Facebook
Twitter
RSS![[Masthead]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (28)
I don't think either end of the political spectrum has a monopoly on hysteria, or on cold hard facts for that matter. What one person considers a factual analysis, some other person considers hysterical shrieking. And all parties rely too much on name-calling, hyperbole and obsession with hot-button issues while ignoring more important threats.
Playlist effect
There are many benefits to today's more diverse communications landscape, but one drawback is that with so many voices and information sources out there, you run into what D. Michael Lindsay, a Rice University sociologist, called the "playlist effect."
"The way we personalize our iPhones, we also personalize our religious lives," Rice told the Associated Press.
Lindsay used that term to describe American's tendency to pick and choose elements of their theology, but I think it also describes our politics.
In the old days, you would turn on the radio and listen to whatever songs the disk jockey chose to play. Some might be your favorites, some might be annoying, some you might learn to appreciate over time.
Today, by comparison, you can load your iPod and your computer with only the songs and artists you like. That's a great thing, don't get me wrong, but it also takes away one avenue through which you might have found out about new artists or learned to appreciate complex or challenging music.
Pick and choose
In today's world, with multiple streams of video, audio and text surging at us from all directions, people now have the ability to pick and choose not only their music, but their information sources. And it's not surprising that we tend to choose sources that reinforce what we already believe.
The reason each side feels justified by the cold hard facts is that, whatever your political leaning, your chosen news sources are probably already serving you statistics or studies or commentators to back you up. (And of course, the study or statistic which defends my sacred cow is obviously legitimate, while the study or statistic that defends your sacred cow is suspect.)
Whether you're conservative or liberal, you never have to be confronted by anyone or anything that challenges your assumptions -- and if you are, you can just dismiss it as being biased.
Nothing new
None of this is new, of course; strident, self-serving political discourse has been a part of American democracy since almost the beginning. Think of Andrew Jackson's political opponents trying to use his wife Rachel's first marriage against him. Think of the days when most major cities had one newspaper that leaned towards one party and one that leaned towards the other. But today's culture and technology seem to magnify destructive and distracting forms of political discourse while punishing legitimate efforts to calmly discuss things across party lines.
There is no way to get the toothpaste back into the tube, even if we wanted to. But we as individual citizens have to become more responsible in the ways we use this diversity of information, and more willing to have an open mind towards those with whom we disagree.
--John I. Carney is city editor of the Times-Gazette and covers county government. He is also the author of the self-published novel "Soapstone." His personal web site is lakeneuron.com.
Comments
Are you suggesting there are no such things as absolute truths? That everything is subject to interpretation and point of view?
No, I'm not suggesting that at all; I think there are absolutes. But I'm not talking about religion; I'm talking about politics. And political answers are often found in the middle ground.
"The 'morality of compromise' sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don't compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised."-Andrew Carnegie
"Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another--too often ending in the loss of both."-Tryon Edward
"You may either win your peace or buy it: win it, by resistance to evil; buy it, by compromise with evil"-John Ruskin
"Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship."-James Russell Lowell
"It is the weak man who urges compromise--never the strong man."-Elbert Hubbard
It all depends on what you mean by compromise. Read your history books: the American system -- our Constitution, the founding document which sets the ground rules for this entire conversation -- was one big compromise, the result of a tug of war between those who favored states' rights and those who favored a stronger national government.
Obviously, there are certain moral principles on which one must stand firm. But most of the partisan bickering to which I referred in my original column has nothing to do with those moral principles. It has to do with other issues, or with the practical, real-world ways in which we implement those moral principles.
Let's say that there are two people -- one politically conservative, the other politically liberal -- who both consider themselves Christians. They may be in 100 percent agreement over the need for compassion for the poor. Neither of them wants to compromise on that principle.
But they are in complete disagreement over what that means. What causes poverty? How should safety net programs be implemented without creating a culture of dependency? How should society protect children even in cases where their parents behave irresponsibly? Should the work be done by government or by independent non-profits?
The conservative and the liberal will have dramatically-different answers to those questions. But the chances are, the solution will end up being somewhere in the middle. That's not a matter of abandoning moral principles; it's a matter of not being so smug about having all the answers.
The very point of my column is the way in which our political discourse has degraded. Two different candidates may disagree about the best way to achieve national security (or prosperity, or equality, or what have you). But, rather than admit that what they are disagreeing about is the process, which is always negotiable, they accuse each other of not caring about the underlying principle, which is not. ("You hate America!" shriek the conservatives. "You don't care about poor people!" shriek the liberals. Both statements are hogwash.)
In many cases (not all, I will grant you), what the liberal and the conservative disagree on is not the underlying moral principle, but observations about human nature, analysis of whether risk A is greater than risk B, and differing strategies to achieve an agreed-upon goal. Those things not only can be negotiable, they must be negotiable if we are to have any hope of moving forward.
I think most people think of themselves as moderates. I can't look at either major party's platform and agree on everything; there are some issues where I would tend to be sympathetic with the liberal analysis, others where I would tend to be sympathetic with the conservative analysis. I often vote a split ticket in general elections.
I do not see compromise as a sign of weakness. I see it as one of the keys to our strength as a nation over the course of our history.
The constitution is very clear about what is a function of government and what isn't. It even includes a catchall amendment (the 10th) just in case there is any confusion about the issue.
The constitution even allows itself to be compromised, through future amendments, if necessary.
But for the federal government to do something obviously contrary to the constitution, and use the argument that it should be done because it "feels" like the right thing to do is something other than compromise. It is foolishness of the highest order.
If we really "need" socialized medicine, or any of the other gimmie federal programs-fine, call a constitutional convention and do it the right way.
BTW- where is the compromise in Washington when conservatives are locked out of all talks about socialized medicine?
I know I usually come across as a hard ***, but I and several others I know are tired of seeing the profits for our work being stolen and given to people who are too lazy to work for themselves. If they don't believe their life, and livelihood, is worth working for who are we to argue?
Last line should have read "isn't worth working for".
As I recall,God wanted fifty righteous men found before He spared Sodom and Gomorrah.
He settled for ten (which He didn't get) and wound up smiting the cities for their sinfulness.
I don't think God was caving in due to a lack of principles on His part.
I think He was ready to work with anything that demonstrated the people's committment to living according to holy principles.
Maybe,it takes someone as confident as the Almighty to examine the issues and discover sane,honorable alternatives.
There's a difference between a compromise that ignores right and wrong and the kind that looks for the best in every side of an issue and applies it accordingly.
I was pleasantly surprised to see this thought provoking editorial (if that is what it is considered). There should be more of them in the future if time allows.
I think you are only 3/4 right though. It could be that one draw of this type of forum is the fact that you will be challenged. I know that when I have the time, I enjoy going back and forth with some of the commenters. Without that dialectic, I would not be as inclined to participate, or even read. I imagine I am not alone in that. Earned justification is much more fulfilling (and enlightening) than the piped in version you refer to.
Quietmike, The answer to your question: "where is the compromise in Washington when conservatives are locked out of all talks about socialized medicine?" is TINA. TINA eliminates the political stresses of compromise while effectively removing the populations represented from the discourse. If you look closely, you will see those small letters coming after the r or d that is beside most politician's names.
I have an old Sears Roebuck catalog that belonged to my grandfather. Offered for sale in it among other things was Laudanum (morphine) and 1927 Thompsons (machine guns). In both cases the items could be ordered and the mailman would bring them to your door.
Through years of compromise we have not only lost the ability for individuals to purchase these things (w/o heavy government red tape), we have gotten to the point that in a couple of years we will be unable to purchase light bulbs that are not government approved.
Could anyone imagine their grandfather or great grandfather being told they were only allowed to buy a certain type of lantern or that the had to have their horse emission tested?
The point being we have lost so much to the slippery slope of compromise to folks who are too afraid to take responsibility for their own lives.
---------------
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
I will have to take you at your word that the items you mention were available for unrestricted purchase, as I have no 1920's era Sears catalogues to reference, but I bet you did not see any whiskey available for purchase. ;)
There are places for government intrusion. The oversight of ATF (and narcotics) is a necessary one in my opinion.
Your understandings of what constitutes a liberal and a conservative may be why we share so little common ground. I would not agree with most of what you wrote about either group of people as a whole.
It would appear that you have confused politically motivated posturing for actual character traits, and then further applied that limited spectrum to everyone. It is an easy black and white way to view the world, but I am not so sure it is accurate. I also imagine that like many things, it was meant to be easy.
quietmike, are you suggesting that morphine and machine guns be sold in the Sears Catalog?
The idea of legalizing drugs is pretty liberal idea. Some of us think that leagalization might help control use of drugs thus potentially cut down on drug related crime. We have done it with alcohol why not other drugs.
My point however, is that I don't think one can paint people with such broad strokes. It shows single mindedness and a lack of being able to put real thought into anything. I guess it really does make life simple though when one can compartmentalize things into black and white, good and evil or conservative and liberal.
There is only one problem with that line of thought. What about the people who don't exactly fit into those little cubby-holes?
I own guns, eat meat and don't care whether anyone else does or not. I change the station when I hear some conservative babble about how unamerican I am because I don't believe exactly as he or she would have me beleive.
I beleive the main reason a consevative would hide his homesexual tendency is out of fear that he or she would be rejected, scorned and disowned by his own peer group.
I do beleive we need healthcare reform in this country. I also beleive that if you think it is so easy to go out and find a job that provides healthcare, you are out of touch with reality.
I beleive in God. But I do not believe that it gives me the right to denounce any beleive that is not my own.
I don't beleive it is right to lead our country into a war under false pretense, stay there spending billions of tax payer dollars while denoucing the use of tax dollars to help our own.
Is asking me to help pay for healthcare for someone else any greater sin than asking me to help pay for re-building Iraq.
My tax dollars are used for a lot of things I disagree with, like when Fred Thompson was off in Califronia making TV shows on my dime instead of filling his seat in the Senate. But even I realize that bringing that up is being small minded.
Maybe our entire politcal system, as well as our government, would run better and smoother if our leaders on both sides were not stuck in such a rut of beleiving that one is always right and the other is always wrong. I emphasize always.
Strange that you believe legalizing drugs is a "liberal" idea.
Conservatism has at its roots the belief in a smaller and less intrusive government. Government that (hopefully) does only what is outlined in the constitution.
Yes, I believe that machine guns and drugs should be sold openly as there is nothing in the constitution that gives the government any authority whatsoever to regulate either.
(I would also point out that drug abuse and gun-related crimes were much lower per-capita before the government got involved with either.)
As you said, we should have learned our lesson during prohibition.
Remember the old rotary telephones of the 70's? After the deregulation of the phone companies just look at the technological advances since then. Does anyone believe that a government regulated phone industry would have brought us the Iphone?
There has never and can never be any type of monopoly in any business without the implicit support of the government.
The free market would fix 90+% of all the problems in America,IF the government would get out of the way and let it work. Unfortunately, except for very small scale examples, this has never happened during my lifetime.
The free market? Are you naive enough to believe that a "free market" can correct all of its ails?
Funny that you constantly deride socialism and always present the "free market" as the best system possible, yet every time the "free market" needs a bailout, the socialist regime known as government follows through... Correct me if I am wrong, but I have yet to hear how the American government [socialism] has been bailed out by the "free market"...
I always find it ironic that when Congress proposes money for "defense" or war, you rarely hear an objection about the costs. Yet when the very same Congress proposes a plan to help 30 million AMERICAN citizens become insured, suddenly cost is the number one issue being debated. If you spend billions to "defend" a country you love so dearly, why is it so immoral to spend billions to help those who live here?
The Constitution was designed to be an evolving document, with very few sections of it being absolute. Obviously that is the case, given that when the Constitution was ratified the U.S. consisted of 13 states!
The constitution allows for government involvement in military affairs. It doesn't allow for their involvement in every social issue that comes down the pike. If it's really that important, call a constitutional convention and add a healthcare amendment.
The American government shouldn't be "bailed out" by anyone or anything. The government is a necessary evil, which is exactly why the constitution is all about constraining the scope of the government...much to the chagrin of our liberal citizens.
Yawn...
Not surprising that a liberal would be bored with constitutional rules.
Maybe it is because so many times they are unable or unwilling to follow simple rules that they always need outside help. Hmm.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have yet to hear how the American government [socialism] has been bailed out by the "free market"...
-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Dec 19, 2009, at 6:46 PM
They get bailed out by the "free market" every day when they take money out of millions of peoples pay.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have yet to hear how the American government [socialism] has been bailed out by the "free market"...
-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Dec 19, 2009, at 6:46 PM
They get bailed out by the "free market" every day when they take money out of millions of peoples pay.
-- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Dec 21, 2009, at 10:32 AM
Taxes are the source of government revenue... Thank you Ceasar Augustus. How else do you think we achieved the best military in the world?
Government, however, isn't supposed to be the source of the free market's revenue, temporary or not.
Not surprising that a liberal would be bored with constitutional rules.
Maybe it is because so many times they are unable or unwilling to follow simple rules that they always need outside help. Hmm.
-- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Dec 20, 2009, at 3:06 AM
Patriot Act?
Guantanamo Bay?
Supreme Court elected Presidency?
Talk about violating the Constitution...
The Constitution, the Bible, and every other piece of literature known to man are imperfect... Most have undergone changes, some radical and some very slight, since their inception. This is not Utopia, the men who wrote our founding document were no more perfect than you and I. Their concept of today's world was no more accurate than what ours are of 200 years from now. We simply don't have the ability to write a document today that is 100% relevant for the year 2200. Imagine, for one second, if everything we did in 2009 was verbatim what the framers lived through.
The Constitution does not have the ability to deal with every situation known to man. If it did, we wouldn't have 27 amendments, which proves, without a shadow of a doubt, its imperfection.
When the Constitution was made law, men wore powdered wigs, makeup and their outfits included stockings (and I'm sure you would never attend a drag show........) . They rode horses to and from their meetings, their wives only duty was to cook, clean and be a baby making machine (who couldn't vote and weren't allowed to vote) many owned slaves, and most were religiously neutral, some of who denounce Christianity.
By all means, if it is your desire to live in 100% compliance with the archaic document and those who wrote it, without any amendments or the ability to change it, as the country and its people change, then so be it. For the rest of us, we know when its time to make progress, if we didn't, America wouldn't be the force it is today. We didn't get to this point in history by always doing things the way they've always been done. Somewhere along the way every giant change began with one person, one idea and collective understanding that if we truly call ourselves the greatest nation on Earth, then the least we can do, is take care of people when the private market simply will not.
When you look at the past with rose colored glasses, it weakens your ability to see a brighter future! {me}
By all means, if it is your desire to live in 100% compliance with the archaic document and those who wrote it, without any amendments or the ability to change it, as the country and its people change, then so be it.
-- Posted by darrick_04
If you'll look back I actually suggested that you liberals call a constitutional convention an add an amendment for healthcare if that's what you think you need.(it was right before you YAWNed.)
The constitution was never designed nor intended to "deal with every situation known to man". It was designed to lay out specifically what the federal government should, and shouldn't, do. It leaves state and local governments along with individuals to handle most things. I know that may be a scary proposition for you to imagine, but it is called freedom, and freedom is not without it's risks.
Government, however, isn't supposed to be the source of the free market's revenue, temporary or not.
-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Dec 22, 2009, at 8:15 PM
On this we agree, but our fastly approaching socialist govt is able to act upon their radical ideas strictly because of the money taken from the free market.
Mike,
Obama had many hot-button issues that made up his political platform. One of the most widely known was the push for health care reform. Obama, and the Democrats were elected, with the public knowing full well it was their goal to achieve massive change in the health care system. Remember?
As I recall, he, and the Democrats not only won the election but achieved the impossible by completely reversing the Senate majority party (almost filibuster proof), increasing their solid majority in the H.O.R and Obama won with 69,456,897 votes (the most in history!!!) and that was 10 MILLION more votes than McCain received. I think it's fair to say, the Constitutional Convention already took place... Before you bring it up, his poll numbers are down, because Republicans and insurance lobbyists have managed to chip away at any possibility of a public option, which is what the 69,456,897 people who voted for him, had hoped for, but so far are not getting. Nevermind the fact that 10 presidents have attempted to achieve major health care legislation, and at last, that may happen. No, losing the lection by 10 million votes doesn't mean you shouldn't have a say in what happens, but then again, if majority rules, then the people have already spoken.
Fear and paronia always sway the uneducated/uninformed voter, why else do you think Republicans are so good at divide and conquer?
Ironic that liberals will scream like they are being stabbed if every rule isn't followed with a captured terrorist held in a foreign prison, but will gleefully ignore other rules when it suits their purpose.
That so many were gullible enough to buy the hopey- changey nonsense of an admitted Marxist sympathizer does not equal a constitutional convention.
obama promised so much during his campaign that anyone who didn't immediately see him as a shyster should have their head examined.
No lobbyists in his administration?
Transparency in government?
Allow 5 days of comment before signing bills?
Earmark reform?
No capital gains taxes for small businesses?
Penalty free retirement withdrawal?
Tax credits for hiring new employees?
All soldiers out of Iraq in 16 months?
$4,000 college credits?
What is soetoro's score for keeping his word?
Foreign prison = owned, operated, and funded by American tax payers??? What a joke.
Progress is being made... instead of focusing on what hasn't been accomplished in 11 months of his presidency learn to understand there are three more years to achieve formidable results in each subcategory listed.
Perhaps you should reference each "promise" with a non-biased source, and then take into consideration the fact that most of the issues you mentioned face staunch Conservative opposition. I've never understood how it is your position that those who elected Obama expected miracles... yet because he hasn't achieved every promise he made, having been in office less than a year, you are the one who are disappointed. I think the ones who expected miracles, lost handily on November 4, 2008!
instead of focusing on what hasn't been accomplished in 11 months of his presidency learn to understand there are three more years to achieve formidable results in each subcategory listed. - Posted by darrick_04
Not quite. In less than a year the congress will receive an enema from the voters. All polling show soetoro's numbers dropping faster than GM stock. American's are tired of the obama, reid, pelosi trifecta.
------------------------------------------------
I've never understood how it is your position that those who elected Obama expected miracles... yet because he hasn't achieved every promise he made, having been in office less than a year, you are the one who are disappointed.
-- Posted by darrick_04
On the contrary, I am ecstatic that soetoro hasn't had very good luck implementing more of his Marxist ideology.
I use the example to point out that barry sounded more like a used car salesman (with apologies to used car salesmen for the comparison) promising everything to everyone, and how gullible his supporters must be to have bought that bill of goods.
I think we left out one important comparison. A liberal honestly believes that businesses are formed for the purpose of creating jobs, while a conservative believes that businesses are formed to generate profits. The liberal believes that by taxing big business to pay for entitlement programs you somehow miraculously motivate big business to hire more people. Have we so soon forgotten the common sense economics policies of the Reagan administration? He conclusively proved that when you cut taxes, you increase revenue. When you raise taxes, you do exactly the opposite. Big business are not just going to "eat" the increase in their tax burden. They will keep their profit margins by cutting costs, the first of which is labor. Expect the unemployment rate to increase.
Man sorry I missed this one :)
Quietmike, it looks like you are banging your head againt the wall trying to get your valid points across to the other side.
Abraham Lincoln had a lot of famous quotes. One that stands out is " You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich". I know that it is "archaic" but the truth has no time limit in my opinion. I served my country for over 20 years and I hate to see this country that I love become one of socialist features. Our forefathers never intended for the government to be so involved in our lives.
Time will tell. The Democratic Senators are retiring or announcing that they will not seek relection left and right for a reason. The handwriting is on the wall; if you can't see it, hang around for the next election.