A New National Dialog - Please Join
In just a matter of weeks, we have watched the real Republican Party emerge - a cynical, say anything, divisive group of politicians who prey on ignorance, fear, bigotry and the misinformed. They chum the waters with labels, such as "liberal," "socialist," "terrorist," "anti-American," and they drape themselves in righteousness. They deny any wrongdoing, even when lying and promoting baseless attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with them. They call angry, ignorant or ideologically fixated people their "base," but they do their base no service by lying to them, inflaming them to hate their fellow Americans and taking us down low roads we have traveled far too often in this great nation of ours.
One clear message emerges, however, from this disturbing glimpse into the Republican strategy and their willing participants among the electorate. We have work to do!
Abraham Lincoln's famous quote, "A house divided against itself cannot stand," is increasingly relevant today, as no matter who wins the upcoming presidential election, we will have a house divided and intransigent. And we will have one major political party who is invested in keeping it that way.
I always think back with utter disdain to George Bush's statement "I'm a uniter, not a divider," which he mendaciously uttered during his first presidential campaign. Some people actually believed him, and it helped him get elected. History, if you're paying attention, doesn't lie, and Bush's promise was as empty as that of John McCain when he claims that he'll reach across the aisle. Maybe the McCain of yesteryear, but not version 2008. If he wins, expect partisan politics to dominate, unless political expediency requires him to begrudgingly give an inch to a Democratic Congress to gain whatever war he wants to conduct next.
The problem isn't necessarily if McCain wins, however. It is, in some ways, even worse if Obama wins. With an Obama win, the flames of anger, bigotry, outrage, fear and loathing will grow and almost certainly result in violence. McCain and Palin have fanned those flames, bringing them to the surface, and adding fuel to them. They continue to do so as I write this.
What can we do, under an Obama administration, to bring this country together?
I think the answer is already evident in Obama's campaign strategy. It's on the ground. It's in all 50 states. It's people talking to people.
Barack Obama talks about service. He talks about the hope of the future being us, not him. And he's right. He clearly cannot take this nation forward alone, but he can lead. He can start the ball rolling and continue to encourage us to do our part.
What I am envisioning is another Apollo Project, but it's not getting to the Moon, this time. It's bringing this country together.
What I'm suggesting is the most massive re-education and personal outreach in history.
What I'm suggesting is that Obama's campaign ground game remain intact and begin a new mission - to communicate and to bring people together, to begin a national dialog that heals wounds, promotes truth, and unifies us as one nation again.
There's no doubt that such an undertaking would meet with considerable resistance. It's very difficult to cross the ideological divides that separate people on the more extreme fringes, but I believe that most of the people in this country are not as extreme as the Republicans want them to be, and encourage them to be. I believe that, once they understand that we are all in this together, that some of the policies they have blindly supported actually hurt them, that they have been handed a load of bull from politicians and operatives who do not have their best interests at heart, that, in fact, the very people they have been taught to hate and vilify actually do work for them... I believe it can be done, slowly, patiently and with a consistent message and methodology.
I'm reasonably certain that many people will think I'm wasting my time, or find this idea impractical or even totally crackpot, but I hope there are those who understand that our best hope for the future is a country that heals the wounds that have been intentionally inflicted on our society.
Further, if we can apply this strategy to the United States, we can also apply it around the world. Much of what threatens us worldwide is ideologically based. Certainly, there are huge economic and even environmental factors that threaten world peace, but there is also an acknowledged ideological war that we have sought to fight with bombs and bullets, but not nearly enough with communication - both speaking and listening! How well have we listened to our enemies and understood what motivates them? Is it enough simply to say, "They are the enemy, so we will fight them?" I, for one, think that there are times when even enemies can come together and discover common interests, and even if they can't, the old adage, "Know thy enemy" is one that apparently the Bush Administration and John McCain don't subscribe to. Obama, on the other hand, does.
Speaking as a mediator, I know there are ways to reach people with distinctly opposite viewpoints. I know that there are ways to find common ground and build upon agreement. I know that honesty and sincerity can often counter lies and malicious intent.
To make a difference, however, this cannot be a half-hearted, liberal, bleeding-heart, underfunded and under deployed fringe group. This has to be a national dialog, led from the top down, and implemented from the bottom up.
So, call it what you will. The Great Awakening. The Great Healing. American Together! Or, as I like to call it (for my own satisfaction, at any rate), Evolve or Die!
But let's do it. Let's be the change we want to see and let's encourage Obama to support our national human infrastructure in addition to our roads and bridges.
***UPDATE***
I have started a Facebook group. I'm calling it the New National Dialog Project. Please join if you are interested in getting this dialog moving.
(originally posted at Huffington Post)
One clear message emerges, however, from this disturbing glimpse into the Republican strategy and their willing participants among the electorate. We have work to do!
Abraham Lincoln's famous quote, "A house divided against itself cannot stand," is increasingly relevant today, as no matter who wins the upcoming presidential election, we will have a house divided and intransigent. And we will have one major political party who is invested in keeping it that way.
I always think back with utter disdain to George Bush's statement "I'm a uniter, not a divider," which he mendaciously uttered during his first presidential campaign. Some people actually believed him, and it helped him get elected. History, if you're paying attention, doesn't lie, and Bush's promise was as empty as that of John McCain when he claims that he'll reach across the aisle. Maybe the McCain of yesteryear, but not version 2008. If he wins, expect partisan politics to dominate, unless political expediency requires him to begrudgingly give an inch to a Democratic Congress to gain whatever war he wants to conduct next.
The problem isn't necessarily if McCain wins, however. It is, in some ways, even worse if Obama wins. With an Obama win, the flames of anger, bigotry, outrage, fear and loathing will grow and almost certainly result in violence. McCain and Palin have fanned those flames, bringing them to the surface, and adding fuel to them. They continue to do so as I write this.
What can we do, under an Obama administration, to bring this country together?
I think the answer is already evident in Obama's campaign strategy. It's on the ground. It's in all 50 states. It's people talking to people.
Barack Obama talks about service. He talks about the hope of the future being us, not him. And he's right. He clearly cannot take this nation forward alone, but he can lead. He can start the ball rolling and continue to encourage us to do our part.
What I am envisioning is another Apollo Project, but it's not getting to the Moon, this time. It's bringing this country together.
What I'm suggesting is the most massive re-education and personal outreach in history.
What I'm suggesting is that Obama's campaign ground game remain intact and begin a new mission - to communicate and to bring people together, to begin a national dialog that heals wounds, promotes truth, and unifies us as one nation again.
There's no doubt that such an undertaking would meet with considerable resistance. It's very difficult to cross the ideological divides that separate people on the more extreme fringes, but I believe that most of the people in this country are not as extreme as the Republicans want them to be, and encourage them to be. I believe that, once they understand that we are all in this together, that some of the policies they have blindly supported actually hurt them, that they have been handed a load of bull from politicians and operatives who do not have their best interests at heart, that, in fact, the very people they have been taught to hate and vilify actually do work for them... I believe it can be done, slowly, patiently and with a consistent message and methodology.
I'm reasonably certain that many people will think I'm wasting my time, or find this idea impractical or even totally crackpot, but I hope there are those who understand that our best hope for the future is a country that heals the wounds that have been intentionally inflicted on our society.
Further, if we can apply this strategy to the United States, we can also apply it around the world. Much of what threatens us worldwide is ideologically based. Certainly, there are huge economic and even environmental factors that threaten world peace, but there is also an acknowledged ideological war that we have sought to fight with bombs and bullets, but not nearly enough with communication - both speaking and listening! How well have we listened to our enemies and understood what motivates them? Is it enough simply to say, "They are the enemy, so we will fight them?" I, for one, think that there are times when even enemies can come together and discover common interests, and even if they can't, the old adage, "Know thy enemy" is one that apparently the Bush Administration and John McCain don't subscribe to. Obama, on the other hand, does.
Speaking as a mediator, I know there are ways to reach people with distinctly opposite viewpoints. I know that there are ways to find common ground and build upon agreement. I know that honesty and sincerity can often counter lies and malicious intent.
To make a difference, however, this cannot be a half-hearted, liberal, bleeding-heart, underfunded and under deployed fringe group. This has to be a national dialog, led from the top down, and implemented from the bottom up.
So, call it what you will. The Great Awakening. The Great Healing. American Together! Or, as I like to call it (for my own satisfaction, at any rate), Evolve or Die!
But let's do it. Let's be the change we want to see and let's encourage Obama to support our national human infrastructure in addition to our roads and bridges.
***UPDATE***
I have started a Facebook group. I'm calling it the New National Dialog Project. Please join if you are interested in getting this dialog moving.
(originally posted at Huffington Post)
Advertisement
I like it Raider. I like it a lot. I've been wondering what I'm going to do w/ myself when this election is over. This sounds like something I would be interested in. I'll check it out.
October 23, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
We definitely need people who are still idealistic, lol. I'm glad you see it. I hope a lot of others will, too.
I like think we CAN make a difference, and that if we are really listening to Obama's message, it IS about us. Thanks for being part of the dialog. It starts here and hopefully spreads everywhere.
October 23, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Comments like this are anti-thetical to your cause. No one is going to even sit down and rethink their position with an opening salvo like that. There was a poster (Goldspinner) who was a moderate GOPer, and completely disproves your statement.
Who are the "real" GOPers? Powell? Barry Goldwater's granddaughter? They are real GOPers, too -- at least that's what they claim and who are we to tell them about their own party?
Massive re-education? Like Cambodia's re-education camps? They thought they had all the answers, too.
What strikes me as odd in all these discussions it that we don't start out with the proposition:
I think you will find this approach more practical -- and you might find out that many Dems are just as closed-minded when asked to introspect in this way.
October 23, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is good...everyday people discussing how we get started. You have a valid point, CT, and it is this type of dialog that gets things moving.
October 23, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be correct in that I didn't phrase this as well as I might have, but what I mean is that the power mongers and the political stake holders in the "current" GOP are, and have been, encouraging these divides. I think I also made it clear in the article that I think most of the people who are spouting hate and invective against Obama, against liberals and against Democrats have been manipulated and duped, and can be brought to understand where we have unity and where our common interests coincide - and who has the most to gain by keeping us divided.
I'm sorry if the message was muddied, but I think to disparage the real message based on some "inartful" rhetoric does a disservice to the ultimate truth here, which I think Lincoln said well enough.
October 23, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that Dems are missing something that drives people to the GOP is a valid concept to question. This is part of the dialog. It is about listening to both sides. In fact, to be effective, I recommend that people listen to the other guy first and attempt to understand their point of view before imposing theirs.
That's what a dialog is - a two-way street. So clearly there are things for everyone to learn, whatever their political leaning, socio-economic status, race, gender, nationality or geography.
Agreed?
October 23, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree CT. Although we definitely have to do something to help change the mindset of people like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijRZfJObqZk
(My pro gun brother in law sent that to me. These people watch that and they cheer. Yay..fight against crime.)
Trying to do something to change the mindset depicted in the link above is, I think, a very worthy endeavor.
October 23, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
A well educated society is a peaceful society.
"Evolve or die!" is the right slogan for me.
October 23, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That won't work with the fundies! But good try.
October 24, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Humor overcomes a lot of divides-shows in the end, things aren't so serious.
That and working together with your hands on some strenuous project-shows in the end we rely on each other.
That and helping your opponent when they are in need-shows in the end we are frail humans together in a sometimes difficult world.
And lastly talking, and listening with a quiet heart.
I like this idea, Raider.
October 23, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so correct. All the ways we can connect with each other are valuable. In the end, sometimes the best thing we can do is identify who we are and what we stand for, and do so by being human and real and respectful. People who have been conditioned to distrust all people of a particular ideology will, at the very least, come away with the impression, "Hmm. They aren't so bad, after all. Maybe I CAN talk to them, listen to them, consider other alternatives."
Thanks
October 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'd make a good therapist, Lux.
October 24, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You show skills in that area yourself TheraP, thanking you kindly.
You might (if you haven't already done so) read my last two comments to you on my late, departed happy little blog about world community...they are at the very bottom of the thread. Outlines my basic TPM stance.
October 24, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not massive reeducation. One on one dialogue is the idea. Some will and some will not. Patience and understanding may eventually lead to trust and mutual respect. Exasperation and failure should be expected. One should expect to fill both roles of student and teacher, and be open to difficult concepts. Remember the inner game to maintain calm and understanding no matter how badly or well the dialogue goes. One can only provide truth and reason, and time. Change if it comes will come from within that other person only when they will it to be so. The strongest farmer can not pull the sprout from the seed.
October 23, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, what you say is true. Right now this is nothing more than an idea. If it is to become something more, it will have to have at least some guidelines for how to engage in dialogs that end up being effective. There are many schools of communication that can be helpful. Active listening. Non-violent communications. Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP). Even some training as a mediator can be helpful.
One of the precepts of NLP is that, with rapport, one can do anything. Without rapport, nothing. Although this is an oversimplification, the point is to learn how to establish rapport with someone.
One of the best ways to establish rapport is to listen to their point of view and then show that you understand it. If people feel understood, they are far more open to hearing other views. I've found this to be true on numerous occasions.
Obama runs a tight ship, and he understands the power of listening, as well as the power of speaking. I think he could create a movement such as the one I'm proposing. My goal is to get people to talk about it enough so that, perhaps, the idea gets to his attention.
October 23, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Massive re-education" sounds like it's straight out of Mao's Little Red Book.
What makes y'all think they want re-education? There's what - about 25, 26% of the population who are really hard core? You can't change that.
People can change the minds of friends, family, co-workers, neighbors sometimes. But y'all sure presume a lot - it's not like these people will just say "OK, teach me how to be more like you."
I'm afraid we just have to live with them, for the most part. But they are a minority.
October 23, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, you are, intentionally or unintentionally, misinterpreting my meaning when I said "massive re-education." Nothing totalitarian about my methods, if you read what I said.
As for your cynicism about the power of dialog, as I said in the post, there will be people who don't believe in this idea. That's ok. But I think you are drastically underestimating the concept that we can reach out to people all across the country and begin a reasonable dialog. Let's say it only sways 10% of those who are currently among those who hate some other group. That's progress. If it could sway 25%, maybe even better.
The idea is that, once you get a few people thinking, considering and opening their minds, more will follow.
I'm saddened that some people attack this idea by deconstructing and negatively interpreting terms I used, instead of really trying to understand the message. But if you don't believe it can work, you're entitled to your opinion, and perhaps for you it won't work. For me, it already has.
October 23, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right.
23% today still approve of the job GWB is doing!
October 24, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking the same thing about "re-education."
October 24, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Upstream you will find my comment about Cambodian re-education camps.
October 24, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raider, I agree there needs to be dialog. I also believe it's important to lead by example. Obama talks about how he likes to get people with different viewpoints around the table and find common ground. That's a hugely important skill that needs to be developed.
People on both sides of the political spectrum desperately want to be right. I think what's often missed is that what's "right" is not fixed. Rather, it's constantly moving and fluctuating based on given conditions.
Your idea is definitely interesting and worth further consideration.
October 23, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will SCAAMD be a part of it?
October 23, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi LisB. No, this is completely separate from SCAAMD. I have no idea where it may lead, but the idea is to get a dialog going and hopefully Obama can win and use his ground game to start something. I'm just trying to get people to talk about it so it has some chance of gaining traction.
October 23, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raider,
With all due respect (and I don't want to rain on your parade because (a) I know you are sincere and (b) your heart is in the right place), I believe a central fallacy here is that people aren't more left of center because they are "misinformed". Educating people isn't going to get them to change what they want in life.
Roughly speaking, when the middle class is satisfied with the way things are, they tend to vote GOP. When they are scared and want something from the government, they tend to vote Dem. The Neocons have pulled the GOP very far to the right, just as the radicals from the 60s pulled the Dems much further to the left than they had been. Part of the reason that the Dems have finally recovered, is that they are back to focusing on the middle class.
I believe the best results will be gotten if there are programs that show results. People tend to like to side with winners. If Obama's programs are successful, if people's lives improve, they will continue to build a strong support.
(My largest observation perspective is that the country is about to fall off a cliff because of the finanical meltdown and peak oil simultaneously hitting. Expect the American way of life to have lower standards. Therefore, if Obama is wildly successful, we won't feel the pinch too badly, our standards won't drop too much -- but that won't convince people that he saved the country. What the people won't recognize is that the country is be definition going to fall over a cliff and the best we can do is build a decent cushion.)
October 24, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's something to chew on. I work extensively with firefighters. There are many neighborhoods were we can't enter without a police escort. Why? Because there are a-holes that shoot at firefighters for fun. Yes. You read that correctly.
The unarmed firefighter is a target because he represents the system. These are people getting calls involving everything from fire to medical emergencies. And they are considered targets. By people who know they aren't armed.
I'm not sure what to do about that situation, I really don't. I have set on an engine, waiting precious minutes before the cops arrive to give us escort. That doesn't anyone, of course.
But it does bring up a situation I tend not to hear on left-of-center boards.
Is it any wonder that the firefighters might end up wanting a little more hardcore political action in this area?
I'd welcome a response to this from a left-of-center person. Because it's a real chokepoint in the dialog proposed.
October 24, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any proposed solutions should be directed to this blog that I just set up for this purpose. Thanks.
October 24, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the President of the United States is perceived as a criminal and the bankers are seen as thieves; when the corporate media glorifies violence and our aggressive primate behavior is constantly stimulated, what do you expect? Economic disparity breeds crime. Build a community based on real social justice and crime will be reduced. Until this happens keep your head down.
October 24, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
A more realistic actuality of the aftermath of this election, (I assume Obama will win), is that the Republican Party will have to accept that they can't maintain power by playing only to the far right. They will move more to the center or risk an exile that will make the Democratic reign over the legislature from the last century look like a week in the Caribbean.
I agree with HusseinTenaX in her assessment of how the Republican base will react to the idea of joining hands with their Democratic brothers. In the end I think CT has it right when he stated above:
"I believe the best results will be gotten if there are programs that show results. People tend to like to side with winners. If Obama's programs are successful, if people's lives improve, they will continue to build a strong support."
It's all going to take time. There will be right wing nut jobs who will plot and plan, and with any luck fail in whatever their fetid minds conjure. Barack Obama is a uniter, unlike our current chief executive, and I think he will do all he can do to include anyone in the process that can at least maintain a level of civility in the upcoming discourse.
Your cause is a noble one raider99 and I support your effort. I just have a vision of all of the failed efforts in diplomacy by skilled diplomats, the outcome of which was determined by realpolitik. At the end of the day the best we can hope for is the negotiation of the terms of a truce.
October 24, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are an awful lot of people out there who are so busy, so overwhelmed by the mere exercise of getting through the day that they are running on auto pilot. We belonged to that group for a very long time.
Now that we are paying attention, we look at each other in sheer amazement that we could have been so blind.
We can't be alone. Hopefully once we pull out of what I think will be an extended, ugly recession, people will be ready to engage, and realize that the polar opposites have more in common than they think...
October 24, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I expected resistance, and it seems that I've gotten it. And I take all your comments quite seriously. Yes, I am a dreamer and perhaps misguided, but I do believe that there has never been a real effort on a grand scale to bring people together - none that I know of, at any rate.
So, is there harm in trying? Is it a total waste of time? Or is it something that, however improbable, could change the course of our history?
Probably we will never know because it takes such a commitment even to try, with no certainty of success and lots of reasons to be cynical.
Still, thought I might feel like a voice in the wilderness, I will continue to hope that we can try our best to bring ourselves back, at least to a more civil discourse. I want to see an end to demonizing and labels. I see it like some wasps that lay their eggs in living hosts, only to have the larvae eat their way out, destroying the host. Well, that's what it seems like to me, and it may be too late. But it may not be. So I try, and I hope to find a few people who are willing to suspend cynicism - even perhaps logic - and think that we can do it. If Obama can be president, then I say, Yes We Can!
October 24, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whole Heartedly Agree!
Bruce and I brought up the inconvenient truth that it goes on quite merrily on TPM -- and were met with some surprising resistance.
I am for full on pushing an agenda forward politically and seeing the country pull more towards the center, but that is not antithetical to wanting places like TPM to clean their house as well.
And when I talk of TPM, I am talking, of course, of us.
A more modest goal, perhaps. But because it it more concrete -- it will be harder to attain. ;-)
October 24, 2008 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every time that those who are "left of center" attempt dialogue with those on the right they get screwed. Don't ask me to clarify this point because I believe historically it speaks for itself.
October 24, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being magnanimous is certainly wiser than rubbing salt in the wounds. But I expect to see some "in your face" posts here after Obama's likely victory. Just as there were a lot of posts like that when Hillary lost. I think there will be a lot less sliming of McCain than there was of Hillary after she lost since he will just fade away after the election. Hillary was needed so people felt she needed to be taught a lesson so she would toe the line.
These heal the nation posts leave me feeling very cold when many of the people you're talking to here did so much to cause the wounds. While I don't recall noting you as being among the worst I do remember you sliming Hillary, her supporters, and McCain/Palin on occasion. The defense most commonly used in cases like that is he did it first and more. Saying McCain lied more doesn't make the lies here acceptable. Saying McCain slimed more doesn't make the sliming done here OK.
You want to begin the healing of our nation? Well than clean up your own house first. You can start here.
October 24, 2008 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat,
What you recall, I can't attest to, but I was one of the first, and most consistent of posters who called for civility in the dialog about Hilary. I disliked some of her tactics, but never advocated the kind of rhetoric that people used against her. In fact, my very first post on TPM, if I recall correctly, was all about having a civil dialog and showing respect both for Hilary and her supporters.
On McaCain, I will agree that I have been less civil. He has been lying and dishonorable throughout his campaign and I believe he should be called on it. McCain is a politician, and not one I respect. I will speak out against such people, because they represent the worst of our political system.
However, attacking McCain for his lies and his pissed-poor, ill thought out policies, or his horrible choice of an unqualified VP, is different from attacking people in the GOP. I am guilty of saying things about Republicans that are clearly not nice. However, to me there is a difference between the political operatives of the Republican Party and those who have been duped into believing their false messages. Though I do find myself thinking very unpleasant thoughts about those people who still cheer Palin and the Republican agenda, my goal now is to look forward, so I will mea culpa on that, and my act is cleaned up henceforth.
Now I will still decry hypocrisy, vote stealing and other activities that deserve both scrutiny and derision, but I do want to work toward unity with the people of this nation, and accountability among our leaders.
October 24, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Piss poor policies. Do you really think you can say that about McCain policies you disagree with without antagonizing those who support them?
Those who have been duped into believing their false messages. Hmmm, seems to me that that attitude would get in the way of healing the nation. I'm right and you've been duped will probably result in a piss poor dialog don't you think?
October 24, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kat, you underestimate my ability to deal with people in their reality. I'm talking here, honestly, on TPM. If I were speaking directly with someone who believed in McCain's policies, one-on-one, I'd approach it quite differently. I would first seek to understand what they liked about those policies and we could talk from there. I've done it dozens of times already, and had very productive conversations.
You attack me in this context, which makes no sense, since we're supposedly discussing this in a context quite different from the one I'm proposing.
The point being, the approach when speaking with people who clearly differ in viewpoint is different from the approach when talking about the process involved or our own honest feelings and beliefs in a supposedly open forum.
I will describe McCain's policies as pissed-poor in writings meant for a certain audience, but clearly, if I were trying to win friends among the GOP faithful, I would describe my thoughts differently.
I think your arguments, while valid on some level, are also carping at me instead of seeking to see the larger context here. I'm not saying that this idea is complete, or that the methodology by which it can be accomplished is established. I'm just proposing that we consider the idea - not my rhetoric. To make this very clear, it's not about me. It's about us.
Some think the idea has merit. Others don't. That's to be expected. I'm not really all that interested in having you pick apart my conversation, claiming that it represents how I would approach the problem. That's making assumptions.
Perhaps if you asked me, "Gee raider99, is that how you would approach people in the GOP, by calling McCain's policies 'pissed poor'?" And I might answer, "I'm glad you asked. Actually, no. I would ask them about specific policies. I would ask them to describe those policies and how they worked and why they thought they were the better choice. I would be genuinely curious and interested. I would seek to understand what they believed first. I would never attack those policies, but would demonstrate that I understood their beliefs (in NLP, their "map") and then I might, if they seemed receptive, offer my own thoughts on the subject, respectfully, and ask for their thoughts."
This might end up in a long discussion that never resolves - at least in the moment - but it lets us discuss in civil terms how we see things, and I've done it many times with varying degrees of success, but never with animosity or anger becoming part of the discussion.
So, again, I'm not trying to talk to one person here, nor am I specifically trying to discuss ideology. I'm simply proposing a strategy - a movement if you will - to improve our relationship with each other on a national scale. It's not modest, by any means, but that's what this post is about. Not about me.
Thanks
October 24, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not attacking you I'm asking a few questions and pointing out a few things from your own post. You think you can heal this nation while people are lying and sliming McCain here, dkos and other lefty sites, others lying and sliming Obama over at noquarter and the freeper sites. Both sides are actively riling up their people with inflammatory rhetoric. That inflammatory rhetoric both motivates their people and insults and angers the opposition.
We go right around to my original point. You want to heal this nation? Clean your own house first. You can start here.
October 24, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raider,
http://www.sustaineddialogue.org/campus_network.htm
October 24, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what I've been wanting since the Dean campaign. I'd like to see people reading and discussing the Constitution together. I think it needs to start there. That might prompt some people to actually want to read about the origin of the Constitution. And to consider the important values that underlie our system of government. I think unless people go back to the basics and feel a sense of commitment and ownership of our basic civil documents and principles of govt, through study and discussion, that some of the changes we need to make as a society will encounter ideological hurdles, which don't need to be there.
October 24, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also want a button that says: UNITY.
October 24, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly a good beginning. And although it's true that people seem to interpret documents like the Constitution differently, discussion of these differences can help us come together, if we all agree that the Constitution is our guiding principle.
October 24, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raider, for those of us a little too [old] to deal with the whole Facebook thing, why not start a blogspot or wordpress site? I really like what you are doing.
I was called a "Socialist" while doorbelling for Obama last weekend. I was floored. It was my own neighborhood.
I think that people should be able to communicate and express differences without demonizing each other...but it seems impossible anymore.
I am tired of the division and terrified of what we have seen at the McCain/Palin events.
I like what you are doing and it would be great if you had a website that was not Facebook. [Sorry, I just have not been able to bring myself to go there, blogging is as 'with it' as I can get.]
October 24, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the comment AJ11. You know, this is just something I'm bringing up. I created the Facebook group because I already had several hundred friends there and it was easy to do.
Posting here and at HuffPo is a way to gauge people's reactions. I am sorry for some of my rhetoric in the article, however, because it becomes the focus instead of the idea itself.
Yesterday was the first time I had publicly proposed this idea, though I have been thinking about it for a while now. So I'm watching and waiting to see what happens. My goal, as a writer, is to disseminate ideas and stimulate discussion. I hope to see action sometimes, and in this case, if my Facebook group gains traction, it could easily lead to something else.
Right now, I'm grateful for those who support this idea, and also to those who are critical. I know this will not be easy to implement, and I have no intention of becoming its leader, even if I thought I was qualified. But I will do what I can to promote it.
My real hope is that Obama will get the idea, independently or through our collective efforts, and use his tremendous organizational skills and obvious belief in a unified America, to promote something like this. With him at the helm, it might have a chance to be successful.
October 24, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this will not be easy to implement
Actually, it might be a lot easier than you think.
People in this country are tired of division. Especially the youngsters.
Groups could be formed, independently, just as Obama has done with neighborhood leaders, etc. If you had enough people volunteer to be leaders, on college campuses and in neighborhoods and if you dovetailed with other groups who are already linked in (like Democrats.com, AfterDowningStreet.org, ONE, etc, etc. You could even dovetail with other NGOs like NOW, Planned Parenthood, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense, Sierra...) you could easily promote the idea of dialogue and reconciliation. Because all of these groups already support both of those concepts, it would be easy to weblink and to create some kind of share sight.
Your home site would only need to link "partners" and you could then create materials for weekly or monthly meetings. You could create book clubs and other events including service in the community. Again, bringing something like this back to the community level to create change on a National scale does dovetail what Obama's main message is and people are hungry to get beyond the hatred and to create harmony.
For gawd's sake, if we do not move beyond the crap that is going on at the Palin/McCain rallies we will never survive the hard times coming. We are at a crossroads right now where we have to pull together or we will completely fall apart.
Look at the articles just at TPM. The violence, the disparity between the rich and the poor, the despair, the homelessness, the foreclosures, jobless rates, etc, etc. We are all fucked if we don't pull together and I think that you are on to something.
There is enough free marketing in what the Progressives have done over the last decade on the nets. The groups that we have access to - where free advertising is available and networking occur - are immense.
I do not think that it will be as hard as you think; it just depends on what kind of time and energy that you have to put into it (and who you know that can do web design.)
October 24, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I just posted this yesterday, so let's see if it percolates. If it gains traction, and I hope it will, then the webmaster may show up to volunteer, and we may be able to make the coalitions you suggest. I certainly appreciate your clear suggestions and obvious passion for the idea.
Meanwhile, in its first day, my Facebook group has attracted 38 people so far. If it becomes a viral message, then there's certainly hope.
Thanks
October 24, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink