

Haven't seen you before. Hope you stick around.

[Sisyphus]

Regardless of whether anyone thinks Social Security is good or bad, I think we can all agree that what the federal government did/does to Social Security was/is wrong, dishonest and perhaps criminal or even treasonous (seeing as how the people hold the ultimate power in America).

 

Treasonous?

[ewmon]

Uh... well... Treasonous in the sense of betraying one's country.