For what it's worth.

And I appreciate that you brought this up. It has been a very interesting thread. Thanks.

In any case, I doubt there's a really simple, short-term solution that takes care of the problem. Armor, guards and other measures may remove some of the threat, but the problem exists in the elements of our society that allow these behaviors to become acceptable. I imagine they are socio-economic problems. Just about ever since Man invented cities, we've had ghettos where the poor must live in conditions considerably worse than the rich. Today, we see a growing divide between those who have and those who have not, and a consequential loss of faith, anger and disenfranchisement among many people who exist at the lower ends of the economic and social spectra.

They become their own groups, with their own beliefs and laws. I'm not a psychologist or a social expert, but it seems to me that the ultimate solution is a combination of communication, empowerment and involvement.

I have little experience in these matters, but I do remember one church in San Francisco. The pastor was a black man, and much of his constituency was black, and from poorer sections of the city. But this man preached to everyone. He preached about tolerance and diversity. And he set up programs to help people - not only to feed and clothe the needy, but to train them to learn new skills and to find jobs. His congregation was among the most gracious and dedicated I've ever seen. In time, his church attracted a lot of white people, too, and there was a great deal of sharing of ideas and respect. This man, Reverend Cecile Williams, is an inspiration to me and an example of how someone with vision and a clear message can change the course of history, even if in only a small arena.

So I think the solution may demand a bigger question. Not why are some people shooting at firefighters, but what are the conditions that lead people to form these beliefs and what are the ways we can change their conditions so that they can find self-worth and a sense of belonging to the larger society that includes those firefighters and the people they help?

Of course, I know nothing at all about it, so this is all just my conjecture, but I can imagine that these discussions might become part of a New National Dialog Project, if something like that were ever to become a reality.

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

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

Thanks

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?

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.

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.