Polarization is certainly on the upswing these days. The trend seems to be that anyone who does not agree with you automatically believes in and stands for the polar opposite. For example, if you do not agree with conservative views in their entirety, then you are automatically a radical liberal socialist by default. Or, if you are not a liberal, you are a right wing fundamentalist. There is no attempt to look any further into what your self-created ‘opponent’ thinks or where their beliefs are similar in order to promote a common understanding. No, it is straight into attack mode, and not an attack of the ideas but a personal attack against the individual. Since the assumption of opposition was based on a false and vicious idea, most of the insults are false and vicious too.
Believe it or not, while the ‘great middle,’ the majority of people who do not cotton to either extreme but may lean towards one, is referred to, they are still ignored in all debate. Polls discuss ‘strongly opposed’ and people project the results onto the mainstream as a reflection of what they think. What about those who are generally in favor or generally opposed, but with a few questions or reservations and an open mind? Do they get lost in the tide? Because they are undecided or unresolved, their opinion does not matter? What about those who think that some government intervention is necessary, but only with due consideration and intelligent, reasoned debate? What about those who want government to exist at a minimum, but recognize that it may need to step in when society won t or can t solve a problem? Since when does identifying with an ideal become a badge of shame with a judgment attached? Is it possible that there are both socialists and fundamentalists that are basically good people with good intentions? When has polarization ever amounted to anything positive? Does anyone ever win under ‘all or nothing’ scenarios?
There will never be mutual understanding under this sort of mindset. When you go into attack mode, you put a person on the defense and encourage them not to listen to you or what you have to say. Since you have taken it directly into the personal, you have made their dislike for you personal. They may even agree with some of the things you believe in, but not when they come from your mouth. It is an unproductive game to start, at the very least. It is far easier not to start the game than to do damage control to fix it. You may find it amusing, but to what effect? You do no justice to your cause or your ideals and burn bridges before they are even built.
How we receive and respond to other people s views say is as important as how we propose our own. There is no point advancing your views if you have created a climate where no one will want to listen by alienating everyone, unless you like to hear yourself talk. A dissenting view is not a statement against you as a person, or a personal insult, until you take it as one.
Not black is simply that- not black. It could be any color of the rainbow, even charcoal grey. It is simply anything but black, and certainly not automatically white. When someone disagrees with you, by making them your opposite and your ideological enemy by default, then acting on that presumption, you get the very enemy you created. And it is for you to deal with the consequences.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree with most of this.
J Byron,
I am flattered. Let me think about that one. I wouldn’t want a conflict of interest between my personal/professional life and what I blog for. I’ll get back to you on it.
I am so happy I was able to help, now let this be a lesson to you, don’t make me response another equally stupid attempt at understanding!
L, I have ti take time on your response, but I look forward to it 1st chance I get, hopefully tonight, I’m a chronic insom. I’m busy attempting to both write for fame and fortune (I’d settle for fortune) and introduce a new “One of a kind Game Product”, but I admit, I’m abit addicted to this blog stuff.
Consti, I’m attempting a product roll out in your area. Limited budget, great gaming product, e-mail if you want to know about it, it’s will hopefully launch in your neighborhood.
More of the same….
You forget what you post on? Read it.
And again, I’ve read your “sources”. They offer a morsel of news, take it totally out of context or create a context, then present it as fact, which you then read, believe and provide a link to as “proof”… Yeah, it’s proof that someone else feels the same way as you. I can find that anywhere, I don’t need you to supply it for me. And finding one example of anything does not equal proof of a blanket statement or generalization.
A+B does not eqaul C, my friend.
Sorry to disagree with you, but I do. And it only shows you don’t read what I write if that is truly what you think. You are making generalizations that fit your opinion of me. I’m not surprised. For someone who thinks so little of me and finds me boring I am surprised you obsess over what I say so much. That you try SO HARD to refute what I bring forth. Most of which you can easily find in the news. Links to which I also provide. Yet, all you seem capable of is arguing about my motives. If you can’t comment on the information I provide from other sources, you comment on my personality, morals, fairness, bias, etc. So what you are showing me is you can’t argue the points, you have to argue the person. That is the Alinsky way. And by your own actions your way as well. At least I provide references to back my writing up with. You are all opinion.
J,
No there is no absolute right and wrong, in my opinion. Especially when there are matters of opinion involved.
Abortion- Abortion is supposed to be wrong because it is murder- the fundamental premise being that life is paramount. To those who believe that abortion being wrong is an absolute, I ask this. Then why is capital punishment and war condoned and promoted by the very same people who protest abortion? If life is paramount, then how can you condone killing in any form, even in self-defense? Since the 10 Commandments does not specifically say the word man or mankind, then is it fair to argue that “Thou shall not kill.” could mean that you cannot kill ANYTHING, including plants or animals? If murder is indeed justified under certain circumstances, and the fact that abortion is murder is based on the religious conviction that sentient human life begins at conception (which is not supported by science), then you cannot outlaw abortion. Is abortion regrettable? Yes, it is. Should it involve a great deal of thought and consideration before embarking on it? Yes. As a matter of fact, any woman who does not think about it and is truly saddened by it probably should not be having kids because I doubt she would care enough about the child, before or after birth, to be a good mother.
Slavery- If slavery is absolutely wrong, because humans do not have the right to take away the liberties and freedoms of another human being, then how can the subjection of mankind to money, a human invention, be condoned as an adherence to the free market? The free market places the accumulation of money as the primary definition of worth. Something only has as much value as the market gives it and as it can be defined by money. The free market does not measure in intangibles, and so therefore the value is totally subjective and can therefore not be considered absolute by anyone who adheres to the free market system.
Women’s rights- In a society, the unlimited enjoyment of the rights of any one person is not absolute. That does not mean that rights are not inalienable- we have the rights- but it does put limits on them. Does every human have those rights? Yes. Does any one group have the right to negate the existence of those rights for another group- to say they don’t have them or that they are less than human and therefore do not have the rights that are inherent to all human beings? No, they don’t. But that is not that same as guaranteeing that every person has the right to do all that they want when they want how they want to whatever degree they want? Not if that person wants to live in a society they don’t. They don’t even have unlimited rights in nature. Does a polar bear care about your right to exercise your rights when he attacks and eats you because where you shouldn’t be when you shouldn’t be and put yourself in his way?
Consti,
Went back over your stuff. This is what I was able to gather about what you believe.
You are anti-
-Liberals,
-Obama,
-Obama Administration
-MSM (except Fox News, who should have unfettered First Amendment rights)
-Dems
-Government games as displayed by the Dems
-Hate speech by Dems (but it is okay from the Conservatives, GOP, and yourself)
-Obama’s conspiracy to indoctrinate school children
-Unions
-Government encouragement of volunteerism
-Socialism, real or imagined
-Greater good (for any group other than your own)
-The tactics of Saul Alinsky (unless used by you or those you agree with, then it’s okay)
-Socialized medicine
-Health care reform or health insurance reform in any form as proposed by the Dems
-Charlie Rangel
-Corruption in Congress as demonstrated by the Dems
-Government attempts to reduce poverty
-Stimulus package
-NAFTA
-TARP
-Communist
-Socialism in other countries
You are pro-
-Mark Twain
-Unemployment insurance (you may or may not still be receiving it)
-COBRA subsidation by the government (which again would have benefitted you personally)
-jobs (find me someone who is anti-jobs)
-Government subsidizing small business loans (while still managing to stay out of the free market)
-Freedom of the press, especially Fox News
-Guns (possibly, but hard to tell)
This list comes from your posts. Now tell me, just what is it you stand for, other than your own personal heros, government programs that benefit you personally, and the ability to hear Fox News trash the President? And maybe the ability to have a gun to defend yoursself from all those liberals who will come to get you for exercising your right to free speech? There must be someting wrong with me for not seeing exactly what it is you stand for in your writings.
Absolutes limit a person. Pigeon hole them into one camp or the other. When in actuality, life is a series of grey. Is it right for the government to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body? No. Is it right to have three abortions because you can’t keep your legs closed or use a condom? No. Again, absolutes are an illusion.
1. Is there such a thing as absolute right and absolute wrong.
NO there isn’t. There is only the moment. It’s a Buddhist concept.
2. If the answer is yes and there is disagreement, do you sacrifice what you know to be right/wrong to appease an opponent and gain a peaceful middle ground.
See answer to first question. However to better answer your question look at the appeasement of Russia in regards to the missile shield. It gained us nothing against Iran which was it’s intent.
3. The subjects are womens rights, abortion and slavery.
Again see answer above.
L,
You and Consti remind me of me and my new friend DFunzy, by the way, thanks for your wonderful and gracious attempt to get us to play nice.
The difference being Dfunzy is actually fun and funny. This is not, and my input as to both of you being swell may not be as effective.
I have a challange for both of you, in article form or by response:
Time WILL tell who’s ideas are most correct, but I want to know from both of you, I and others may chime in as “responses”, 1. Is there such a thing as absolute right and absolute wrong. 2. If the answer is yes and there is disagreement, do you sacrifice what you know to be right/wrong to appease an opponent and gain a peaceful middle ground. 3. The subjects are womens rights, abortion and slavery.
Just a thought, I mean as a please to start understanding, if not agreements.
Laura I have stated what I stand for time and time again. And each time you accuse me of the same things over and over again. I can only put the plate in front of you. I can’t make you eat. And I have never questioned your patriotism, unlike the countless times you have questioned mine. I said this to you before, but apparently I have to repeat myself. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it. Apparently you do not feel the same.
And honestly, I don’t have a problem with politicians calling the American public out for their shortcomings. We should be holding up our end as well and deserve criticism when we don’t.
Last time I checked, politicians are American citizens with First Amendment rights too. If theat politician’s constituents find that their representative does not reflect their views, then they should vote him or her out. It’s the actions that matter, especially if the actions back up the statement.
Mark Twain, while a talented writer, sold himself to the highest bidr and hed inappropriate relationships with pre-teen girls in his late years. Also, he would be the first to admit that he was a satirist, that’s what he did. But hey, nobody’s perfect…But by Twain’s comments, I am just as much a patriot as you. I stand by my convictions to the point where I use my real name and am willing to face whatever consequences, real or imaginary, then to be silent. You cringe at the thought of imaginary consequences, but you are the patriot? And since when is dessention for dissention’s sake a conviction. To stand up for a conviction is to stand up for something. Just what is it you stand up for? You certainly know how to lob bombs and to criticize, but again, that is not standing up for something. If the Founding Fathers took your example, we may have revolted against England, but we would not have the Constitution, which is a radical proactive document. The very freedoms you spout out to hold dear came from a bunch of guys who saw something wrong, then decided that drastic change and faith in an unknown and untested form of government way to go. That the cost of not trying and settling for the status quo was too high. But that’s okay, you’ll ignore that too and try to rewrite history or find a way to argue that isn’t what happened.
Again- read.I did not call you stupid, I called your points stupid. There’s a difference. You take no responsibility for your words, how you use them, how you address people- none. You have presonally insulted people left and right here. Other than calling you a hypocrite and a coward, based on your own words and actions, I have not personally insulted you. But you need to believe that I and others have so that you can apply your “But HE or SHE did it first”. Look back to your first comments to any person on this site, before they would have even had the opportunity to attack you.
Afraid of you? No, I am not afraid of you. Actually I am fascinated by your level of self-deception and afraid of the very real fact that there are others out there who choose to be as dark, hateful and self-deceptive as you. Actually, I feel sorry for you. Call me condescending- I don’t really care, but your inteeligence is toally being wasted in the service of negativity. You’re right, I don’t know you, but I know your words and actions. They’ve been on display for months now. You don’t know me either, but have chosen from your very first comment about my work to insult and belittle me as a person, just as you have done to others. Again, I don’t expect you to recognize that or admit to it because it does not fit the personal fantasy you have created for yourself.
As with Republican politicians calling the liberal public names, I didn’t adress it because even if I did, even if I brought quotes, you’d rationalize them somehow. “The liberal media misquoted”, or “That wasn’t what they meant” or any of 100 other such self-delusional argument you would make to justify your version of the truth. Waste of my time, so I’m not going to play the game. Believe what you want-you will anyway. Anyone else who takes those kinds of blanket statements without question and runs with them ends up with exactly what they deserve.
I don’t play devil’s advocate for you. I play devil’s advocate for those who would question what anyone, including me, has to say.
For in a republic, who is “the Country”? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Who, then, is “the Country”? Is it the newspaper? is it the pulpit? Is it the school superintendent? Why, these are mere parts of the country, not the whole of it; they have not command, they have only their little share in the command. They are but one in a thousand; it is in the thousand that command is lodged; they must determine what is right and what is wrong; they must decide who is a patriot and who isn’t.
Who are the thousand–that is to say, who are “the Country”? In a monarchy, the king and his family are the country; in a republic it is the common voice of the people. Each of you, for himself, by himself and on his own responsibility, must speak. And it is a solemn and weighty responsibility, and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government, or the empty catch-phrases of politicians. Each must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, and which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide it against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may. If you alone of all the nation shall decide on way, and that way be the right way accordng to your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country–hold up your head. You have nothing to be ashamed of.
- “Papers of the Adam Family”
Mark Twain
I would expect you to try and belittle my argument Laura. Of that I am not surprised. You can’t “figure” me out simply because you cling to your “view” as strongly as I do mine. And you don’t understand my pointing out your fallacy in the fact that you do exactly what you complain about as well. Ideas can be attacked, discussed, and derided. People shouldn’t. And I noticed you didn’t bother to pick up the thread when I corrected you that it’s politicians calling their constituents these names. But I am not surprised at that either. Apparently it is ok in your mind to let our elected representatives belittle the people that put them in power. So long as it’s your people that are making the baseless claims of “evil”, “war monger” “mob”, “right-wing nut”, “astro-turf”, and NAZI. No you sink to the level you claim to find distasteful just as easily as I do. However, I am simply reacting in kind to what I receive on a regular basis from you. Meeting fire with fire if you will. You can’t even comment to others without taking a stab at me. You fear me because you don t know me, and feel safer labeling and pigeon holing me to fit your view. I however do not live in fear. And that too scares you. You are the bully in the sand box Laura. I notice you comment on everything. Your sense of righteousness stinks of hypocrisy. Just the other day you commented that I was obviously intelligent, now I am stupid. You can’t even make up your own mind let alone the minds of others as you try. You belittle me because as the bully in the sand box you don’t like the fact that I stand up to you. That threatens you control. And funny how you all talk about the sand box after I wrote a blog pointing out just this fact. Face it Laura, you fear what you don’t know. And right now I am the biggest ?
It’s blame game…damned typos…
J,
Something that just occured to me that bothers the heck out of me. You and Consti call for responsibility. But if evveryone is running around saying “Well HE did it first” then no one is responsible for anything. All they have to do is prove that someone else did it first, and all that person has to do is prove someone ELSE did it before them, and so on. Where does that get us? When does it stop? Answer- it doesn’t. It’s just more of the baleme game that constitutes the majority of Consti’s articles and ire.
Big boy panties, people…
J,
Just what “good” points did Consti raise that “escaped me”? That tit for tat happens in politics? That it is okay? That it is okay for only one group to do it but wrong for another? His points did not “escape” me, I chose not to address tham because they are just so… stupid, for lack of a better word. You can’t criticize one group for doing something, but give the greenlight to another and still keep a shred of integrity for your argument or original criticism- plain and simple. I’m not going to argue the validity of the criticisms of a person if they don’t even believe in the basis for the criticism enough to not practice it himself. I don’t argue with people who have a “do as I say, not as I do” or “It’s okay for me and my friends to do it, but not you.” You can’t argue with those people because if they are dillusional enough to justify their actions, then there is no reasonable argument that you can show them that disagrees with what they want to believe which they will accept. Consti works too hard making his skewed version of the world justified and a reality for me to make any headway with him. Why dignify his obvious hypocrisy and self-delusion with an answer?
As far as the target on my back and the designation of Liberal or anything else- the point of the article in relation to this is that you are defining my beliefs by what they are not rather than what they are. That does a disservice to us both. I am NOT many things- I am not a man, I am not tall, I am not French, etc- but that doesn’t get you a clear picture of what I AM. And to attack a person or their beliefs based on your perception of what they are, when your perception of that is based merely on what they are NOT, is faulty judgment, inaccurate, and ultimately a waste of time, unless you like being wrong or apologizing.
Silverwun, if you don’t write that book, I’ll be most disappointed in you. You words inspire and give hope with reason.
Yet, I disagree with you on several counts.
The last point being the most egregious.
My friend, L has lots that I disagree with, you have a more. L is an expert Lib Poli-writer (my wife noticed she has been well pressed with praise on other sites), but she is very easy to read and the target on her is visible by a mile without scope, just ask Consti.
I will address what I have issue with shortly.
You Silverwun are a natural from the heart guy, how do you criticize Hemmingway? Let me put in my two cents on L first. Consti made some very valid points that seem to escape L and were left unattended by Silverwun.
Not to plagiarize, but Consti most astutely noted, the Libs and the state rum media attack ‘The People € who care enough to go out and put foot to their grievances.
The great 60% L alluded to in the middle don t care enough to work at either side, even if they know what they believe, they go with the flow of what others create.
As we all know the American Revolution was the result of about 20% that did and 20% that sympathized. The great Moderates don t exist insomuch as it may matter.
The food of thought needs heated, spiced and have an aroma that drifts and attracts. An appealing meal is smelt down the street. This of course applies to all sides, except maybe Dfunzy types who through some bubblegum scent on any candle that may be burning, attracting the immature poli-children looking for a good time and some sugar induced excitement.
L, there are black and whites, in the opinion of many. Killing the unborn for convince, wrong (regardless of the angle looked at Silverwun), slavery, wrong, no middle ground. Just ask the 640K who died determining this issue. Violence against anybody based on personal choices that effect only themselves (sexuality, religion and so on), just wrong (black and white). Your son being bullied, he should defend himself if no authority is there to help.
All political movements in either direction are dictated by those who ‘do something €. Rarely has reason won a war, or even converted a Conservative or Liberal, just look at any political site.
L your rainbows only appear after the storm is past. Whether the storm is over keeping Potts from killing millions of freedom fighters in Cambodia or saving a little healthy boy or girl from a gruesome death at the hands of a otherwise ‘swell and polite € abortionist and confused mom. Maybe it s over you voting to take yet another 15% of my hard earned money to give 25% to the needy and 75% to the machine who distributes it with the compassion of a carrot. Yes L sometimes we need to be passionate regardless the cost of the bridge of uncomfortable feelings of the disagreeing friends next cocktail party.
Silverwun, I believe, your beautiful idealism is clouded by you desire to succumb to the there is no absolute right or wrong celebration. Just don t divert the stream from my farm and animals, everything else can be worked out over a good scotch. Well Sir, water is being diverted, just not from your farm presently.
Somehow I m sure your reply to my short rant will leave me looking foolish, but that s how I see it.
Thank you Silverwun.
People who are generally in good physical and emotional health, if they’ve hung around on this planet long enough, can look back over their lives and see many changes. Some more subtle and more or less single directional, others more radical and pendulum-like.
In my case it was the latter. Regular Army at seventeen during the early Viet Nam Era with contempt for long hair and appeasement. Later much more liberal, as a member of NOW, disheartened when the ERA failed and Reagan was elected.
These days are more settled in more easily able to distinguish between the possible, the probable, the very likely and the absolutely impossible without the usual loss of idealism. The heart is comforting and lends hope. The more rational, mental side is very discomforting; mourning losses from the past and those yet to occur.
This I know. Loving an ideal is much like loving a child or a spouse. If they are attacked, one is prepared to sacrifice and die, if necessary and the critic or assailant is always hated and 100% ‘evil’ on one hand. The beloved is likewise 100% pure; defects are inconcievable.
Ideas and ideals are not palpable, as are the living. Indeed they depend for their entire existence on the minds and hearts of believers who see them as ‘the way’ to what is good and secure. When and if they betray us, like a betraying spouse or ungrateful child, the pain and disillusionment can be bitter and deep or simply regretful.
Political, religious and philosophical differences are different from one another only by degrees. With a change in the angle from which they are percieved, they can look entirely different or vanish completely; causing one to wonder ‘what possessed me?’
Change is central in the phenomenology of growth and degeneration; in living as intelligent creatures and in genuine human progress. Change for the worse, as in poorly founded fears and destructiveness is cause for grief; when for the better or life and love affirming, change is to celebrate.
I think what you’ve written is cause for celebration.
and I said the PUBLIC are being called that Laura. Did you miss that little fact? You are talking about politicians calling other politicians names. I am talking about the PUBLIC being called names by their representatives. Lets stay on the facts here.
It’s wrong in YOUR OPINION. Lets be clear about that. Then again you don’t care about any opinion but your own so why should I be suprised?
I take that back, the GOP has called liberals war-mongers. They accuse libs of class warfare and that all liberals are waging war against the wealthy and also the middle class.
No, you’re right, they didn’t call liberals war mongers. However, they did call liberals racist for their support of affirmative action. And the religious right still calls liberals evil every day, only they are calling them evil people, which is even worse than saying their views are evil.
In their heyday the GOP and conservatives had their own set of names for liberals and they weren’t any nicer, nor did they have any less malice behind them. If you don’t want to look back, just pick up any column from Ann Coulter- they’re all right there.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, especially when the party pointing the finger is still doing it. Wrong is wrong, period.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BJIANG0&show_article=1
And I didn’t see Republicans calling ordinary citizens racist, war mongers, or evil as I did see Democrats over the summer. While I agree with you in principle I don’t agree with you in pratice.
And two wrongs don’t make a right. The right went after Clinton, the left went after Bush II, the right go after Obama. That has been going on since the beginning of the two party system-go back to federalist and anti-federalist and read forward. But it doesn’t make it right or any less childish and immature and I’ve never said it is. In fact, I’ve continually said it isn’t (surprise, you skipped over those words.) Your use of “the Dems attacked Bush, so I am right in going after Obama” is just as immature as if I said “the GOP attacked Clinton, so I am right in attacking Bush.” Pointing out any one group as totally right or toally justified while criticizing another is bogus and requires a devil’s advocate to show that NEITHER side is right, that the criticizing group is just as guilty and is not any better because they are doing the same thing. It’s grade school crap- the fringe needs to grow up, stop lobbing bombs and act like grown ups.
This is not a playground. This is real life. Even my 11 uear old son knows that just becaused someone bullied you doesn’t mean it is okay to turn around and bully someone else. When you do, all you do is guarantee that someone will feel compelled to bully you in return. Now how come my 11 year old knows that, but you have such a hard time figuring that out, along with the lunatic fringe of both parties?
Reread the first paragraph, C. Again, you read what you want to read and then go on the offensive…
And I suppose all the attacks on the former administration weren’t polarizing eh? Pictures of Bush as hittler are no less polarizing than Obama as the Joker. Let me guess they were justified? Polarizing only seems to be justified when it comes from your side of the argument. Look in the mirror Laura. You are not without sin when it comes to this topic. Now whom so ever disagrees with you is polarizing. When it worked for your side you didn’t care to point it out. Now you do. Your true colors are also showing eh?
Again, we are in agreement.