No Other Side

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.

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.