Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
Before you go further, first read Part One and Part Two. Jason then offered his take on Bi-partisanship. Since this is Sunday, a day of Redemption for most in America, let me show the way for the Three Nazguls of hate Speech: Hartmann, Olbermann, and Scheer.
I do believe in Bi-partisanship; It makes Governments run Locally and Nationally. During the Political season, to the 60% unaffiliated, when both Parties choose a candidate, I offer four things:
For the R candidate: Pros and Cons regarding said candidate; For the D candidate: Pros and Cons regarding said candidate.
Even if you are strongly for your candidate (whatever party), there are reasons people are voting for the other candidate. Unlike the Three Nazguls of Hate Speech, I believe if you care about a candidate, there must be some good in that person. How hard is it to find some good in other Americans?
Since I was a former Liberal Democrat, I know why the other Partisans vote for the other person. Man, wouldn't it be great if the Three Nazguls looked at other Americans who did not vote for their candidate as patriotic rather than stupid. It would go a long way to healing wounds.
On the Policy side, the way of the world is: Help me with my cause, I will help you with yours.
For seven years, Conservatives and Republicans have asked for help from the Left. All we got back were Ad Hominems (used by Hartmann, showing his intellectual vapidity here) and threats of prison and censorship for Republicans and Republican elected officials. As I discussed earlier, a concession by the Left on Iraq ("Democracy trumps Terrorism"), might have opened the door for my open-mindedness on the Conservative side on Global warming. Instead, Ad Hominems.
I did not come to my threats from the last part easily. But the rhetoric, the actions at the LA Book festival, Code Pink, and the actions of a 8 year old kid threatening a president is....radicalizing me.
As a Dem, I believed in Volitaire's words: I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. As a Conservative Republican, I believe in the same thing. When Randi Rhodes was forced off Air America, Sean Hannity defended her right to go back on the air. When Rush Limbaugh was in legal trouble, did Hartmann offer any sympathy or support? No.
In the Valley, in real life, I can be Bi-partisan -- but in the past 7 years, no Democrat has proven that they can be Bi-partisan. I have never said, "I do not love my country as much because of it's leaders," I despised Clinton, but I still respected him when I met him. Why? People voted for him. We have one President at a Time. Simple civility that the Three Nazguls do not push.
Actually, there was one. He was then thrown out of the Democrats for playing the role of Senator Vandenburg.
So, what can the Democrats do, to make up for 7 years of partisanship?
1) The first Democrat (or Nazgul) to say something nice about the Policies of the Current President deserves kudos (and who knows? Votes). The first Nazgul deserves praise. is it that hard to say civil things about a current American president?
2) If Democrats have Policy differences, fine -- but stop trying to criminalize Republicans or their partisans. How does that engender good will? Please explain.
3) You want help on your issues, that requires some give on Conservative and Republican issues. If you can't support domestically, choose foreign policy.
4) Stop trying to censor views contrary to your own (especially Hartmann). Free speech is free speech. There is no "And but..." Speak freely in an opposite views crowd, or the partisanship will grow. And Hartmann has a way of SHOUTING DOWN those he disagrees with -- truly a Nazgul.
5) Be nice to folks who don't agree with your candidate -- it then becomes the other person's job to be nice to you. Not that hard, innit?
Why is Bi-partisanship an issue now? In my book, Messages from the Valley, I am coming to a point of saying one of two things -- I just want everyone's opinion.
Either I can say:
A) Conservatives and Republicans shouldn't hold grudges over the past (look at how we acted in the Election of 1960). However, we should always fight the next candidate in Politics and Policy and use the tactics in the book.
B) Given the actions of the Democrats and their partisans during the Bush presidency, every partisan, candidate and associate must be attacked by both Policy and political means. No quarter, like the Democrats did during the Bush presidency.
A or B? And Why?
From the the shores of Los Angeles, analysis of Politics and Culture from the Valley of the Shadow!
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Bi-Partisanship, the One Ring and the Uruk-hai -- Conclusion
Welcome to the Valley! Please comment about the post and keep to the subject.
There is only one person (JSF) keeping track of comments, so as long as what you write is civil and close to the purpose of the post, you will see it.
Keep this in mind: Politics should not be Personal; then you have a place here.
Write! History will remember your words!
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
JSF, you're being silly with your one sided point making and unrealistic expectations. My attempt at bipartsianship failed miserably. Why? Because some of the conservative bozos couldn't get past their ideology to even try to listen or compromise. My conclusion is that we're doomed. We've become so polarized as a nation that like the Israelis and Palestinians, there is no hope for a solution and we might as well just kill each other all off and get it over with.ReplyDelete
They might be one sided, but they work in good favor whoever uses them.
How does being civil to the other side seem unrealistic? And how has attacking, calling for Conservatives and Republicans to be censored or imprisoned (or look at what that 10 year old kid said) help Bi-partisanship?
After being attacked continuously for 7 years for expressing a different opinion, yeah we do get angry.
I offered some advice. If the Three Nazguls act on the advice (remember, Democrats can only influence other Democrats, Republicans to Republicans), the roots of Bi-partisanship might grow.
What about the two choices at the bottom?
JSF, I'm not saying being civil is unrealistic. Individuals can show civility to each other as we very well illustrate. But to EXPECT civility back is a whole other ball of wax. It would sure be nice if everyone were civil to each other, but that doesn't seem to be how things work out. And what's the hangup on this 10 year old kid? He can't even vote!ReplyDelete
Do you think that people on your side are the only ones who have been attacked continuously for the past 7 years and beyond? I've been called a terrorist, a communist, lazy, unamerican, immoral, gay and every other name in the book because of my beliefs. Sure it sucks, but if we allow the lowest elements of the other side radicalize us, we give them too much power. If we want to have a civil discourse, we need to ignore the shrill name callers and move past them.
Well you boys are off and running without me it seems. It's like this BOTH sides suck ass, BOTH sides aren't civil to each other. Until this changes bipartisanship will always fail. We can't work together if we can't even be civilized. It's really a sad commentary, but there are no angels.ReplyDelete