When I first started reading online forums and blogs I sought out conservative sites. I did this because I was opposed to many of the actions of the Bush administration and wanted to understand where "the other side" was coming from. I was not impressed. Most of what passed for discussion was simply name calling. John Skerry. Demonrats. Dumbocrats. After a while I started to read liberal blogs and forums. Again, not impressed. John Asscroft. Rethuglicans. Freepers. People would post furious blasts about how awful the "other side" is. Communists. Fascists. Lions, tigers, and bears, oh my!
The funny thing is that, underneath it all, both sides have very much the same goals. I'm not talking about individual high-profile political and business leaders, but about the everyday people these leaders are trying to appeal to. Everyday people the world over have the same underlying goals. They want a stable job, ability to care for their family's needs, a safe place to raise their family, and want to leave the world a little better off than when they found it for their kids. Even though there may be vehement arguments about what "better off" means, those fundamental goals are the same for the vast majority of people.
On political forums, you usually have to look to see it. First, strip away all of the posturing and name calling. That leaves policy positions, which still seem to be in opposition to each other. The advocates must therefore be opponents, right? Dig deeper. Set aside the policy details and look at the goals, they are almost always the same.
Health care is an easy example. Some want federal government supported health care, and some don't. Are they in opposition? Not so much. Ultimately, both "sides" want all Americans to have access to affordable health care. Can you believe that any sane American watches a school bus go by and offers up a silent prayer "Please, God, please let some of those children have illnesses their family can't afford to treat!" Everyone has the same goal of universal access to health care. They are merely differing on how to achieve it. Specifically, they are working out how much support should come from the federal government. Some conservatives will respond "Zero!" With a little more thought, these same people realize that the Federal government already does supply health care in some cases, and with their consent. Veterans clearly deserve, and obtain, federally funded health care. Federal employees also must be offered health care plans as part of their compensation packages so that the government can hire competitively with industry. Providing health care to prisoners in federal penitentiaries is also accepted. And what of MediCare, MedicAid? Many accept these programs as playing a positive role.
So the federal government is already providing health care in a big way. Recognizing this changes the question significantly from "Should there be universal health care?" to "How much health care support should come from the feds?" It's a big change. The first question is all or nothing, and set up for confrontation and division. The second recognizes the underlying goal (everybody gets health care) and provides common ground to begin the discussion as to how we, as a single people, can achieve the goal. By the way, I have no idea as to the answer! I am merely pointing out that changing your point of view on the question helps come to a solution that most of us will accept in the long run.
Mainstream news media is another easy example. Conservatives claim the media has a liberal bias. They claim the media unfairly attacks the current administration. Liberals even have a Demon, George Soros, pulling the strings behind the scenes. Liberals claim the media has a conservative bias. They claim the media unfairly kowtows to the current administration. That the conservatives have a Demon, Rupert Murdoch, pulling the strings behind the scenes. Underneath it all, conservatives and liberals are clamoring for the same thing -- straight forward, reliable information from news services. We all intuitively sense that, if We The People are going to run this nation, we need accurate information. Now, there are all kinds of complications as to how we get truly accurate news services, but the underlying goal is the same. It is a place of common ground for liberals and conservatives to begin a discussion.
Why does it matter? It matters because it gives us a way to have political discussion in our nation founded on the basis of unity, rather than opposition. It doesn't answer the big questions, but changes the tenor from one of opposition to one of cooperation. We are stronger when we cooperate. It matters because it provides a basis for moving forward together, instead of dragging each other back and forth over the same old ground in an endless tug of war between sides. Most importantly, it matters because if We The People insist upon it, then it forces our political representatives to move away from partisan politics and begin true cooperation in moving the Nation forward.
The funny thing is that, underneath it all, both sides have very much the same goals. I'm not talking about individual high-profile political and business leaders, but about the everyday people these leaders are trying to appeal to. Everyday people the world over have the same underlying goals. They want a stable job, ability to care for their family's needs, a safe place to raise their family, and want to leave the world a little better off than when they found it for their kids. Even though there may be vehement arguments about what "better off" means, those fundamental goals are the same for the vast majority of people.
On political forums, you usually have to look to see it. First, strip away all of the posturing and name calling. That leaves policy positions, which still seem to be in opposition to each other. The advocates must therefore be opponents, right? Dig deeper. Set aside the policy details and look at the goals, they are almost always the same.
Health care is an easy example. Some want federal government supported health care, and some don't. Are they in opposition? Not so much. Ultimately, both "sides" want all Americans to have access to affordable health care. Can you believe that any sane American watches a school bus go by and offers up a silent prayer "Please, God, please let some of those children have illnesses their family can't afford to treat!" Everyone has the same goal of universal access to health care. They are merely differing on how to achieve it. Specifically, they are working out how much support should come from the federal government. Some conservatives will respond "Zero!" With a little more thought, these same people realize that the Federal government already does supply health care in some cases, and with their consent. Veterans clearly deserve, and obtain, federally funded health care. Federal employees also must be offered health care plans as part of their compensation packages so that the government can hire competitively with industry. Providing health care to prisoners in federal penitentiaries is also accepted. And what of MediCare, MedicAid? Many accept these programs as playing a positive role.
So the federal government is already providing health care in a big way. Recognizing this changes the question significantly from "Should there be universal health care?" to "How much health care support should come from the feds?" It's a big change. The first question is all or nothing, and set up for confrontation and division. The second recognizes the underlying goal (everybody gets health care) and provides common ground to begin the discussion as to how we, as a single people, can achieve the goal. By the way, I have no idea as to the answer! I am merely pointing out that changing your point of view on the question helps come to a solution that most of us will accept in the long run.
Mainstream news media is another easy example. Conservatives claim the media has a liberal bias. They claim the media unfairly attacks the current administration. Liberals even have a Demon, George Soros, pulling the strings behind the scenes. Liberals claim the media has a conservative bias. They claim the media unfairly kowtows to the current administration. That the conservatives have a Demon, Rupert Murdoch, pulling the strings behind the scenes. Underneath it all, conservatives and liberals are clamoring for the same thing -- straight forward, reliable information from news services. We all intuitively sense that, if We The People are going to run this nation, we need accurate information. Now, there are all kinds of complications as to how we get truly accurate news services, but the underlying goal is the same. It is a place of common ground for liberals and conservatives to begin a discussion.
Why does it matter? It matters because it gives us a way to have political discussion in our nation founded on the basis of unity, rather than opposition. It doesn't answer the big questions, but changes the tenor from one of opposition to one of cooperation. We are stronger when we cooperate. It matters because it provides a basis for moving forward together, instead of dragging each other back and forth over the same old ground in an endless tug of war between sides. Most importantly, it matters because if We The People insist upon it, then it forces our political representatives to move away from partisan politics and begin true cooperation in moving the Nation forward.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment