Divisiveness

[ed_jaxon]

It seems to me that there is a great deal more divisiveness these days in just about everything.

Politics -- This is a given but it seems that both sides are willing to fight tooth and nail over shit that in the end causes far more harm for all than would have been realized with compromise. A politicians job is not to stand on principle although it is great if they have them; a politicians job is to legislate through negotiation, compromise and (ideally) do what is in the best interests of their constituents.

All over the world we are seeing what happens when people fail to even try to compromise. Qaddaffi chose not to compromise a nice comfortable retirement for himself and his family and it cost him.

Sports -- Two lockouts of major sports??? Gimme a fuckin break! You cannot get together to negotiate a settlement to split up billions of dollars while people are out of work? And then lose millions of dollars in lost game revenue and day of game community sales?

I used to be a huge fantasy football guy but for the first time in 17 years I am sitting this season out due to waning interest.

And I am a huge Bulls fan but I don't give a shit when they come back. Greedy uncompromising bastards.

Hung Angels Politics Board -- This shit goes with out saying. There are posters here that I can actually learn from and read their views and take them seriously. I really appreciate Ericka's ask a Republican thread because I think a lot of what she had to say made sense.

Unfortunately the vast majority of the prolific posters are dogmatic in their positions and offer little in terms of fresh insight to the days issues. They are caricatures that literally could have been painted by the opposing party.

I have a buddy who is a staunch Republican and he is a great friend. We will sit down at my bar and have a few drinks and discuss politics and have a good time doing it. It is thoughtful conversation and often we agree but in the end we are still friends and better for knowing each other.

[Stavros]

Ed what I think you have noticed is the difference in tone; the difference in the amicable tone with which you debate politics with a Republican friend, and the hostility that emerges in the exchanges you see between political rivals, be it on tv, or in daily life.

The trend began in the late 1970s and early 1980s when Margaret Thatcher first undermined, and then demolished the 'Post-War Consensus' in the UK which meant that if one Party in government introduced a law, the Party following it would accept that the people had wanted it, and not abolish it for ideological reasons; crucially, that there was a consensus on the economic management of the country in which the State owned part of the economy. The National Health Service survived because there was -and still is, just about- a consensus that it is good: whereas the national ownership of industry has now become outdated and unpopular.

Thatcher's tone was confrontational -the world was presented in either/or terms: and it was a crisis: either we remove the state from the economy, or we decline, and the mantra for that was reducing taxes. The confrontation was with the political left, but principally the Unions, whose power was perceived to be in excess of its responsibility-the key point is that Thatcher saw political difference as a conflict in which attack was the best form of defence. This was also the mind-set that believed the celebrated doctrine of 'Containment' that had had shaped Cold War thinking on both sides of the Atlantic since George Kennan's famous telegram of 1946, was a failure.

In the USA, this trend became evident when comparing Carter to Reagan. The growth of the neo-conservative movement that helped Ronald Reagan to win the White House derided Carter for his alleged weakness, specifically in the face of the hostage crisis in Tehran, even though Carter's Presidency actually showed that tact, consensus and diplomacy works. (Carter, for me, is the most decent man to have occupied the White House since Eisenhower, and is thus with FDR one of the finest Presidents of the modern era).

The whole tone of the Cold War under Thatcher and Reagan was menacing, theatening, and even apocalyptic -and it was underpinned by the financial and military support that the US gave to the Mujahideen in its guerilla war with the USSR -not because the Americans cared about Afghanistan, but because this confrontation was seen as a key battle in a proxy war. Supporters of Reagan insist that it was this expensive war that broke the back of the USSR and paved the way for its collapse; just as Osama bin Laden used to claim it was the Mujahideen wot won it, and so on. The crucial point neo-conservatives make, is that the victory would not have been possible under Containment, that it was confrontation that worked, that smoked them bandits out of the cave.

Bill Clinton was hated by Republicans because he rowed back from a Might is Right approach to politics -domestically and internationally- even though, as with Carter's historic peace between Israel and Egypt, Clinton proved that patient negotiations could bring two sworn enemies -Arafat and Rabin- to sign a peace treaty. Clinton's diplomacy in the negotiations that ended the war in Northern Ireland is seen by some as a decisive factor. Even in the case of the Serbian expansionist war, Clinton was reluctant to use the military option until it was made clear by the Serbians that they would not change their agenda -Milosovic from the beginning took the view, we are going to do what we want, and who is going to stop us?

Force was a last option, not the first option: cool diplomacy was preferred to abrasive invective: George W Bush and his neo-conservative friends dismissed Clinton as they dismissed Carter as wimps in a hostile world: to defeat your enemies you must confront them, not wait for them to attack you: and this is just as important in domestic politics as it is in international affairs -it meant that instead of persuading Israel to abide by its peace treaty with the Palestinians, it supported the illegal settlements that undermined it; it meant ratcheting up the tension with Iraq in order to crush it rather than wait for Sadddam Hussein to die; it meant developing a rhetoric of confrontation and thus the tone of aggression, and not impatience or disdain with those who advocated an alternative way of doing things, but a vitriolic denunciation of them as if they were traitors.

And this post-Cold War world -and the US after all played a crucial role in effectively seeing off Communism as an issue in international politics- discovered a new enemy, not in a fringe of violent Muslims, but Islam as a wicked religion.

Obama, as you can see, comes from the consensus-building trend in American politics, his style is laid-back, thoughtful and looks to the long term: by contrast his opponents not only accuse him of being UnAmerican but even Anti-American, they want to go back to the Shoot first, ask questions later, style of politics, even though Americans rejected it when they elected Obama.

We are living with the legacy of Thatcher and Reagan. I do not deny either of them their place in history; I cannot deny that I was part of the opposition that took them on, and lost. But the legacy of military spending, of aggressive posturing and hostile language, the replacement of principle with expediency which gives anti-American Pakistani Generals millions of your tax $$$ so they can fund terrorism in India and Afghanistan (killing American service personnel at the same time), and the harsh and ugly way in which these neo-Conservatives claim an America for themselves which many other Americans neither recognise nor want -this is at the heart of the dispiriting tone of debate in politics which seems dominant at the moment.

Ultimately, as you pointed out in your post, political solutions involve negotiation and compromise, and compromise is not a dirty word. It works. It also creates the mood which enables you to disagree with a Republican friend without ending up in a fist fight, or never talking to each other again. I see little humility in the posturing of the Republican contenders for next year's elections -they have a burning need to be seen to be tough, and uncompromising, but then I don't have a vote in it. It's your choice.

[Erika1487]

It seems to me that there is a great deal more divisiveness these days in just about everything.

Politics -- This is a given but it seems that both sides are willing to fight tooth and nail over shit that in the end causes far more harm for all than would have been realized with compromise. A politicians job is not to stand on principle although it is great if they have them; a politicians job is to legislate through negotiation, compromise and (ideally) do what is in the best interests of their constituents.

All over the world we are seeing what happens when people fail to even try to compromise. Qaddaffi chose not to compromise a nice comfortable retirement for himself and his family and it cost him.

Sports -- Two lockouts of major sports??? Gimme a fuckin break! You cannot get together to negotiate a settlement to split up billions of dollars while people are out of work? And then lose millions of dollars in lost game revenue and day of game community sales?

I used to be a huge fantasy football guy but for the first time in 17 years I am sitting this season out due to waning interest.

And I am a huge Bulls fan but I don't give a shit when they come back. Greedy uncompromising bastards.

Hung Angels Politics Board -- This shit goes with out saying. There are posters here that I can actually learn from and read their views and take them seriously. I really appreciate Ericka's ask a Republican thread because I think a lot of what she had to say made sense.

Unfortunately the vast majority of the prolific posters are dogmatic in their positions and offer little in terms of fresh insight to the days issues. They are caricatures that literally could have been painted by the opposing party.

I have a buddy who is a staunch Republican and he is a great friend. We will sit down at my bar and have a few drinks and discuss politics and have a good time doing it. It is thoughtful conversation and often we agree but in the end we are still friends and better for knowing each other.


I really appreciate Ericka's ask a Republican thread because I think a lot of what she had to say made sense.
Thank you Ed I always have thought you treat everyone fairly.

Now to Divisiveness in politics. I cannot speak for the other side of the isle, but I know for a fact that on the Republican side that the Day President Obama took office every mordrate Republican was handed a little slip that basiclly said GFO. In the 2010 midterms that is exactly what you saw as mordrerate Republicans being forced out and the "tea party anti-Obama" crowd being sworn in.
It goes with out saying that a moderate on either side of isle has a good chance of winning a election, as a snowball in hell now a days. It is a sad state of affairs, but that is political reality as of 2011.

[russtafa]

It seems to me that there is a great deal more divisiveness these days in just about everything.

Politics -- This is a given but it seems that both sides are willing to fight tooth and nail over shit that in the end causes far more harm for all than would have been realized with compromise. A politicians job is not to stand on principle although it is great if they have them; a politicians job is to legislate through negotiation, compromise and (ideally) do what is in the best interests of their constituents.

All over the world we are seeing what happens when people fail to even try to compromise. Qaddaffi chose not to compromise a nice comfortable retirement for himself and his family and it cost him.

Sports -- Two lockouts of major sports??? Gimme a fuckin break! You cannot get together to negotiate a settlement to split up billions of dollars while people are out of work? And then lose millions of dollars in lost game revenue and day of game community sales?

I used to be a huge fantasy football guy but for the first time in 17 years I am sitting this season out due to waning interest.

And I am a huge Bulls fan but I don't give a shit when they come back. Greedy uncompromising bastards.

Hung Angels Politics Board -- This shit goes with out saying. There are posters here that I can actually learn from and read their views and take them seriously. I really appreciate Ericka's ask a Republican thread because I think a lot of what she had to say made sense.

Unfortunately the vast majority of the prolific posters are dogmatic in their positions and offer little in terms of fresh insight to the days issues. They are caricatures that literally could have been painted by the opposing party.

I have a buddy who is a staunch Republican and he is a great friend. We will sit down at my bar and have a few drinks and discuss politics and have a good time doing it. It is thoughtful conversation and often we agree but in the end we are still friends and better for knowing each other.
When you mention politics and it hits people in the hip pocket there is bound to be bad feeling

[Dino Velvet]

I'm more of a Conservative type myself who lives in California. Since I'm outnumbered greatly, I've learned the craft of diplomacy. There is always common ground to be found. The libs know this knuckle-dragger gets some great weed so we all get along smoking the peace pipe. The Reefers & Sticks Approach works.

[russtafa]

i would rather go out and cut the bastards in half with a meat cleaver but the cops would lock me up.but one can only dream

[Bobby Domino]

Ed, you're right. The world has become very polarized these past few years.

We, globally, have become more nationalistic; Europe voted more to the right against immigrants, just as we have. Don't know if you remember a few years ago the issue with girls in France not being able to wear head-scarfs in schools because it allowed for religious expression; in the French education system, such "visible" expressions are prohibited; yet, you can wear a chain with a cross on it. Germany, England, Holland, and Italy have been struggling with multi-culturalism. Where this xenophobia stems from, I'm not entirely sure; the pendulum always swings to the extreme at some point.

I believe we - this nation as well as Europe - are going through an identity crisis. As there are more inter-cultural & inter-racial marriages, more same-sex couples & same-sex adoptions, more progressive educators, and the increased access to information & the ability to communicate quickly through the technology, these elements threaten the concept of "us versus them," a de facto political & social tactic that worked from the 50's through the 80's under communism, which would passionately invigorate the masses to side against a clear "evil" enemy.

As a public we are exposed to some or all of these "neo-modern" elements on a daily basis and our sense of empathy has risen considerably. Movies depict these cultural/socio-economic/gender assimilations on a yearly basis - boy/girl introduces a non-white, a non-Indian, the same gender, etc to the family. Through entertainment & through real-life experience, we can, or have the ability to, internalize both points of view. As a result, there isn't a collective "evil" that threatens our existence anymore, as much as it's been attempted. If we can't look outward, we look inward for an enemy, in this case, within our own society:

How do we convince people to identify with our camp?
What core values can we exploit in order to create dissent, a schism, where as a politician, as a businessman or, in a more abstract sense, as a philosophical idea, that person or thought can gain value and importance?
What social threads can we unravel that will make my (a person in a leadership role) existence, my position, my purpose more meaningful, more attractive, more necessary?


In the eyes of our representatives, identity & tradition have become threatened and compromised. The public sees the world through a different lens and quite honestly, we rely less & less on our politicians as a source of reason. What is astounding is that it's the under-25 generation that is at the source of redefining our global identity and at recomposing tradition. The generation X & Y - my generation, people between 28 - 42 - are products of the hippie/yuppie/communism generation (+55 years of age). We are the last generation to have NOT grown up with computers, cell phones, internet. I can remember going to the library for literary sources to write - not type - papers in junior high school using pen & paper and trying to make all the paragraphs line up to the left. Today these concepts are completely irrelevant. Our politicians are out of touch with our demands & needs, but are fighting desperately to hold our attention, bring value to their position as a means to self-preservation.

What infringes on our freedom vs. what enhances our freedom is the volatile, non-compromising question permeating the country. Our elected officials & the media are telling us how to think & who to blame for our current situation using coercive tactics sensitive to our patriotism, nationalism, sense of security, personal freedoms and egos. This self-preservation breeds divisiveness and polarization. Until we decide to make a change and realize that we, the general collective public, wield the power, our imposed stubbornness and implied laziness have fueled leaders & businessmen to use us as pawns in a global scheme to keep us apathetic and xenophobic. We are the ones who ought to be telling our representatives where & how to position themselves on the political field and guiding corporations' methods & ethics through our purchasing power - remember the terms boycott & strike - forcing them to communicate with us & with themselves, therefore compromise; but instead the interest of the public has become secondary, or worse tertiary, to the interest and benefit of corporations & politicians. Now in that light, who's infringing, or enhancing our freedom?

An economic crisis is an ideal scenario to pit sides against each other. Who is responsible and how do we fix it? Suddenly every social solution stems from solving the economy. What is happening with the sports (NBA & NFL) lockouts runs along relatively the same veins as why OWS & Tea Party were formed - distribution of wealth & corporate responsibility, in their case - but the players are unified, and UNIONIZED, & we can't strike because we can't afford it, as well as unorganized and fractured.

There's much more to the argument but I thought I'd add my point of view :)

[ed_jaxon]

Thanks for the reply Bobby. Made me think of a couple of things I had not considered before.

With the inevitable rise of multiculturalism, how does that mix with the aftermath of 9-11?

Not just the obvious bias against those of Arab descent but economically there is a major cost to waging two wars. There is less to go around and it seems to be having a negative effect on our ability to work together. I appreciate you making that point.

And I think Stavros is right in that a lot of our current international identity and our image in the world is tied to the leadership of the 1980's.

[Odelay]

Ed, you're right about talking politics face to face, and how usually it's a bit more civil than what you see here or in other forums. I too, have a couple of Republican friends who I enjoy talking with.

[Silcc69]

Compromise is for the weak lol.

[robertlouis]

And I think Stavros is right in that a lot of our current international identity and our image in the world is tied to the leadership of the 1980's.

That's a very astute point. It's interesting that Thatcher's international image was glowing and iconic, whereas here in the UK she was the most divisive political force since Irish indpendence in the 1880s et seq. Similarly, for a lot of Brits, Reagan was seen as a genial oaf who could read an autocue well, but who sleepwalked through various scandals and disasters.

Over here, the 13 years under Labour and David Cameron's efforts appeared to have buried Thatcherism and its values once and for all, despite the Tory backwoodsmen's efforts this week to create an entirely unnecessary storm over Britain's relationship with the EU.

In the US, on the other hand, I certainly get the impression that the Reagan era is still seen as a kind of golden age, although I'm not qualified to say whether that's a good or bad thing.

[russtafa]

That's a very astute point. It's interesting that Thatcher's international image was glowing and iconic, whereas here in the UK she was the most divisive political force since Irish indpendence in the 1880s et seq. Similarly, for a lot of Brits, Reagan was seen as a genial oaf who could read an autocue well, but who sleepwalked through various scandals and disasters.

Over here, the 13 years under Labour and David Cameron's efforts appeared to have buried Thatcherism and its values once and for all, despite the Tory backwoodsmen's efforts this week to create an entirely unnecessary storm over Britain's relationship with the EU.

In the US, on the other hand, I certainly get the impression that the Reagan era is still seen as a kind of golden age, although I'm not qualified to say whether that's a good or bad thing.

we hate Juliar Gillard but the yanks were cheering her?

[Stavros]

Compromise is for the weak lol.

Is that an ironic comment, silcc69? Can you cite a single peace treaty since Westphalia in 1648 which was not based on some sort of compromise by the parties? President Carter built on Egypt's need to move on from war and confrontation, to bring it into dialogue with Israel -you have to apppreciate what a violent thug Menachem Begin had been all his life to concede his own willingness to compromise, even if the Sinai peninsula which Israel had occupied was never theirs anyway. President Clinton brought the loathesome Arafat to sign a peace treaty with the equally loathesome Yitzhak Rabin, after their own representatives had compromised on the details of what the others wanted, just as Mo Mowlam in Northern Ireland spent hours and hours cajoling the murderers of Protestants and Catholics to compromise. But as I suggested, I think you were being ironic, or maybe sarcastic? You surely don't believe it....?

[hippifried]

I'm divided on this issoe.

[Stavros]

I'm divided on this issoe.

Chicken!!!

[Silcc69]

Is that an ironic comment, silcc69? Can you cite a single peace treaty since Westphalia in 1648 which was not based on some sort of compromise by the parties? President Carter built on Egypt's need to move on from war and confrontation, to bring it into dialogue with Israel -you have to apppreciate what a violent thug Menachem Begin had been all his life to concede his own willingness to compromise, even if the Sinai peninsula which Israel had occupied was never theirs anyway. President Clinton brought the loathesome Arafat to sign a peace treaty with the equally loathesome Yitzhak Rabin, after their own representatives had compromised on the details of what the others wanted, just as Mo Mowlam in Northern Ireland spent hours and hours cajoling the murderers of Protestants and Catholics to compromise. But as I suggested, I think you were being ironic, or maybe sarcastic? You surely don't believe it....?

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs48/f/2009/204/f/d/Sarcasm_ftw_stamp_by_Mikkandro.png