Introduction

Since this is our first post, we'll do a little introduction and lay out the goals and approach of this blog. We are a brother and sister team (Keith and Wanda) interested in US politics. We're interested in other things, too, like gardening, but we'll stick to political and current events in this blog. Mostly.

We read a lot. Books, online news services, blogs, and discussion boards. We've decided to add our voice and become part of the discussion. Actually, Keith's voice, while Wanda takes on the technological challenges of creating an appealing look and feel for the site. So what makes my voice different from the thousands of others out there? Overlap is unavoidable, but I differ from the majority by focusing on agreement, rather than differences, when viewing the political landscape. Most conservatives and liberals would be surprised to see how similar their goals are on most issues, if they choose to see it. I hope this approach has a few things to offer that are novel, entertaining, and beneficial.

Posts Emphasizing Similarities

Almost everyone agrees that politics has become too partisan. And almost everyone agrees that it is the other party's fault. If only those other guys would see reason and change, everything would be fine. Meanwhile, both Democratic and Republican politicians spend too much time playing gotcha and too little time trying to find the common ground needed to build solutions. We The People put up with this. Worse, we encourage it! I don't want to add to that antagonistic atmosphere. In the long run, it is far more productive to discuss information emphasizing similarities between supposedly different sides. To do so means looking past the headline, past the slogan, and trying to tease out what is really going on.

The bottom line is that a nation of 300 million moving together is much stronger than two nations of 150 million going nowhere as they pull each other apart. Believe it or not, the so-called opposing sides of almost every issue have the same over-arching goals in mind. The disagreement, like the Devil, is in the details of how to get there. I sense you're not buying this. That's ok. I'll discuss it much more in future posts.

Looking for the similarities doesn't require being a Pollyanna, and is not the same as being neutral. I understand there are conflicts in the real world, but reject the idea that these conflicts control us. I will agree with one side or another on certain issues, and disagree with many Bush administration actions. But I reject slogan politics and the blind following of one political party or figure. I also reject demonizing political figures and parties, not out of some high moral standard, but for the very practical reason that it weakens us as a Nation.

Objectivity

As I come to understand events I focus on two separate questions: "What is it?" and "What does it mean?" Many people - even Americans! - have a conclusion, and then establish facts to fit the conclusion. If a piece of news supports the conclusion, then keep it, no matter how questionable it may be. If the news contradicts the belief, well it must be false, right? Rejecting or accepting everything a person says just because they are a Democrat or Republican will not help you gain a clear picture of what is actually going on around you. By emphasizing similarities, and not buying into the belief that an opposing political party is an enemy, it's a lot easier to attempt objectivity.

The trick is to ask the two questions "What is it?" and "What does it mean?" separately. Ask "what is it?" without attempting to interpret meaning. This helps to push personal preferences aside so they are less likely to influence what I see. The idea is to establish the "facts on the ground" as they say. Once I have an idea of what is going on, then I try to determine what the effect is. What it means. Both are tricky questions, but this is probably the trickier of the two, and most prone to personal feelings getting in the way. Once more, not viewing a political opponent as a demon is helpful.

Everything has a Benefit and a Cost

Political argumentation has become pretty one-sided. Options are presented as if they will solve a problem and have no down side effects whatsoever. The truth is that everything has both a benefit and a cost. "There ain't no free lunch" doesn't just mean you can't get something for free, it means that everything has positive and negative aspects. Try asking someone advocating some solution what the down side of the action is. Many won't be able to, which means they haven't really thought through the impacts of their position. It's a very short step from being a lazy thinker to being a non-thinking ditto-head no matter what your political leanings are. In this blog I hope to show both benefits and costs of current events so you can make your own conclusions...or disagree with mine.