David:
Has the political climate become too partisan too actually allow for anything productive to be accomplished in Washington anymore? Do you think social media has made this much worse than it has been in the past? What can be done to improve the partisan climate?
Doug:
Things should get done in Washington when a majority of people agree on an agenda. One would think that when one party controls the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, that that would imply that they could implement their agenda. But they haven't been able to. I believe that is because they really don't have a common agenda that their constituents understand. For example, the Republican party platform is "Obamacare is bad" but most Americans want affordable healthcare. It is impossible to reconcile (literally) these two positions.
David:
Perhaps you should just stick with your own party's platform which states you must be pro-choice to be a Democrat, and God is dead.
Doug:
Since it is National Brother Day, I'll just let that slide. And Happy National Brother Day!
David:
Ditto. It's also National Asparagus Day and International Tiara Day. Perhaps you could wear a tiara made out of asparagus. Tasty and good looking.
The Republican platform is much more involved, and won the Presidency. People want affordable health insurance, which is why Republicans won with the promise to repeal Obamacare. The new health insurance bill is just a start, and hopefully will get some Democrats on board as it moves forward. Bipartisanship is needed to reach a bill that is structured to benefit the most Americans. Obamacare is not sustainable. Democrats should be sitting at the table.
Doug:
I think we are seeing a new kind of partisanship, but it isn't between Left and Right. It is between Right and Far Right. The problem is that gerrymandering has created safe seats where extreme Far Right views have been able to have a larger impact than their numbers of constituents would allow. Therefore, the frozen Republican party is attempting to represent all of their members, but can't. Does social media and the rise of fake news make the situation worse? Absolutely. But the problem is bigger than that.
David:
So your definition of bipartisanship is to cooperate with only your own political party? Bipartisanship means working across the aisle. No wonder Democrats aren't cooperating. They don't think people are talking about them when they say we need bipartisanship.
As to your gerrymandering-is-the-reason-Republicans-have-control argument, many districts across the country voted for Clinton for POTUS and a Republican for Congress, or they voted for Trump, but a Democrat for Congress. There are over 1000 seats across the country that were held by Democrats when Obama entered the White House and now are Republican. Did Democrats gerrymander those districts to put Republicans in their place? There are "safe seats" for both the extreme right and the extreme left because people who live in those districts are more extreme than in the past. Politicians must still get elected by majorities within their districts. The country is becoming more polarized, and social media is amplifying the voices of the extreme partisans.
Although Democrats began the Obama years with control of all of the government, they also had a supermajority in the Senate. And they forced through Obamacare along strictly party lines. There was no bipartisanship there. Currently, Republicans have a very narrow majority, and Democrats have made it their goal to oppose anything that Republicans do in Washington. As we have seen, a handful of Democrats can block just about anything from moving forward. Have we entered a new era in government where the only things that can happen are by Presidential fiat through executive orders or supermajorities? Has Congress, through its inability to work together, become a stagnant pool in the swamp?
My question is: have things become so partisan that common ground cannot be found? How has social media made the partisanship within Washington toxic? If a Democrat joins with Republicans to vote on a better health-care plan, would he be instantly branded a traitor to the cause and vilified? Would a Republican joining with Democrats suffer the same fate? What do you think can be done to promote bipartisanship and cooperation?
Doug:
When the Republican party wants to eliminate government, or greatly lessen its use, then there isn't much to agree with. We need to get back to electing people that know what government is, and how to make it work for us.
David:
So your answer is Democrats are not interested in bipartisanship or cooperation. Government must get bigger. Government must have more control. If you're not for that, then we won't work with you. Apparently, you believe that only Democrats even know what government is. That seems to me to be a foolish thing to say. Republicans and Democrats have different philosophies of what role government should have. That difference of opinion has been there since our founding, between those who supported a strong, central federal government, and those that favored a weaker federal government and more state control. Both Hamilton and Adams on the one side, and men like Jefferson on the other, understood what government was and how it should be used. You apparently believe Thomas Jefferson should never have been elected.
Here's an interesting TED Talk about partisanship:
Can a Divided America Heal Itself?
Doug:
If you have never spoken to an academic elite, this is what it sounds like. Jonathan Haidt is a typical professor. Whether the topic is climate science, computer science, or social psychologist, you will often find sound, rational comments. That is not to say that all academics agree. In fact there are some that find Haidt's framing of the issue problematic. "Social psychologist John Jost wrote that Haidt 'mocks the liberal vision of a tolerant, pluralistic, civil society, but, ironically, this is precisely where he wants to end up.'" But Haidt makes some good points, and most of his comments are a cogent, straightforward understanding of social psychology. Note that these comments were right before the election when Clinton was expected to win. I wonder what he might say now?
What he says can be considered useful throughout time and place. The idea of tribalism is relevant now, 1,000 years ago, and probably in the future. It was relevant during the rise of Hitler, and after WWII. But that doesn't give us a clue as to what we should do, what actions we can take. However, I believe that there are also people studying this same topics attempting to take advantage of us. There are people attempting to use the facts of human nature against us. They want to make us distrust one another, and the press. They want us to dislike the government. They want us to fear those that aren't like us.
David:
Or to ban those who aren't like us from speaking their ideology on campuses. We must all think alike. Fear and hate those that think differently. Diversity of skin color and gender, but not of ideas, right?
Doug:
I liked his comments on empathy. Even in the age of Trump, we are seeing some empathy spread. Over just the last couple of weeks, we have finally seen the removal of some southern civil war statues removed. Here is a beautiful speech by Mayor Landrieu on their removal.
On a humorous note on empathy, last night I was at the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and he had this to say: "Dear President Trump, your tweeting has affected me in the following ways: my ratings are up... ". President Trump needs to think about his actions affect others, like Colbert! See the whole bit at the link.
Haidt is right about one thing: Democrats will attempt to paint all Republicans the same color that they paint Trump. It will be up to Republicans to distance themselves from the President. We will see if they value their tribe over country.
David:
Again, you are exhibiting exactly the tribalism Haidt comments on. According to you and the Democrats, it's up to Republicans to change. They are wrong, and we are right. Democrats are just fine the way they are. Republicans must bend to the will of Democrats and see things their way, or we don't need to even talk to them. They are ignorant anyway, and don't even know what government is. So much for sound, rational arguments or discussion.
But to solve the problems that face the nation, we need compromise. Both sides need to come together. Right now, Republicans have been elected by American voters to a majority of both houses of Congress and the presidency. That gives them an edge as far as how far they need to bend. Is there anything that you could bend on within the Republican agenda? Or are you and Democrats just planning to obstruct, resist, and make your platform "anti-anything-Trump" to try to hurt the other side for political gain?
Doug:
There are many things I think Democrats could work towards. The question is: should they work together the way that Republicans did, or wait for the next election.
David:
Which brings me right back to my original question. And again you have taken the stance that there are things Democrats should work towards, but you make no mention of things that Democrats can work towards with Republicans. There is no cooperation mentioned in any of your words, but more of a they-didn't-work-with-us-so-we're-not-gonna-work-with-them attitude. Of course, you fail to mention that Republicans had the exact same reason you mention to pursue such a course after Democrats rammed Obamacare through over the concerns of Republicans. But what about national security? What about the economy? What about bringing down the costs of health insurance (which Obamacare has failed to do). What about improving the education system for our children? What about bringing down the cost of college? What about improving training for blue-collar jobs? What about improving opportunities for the middle class? What about coming to grips with the Debt?
So what comes next? It appears we will face a future of wall building between the parties, if Democrats refuse to even sit at the same table with Republicans to do their jobs. Voters may hold Republicans responsible and vote for Democrats in 2018, which is what Democrats are hoping for, but as long as President Trump stays off of Twitter, and maintains the bully pulpit, the blame may rest with the obstructionists and lead to a super-majority for Senate Republicans.
I'm sure we'll have lots of angst, gnashing of teeth, and more protesting when that happens.
Has the political climate become too partisan too actually allow for anything productive to be accomplished in Washington anymore? Do you think social media has made this much worse than it has been in the past? What can be done to improve the partisan climate?
Doug:
Things should get done in Washington when a majority of people agree on an agenda. One would think that when one party controls the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, that that would imply that they could implement their agenda. But they haven't been able to. I believe that is because they really don't have a common agenda that their constituents understand. For example, the Republican party platform is "Obamacare is bad" but most Americans want affordable healthcare. It is impossible to reconcile (literally) these two positions.
David:
Perhaps you should just stick with your own party's platform which states you must be pro-choice to be a Democrat, and God is dead.
Doug:
Since it is National Brother Day, I'll just let that slide. And Happy National Brother Day!
David:
Ditto. It's also National Asparagus Day and International Tiara Day. Perhaps you could wear a tiara made out of asparagus. Tasty and good looking.
The Republican platform is much more involved, and won the Presidency. People want affordable health insurance, which is why Republicans won with the promise to repeal Obamacare. The new health insurance bill is just a start, and hopefully will get some Democrats on board as it moves forward. Bipartisanship is needed to reach a bill that is structured to benefit the most Americans. Obamacare is not sustainable. Democrats should be sitting at the table.
Doug:
I think we are seeing a new kind of partisanship, but it isn't between Left and Right. It is between Right and Far Right. The problem is that gerrymandering has created safe seats where extreme Far Right views have been able to have a larger impact than their numbers of constituents would allow. Therefore, the frozen Republican party is attempting to represent all of their members, but can't. Does social media and the rise of fake news make the situation worse? Absolutely. But the problem is bigger than that.
David:
So your definition of bipartisanship is to cooperate with only your own political party? Bipartisanship means working across the aisle. No wonder Democrats aren't cooperating. They don't think people are talking about them when they say we need bipartisanship.
As to your gerrymandering-is-the-reason-Republicans-have-control argument, many districts across the country voted for Clinton for POTUS and a Republican for Congress, or they voted for Trump, but a Democrat for Congress. There are over 1000 seats across the country that were held by Democrats when Obama entered the White House and now are Republican. Did Democrats gerrymander those districts to put Republicans in their place? There are "safe seats" for both the extreme right and the extreme left because people who live in those districts are more extreme than in the past. Politicians must still get elected by majorities within their districts. The country is becoming more polarized, and social media is amplifying the voices of the extreme partisans.
Although Democrats began the Obama years with control of all of the government, they also had a supermajority in the Senate. And they forced through Obamacare along strictly party lines. There was no bipartisanship there. Currently, Republicans have a very narrow majority, and Democrats have made it their goal to oppose anything that Republicans do in Washington. As we have seen, a handful of Democrats can block just about anything from moving forward. Have we entered a new era in government where the only things that can happen are by Presidential fiat through executive orders or supermajorities? Has Congress, through its inability to work together, become a stagnant pool in the swamp?
My question is: have things become so partisan that common ground cannot be found? How has social media made the partisanship within Washington toxic? If a Democrat joins with Republicans to vote on a better health-care plan, would he be instantly branded a traitor to the cause and vilified? Would a Republican joining with Democrats suffer the same fate? What do you think can be done to promote bipartisanship and cooperation?
Doug:
When the Republican party wants to eliminate government, or greatly lessen its use, then there isn't much to agree with. We need to get back to electing people that know what government is, and how to make it work for us.
David:
So your answer is Democrats are not interested in bipartisanship or cooperation. Government must get bigger. Government must have more control. If you're not for that, then we won't work with you. Apparently, you believe that only Democrats even know what government is. That seems to me to be a foolish thing to say. Republicans and Democrats have different philosophies of what role government should have. That difference of opinion has been there since our founding, between those who supported a strong, central federal government, and those that favored a weaker federal government and more state control. Both Hamilton and Adams on the one side, and men like Jefferson on the other, understood what government was and how it should be used. You apparently believe Thomas Jefferson should never have been elected.
Here's an interesting TED Talk about partisanship:
Can a Divided America Heal Itself?
Doug:
If you have never spoken to an academic elite, this is what it sounds like. Jonathan Haidt is a typical professor. Whether the topic is climate science, computer science, or social psychologist, you will often find sound, rational comments. That is not to say that all academics agree. In fact there are some that find Haidt's framing of the issue problematic. "Social psychologist John Jost wrote that Haidt 'mocks the liberal vision of a tolerant, pluralistic, civil society, but, ironically, this is precisely where he wants to end up.'" But Haidt makes some good points, and most of his comments are a cogent, straightforward understanding of social psychology. Note that these comments were right before the election when Clinton was expected to win. I wonder what he might say now?
What he says can be considered useful throughout time and place. The idea of tribalism is relevant now, 1,000 years ago, and probably in the future. It was relevant during the rise of Hitler, and after WWII. But that doesn't give us a clue as to what we should do, what actions we can take. However, I believe that there are also people studying this same topics attempting to take advantage of us. There are people attempting to use the facts of human nature against us. They want to make us distrust one another, and the press. They want us to dislike the government. They want us to fear those that aren't like us.
David:
Or to ban those who aren't like us from speaking their ideology on campuses. We must all think alike. Fear and hate those that think differently. Diversity of skin color and gender, but not of ideas, right?
Doug:
I liked his comments on empathy. Even in the age of Trump, we are seeing some empathy spread. Over just the last couple of weeks, we have finally seen the removal of some southern civil war statues removed. Here is a beautiful speech by Mayor Landrieu on their removal.
On a humorous note on empathy, last night I was at the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and he had this to say: "Dear President Trump, your tweeting has affected me in the following ways: my ratings are up... ". President Trump needs to think about his actions affect others, like Colbert! See the whole bit at the link.
Haidt is right about one thing: Democrats will attempt to paint all Republicans the same color that they paint Trump. It will be up to Republicans to distance themselves from the President. We will see if they value their tribe over country.
David:
Again, you are exhibiting exactly the tribalism Haidt comments on. According to you and the Democrats, it's up to Republicans to change. They are wrong, and we are right. Democrats are just fine the way they are. Republicans must bend to the will of Democrats and see things their way, or we don't need to even talk to them. They are ignorant anyway, and don't even know what government is. So much for sound, rational arguments or discussion.
But to solve the problems that face the nation, we need compromise. Both sides need to come together. Right now, Republicans have been elected by American voters to a majority of both houses of Congress and the presidency. That gives them an edge as far as how far they need to bend. Is there anything that you could bend on within the Republican agenda? Or are you and Democrats just planning to obstruct, resist, and make your platform "anti-anything-Trump" to try to hurt the other side for political gain?
Doug:
There are many things I think Democrats could work towards. The question is: should they work together the way that Republicans did, or wait for the next election.
David:
Which brings me right back to my original question. And again you have taken the stance that there are things Democrats should work towards, but you make no mention of things that Democrats can work towards with Republicans. There is no cooperation mentioned in any of your words, but more of a they-didn't-work-with-us-so-we're-not-gonna-work-with-them attitude. Of course, you fail to mention that Republicans had the exact same reason you mention to pursue such a course after Democrats rammed Obamacare through over the concerns of Republicans. But what about national security? What about the economy? What about bringing down the costs of health insurance (which Obamacare has failed to do). What about improving the education system for our children? What about bringing down the cost of college? What about improving training for blue-collar jobs? What about improving opportunities for the middle class? What about coming to grips with the Debt?
So what comes next? It appears we will face a future of wall building between the parties, if Democrats refuse to even sit at the same table with Republicans to do their jobs. Voters may hold Republicans responsible and vote for Democrats in 2018, which is what Democrats are hoping for, but as long as President Trump stays off of Twitter, and maintains the bully pulpit, the blame may rest with the obstructionists and lead to a super-majority for Senate Republicans.
I'm sure we'll have lots of angst, gnashing of teeth, and more protesting when that happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!