- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Actually, the reason why people fight is because they have radically and irreconcilably different views over issues that are important to them.
Would that it were so. Like I've said repeatedly, political partisanship in the U.S. is an industry and the two-major parties are the dominant market players. I assume you disagree.
Some people want to invade Iraq and some don't. Some want to outlaw abortion and others want it to be legal. Some want to bomb Iran and others don't. Some want universal health insurance and others don't. Some want to prosecute Bush officials and others don't.
Absolutely right. There certainly are things worth fighting over. But there are many things that aren't. Wisdom is knowing the difference. Ans then there is the manner in which the "fight" is conducted . . .
The clash of different ideas is actually what "democracy" is all about.
Yup. But with people working together even though they disagree. That is civilization.
As unpleasant as you might find it, nobody -- not even Barack Obama -- will be able to wave a magic wand and make it all pleasantly fade away.
Obama is not partisan enough for you. Got it. Me? I'll give the guy a chance.
The problem is that we've had far too little clashing of ideas and far too much consensus.
Well, I agree and I disagree. Yes, there has been too much uniformity in our political decisionmaking. That -- coupled wit the Bush Adminstration's catastrophically wrongheaded and utter incompetency -- has brought us closer to ruin than we have ever been in our postbellum history. On the other hand -- and maybe this is semantics to some extent -- it is not "consensus" when one of the two players tactically decides not to contest the other player's moves b/c the passive player sees its competitor self-destructing and takes all pains to avoid being blamed for the disasters. It is hardly a model of poltical courage, but "bi-partisanship"? I don't think so.
I can't fathom anyone thinking we actually need more consensus in our political class, but there are -- obviously -- plenty of people who crave that.
What people crave is civil discourse that presents the "clash of ideas" in an informative, reasoned, and civil manner, rather than by demonizing those on the other side. Many Americans think -- and I am one of the them -- that however great our challenges are, and however much we may disagree as to both the nature of the problem and the solutions, there is often common ground to be found and that common ground should be occupied and extended whenever possible.
