Our divided nation

[Anonymous]

Since (virtually) all of us Americans profess to love our country, and since each of the two factions that appear to see the other with hatred and/or disdain is a major part of the country that the other faction loves so much, isn't there a systemic disconnect? How can we love the country and hate so many of our countrymen? Surely there is serious thought being given somewhere to ways to break the spiral of divisiveness. Are people studying the problem and not getting publicity, or am I just missing it by not looking in the right places? Amitai Etzioni's work on community maybe?

I am flummoxed by the fact that a man who came to prominence with a speech pointing out the commonalities of the red and blue states can be the focus of this worsening divide despite policies that are much more conservative than even a wishy-washy liberal like me would prefer. It is truly hard for me to believe that race has nothing to do with the fact that the right views him as such a flaming leftist.

[Anonymous]

hey, lets just have an amicable divorce. you can be socialist and we will be capitalist. We'll see who thrives.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Got to agree with the sniffer here - let's split. The Reps have been demonizing Dems since the late 80s, and Dem efforts at appeasement (by moving to the right) have done nothing to shut the Reps up. As you note, OP, it couldn't be more obvious than with this president (though he was apparently dense and egotistical enough to convince himself it would be different). Why continue to try to be friends, when they spit on any olive branch?

I don't think there's any disconnect, b/c I think you're misinterpreting "love" in this context. For example, I love this country in the sense that I want it to do well and I'm willing to sacrifice for its best interests. I have some affection for it from familiarity, but I'm not in love with it, so there's nothing strange about me disliking a large portion of the population.

As far as I can tell, rank-and-file Reps, particularly TPers (is there a difference now?), have closer to the feeling you're talking about - in fact, commonly a blind, senseless devotion - but it's really just a narcissistic "love" that accepts only the familiar and despises the rest. That's all the "real America," "we want our country back" stuff.

So, people like me love this country like a beleaguered parent loves a fuck-up kid trying to get on his feet late in life. People like TPers love this country like a child with a mood disorder loves a new puppy, which s/he then abuses when it doesn't fetch the first time commanded.

[Anonymous]

Politics is full of paradoxes. People love their Congressman, but they hate their Congress. ??? How is it possible that an institution with abysmal approval ratings re-elects its own 90% of the time?

People hate the politics on the other side of the fence, but they do not really hate each other as individuals. We are more than our political philosophies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since (virtually) all of us Americans profess to love our country, and since each of the two factions that appear to see the other with hatred and/or disdain is a major part of the country that the other faction loves so much, isn't there a systemic disconnect? How can we love the country and hate so many of our countrymen? Surely there is serious thought being given somewhere to ways to break the spiral of divisiveness. Are people studying the problem and not getting publicity, or am I just missing it by not looking in the right places? Amitai Etzioni's work on community maybe?

I am flummoxed by the fact that a man who came to prominence with a speech pointing out the commonalities of the red and blue states can be the focus of this worsening divide despite policies that are much more conservative than even a wishy-washy liberal like me would prefer. It is truly hard for me to believe that race has nothing to do with the fact that the right views him as such a flaming leftist.

Take a look at the economy and his inability to do nothing but talk. He is inept. He cannot run this country. His presidency has been a disaster. What do any of these have to do with his race? Stop blaming everything on his predecesso as Obama is a disaster.

[Anonymous]

Hmm, over the objection of Romney and all the other repubs he fought for Detroit and Ohio jobs, thus saving the American auto industry. He stopped this country from going into a depression. You do know that is where the country was headed at the end of December 2008. If he had been allowed to get the all the money in his stimulus plan requested by him and most economist perhaps the country would be farther along, but NO, the only objective the repubs had were to stop Obama from being reelected in 2012. Therefore, they have placed every roadblock, ditch and sinkhole in his path to bring this country out of economic failings.

Please give me the name if one majority leader in history whose primary mission was to defeat a newly inaugurated president at the expense of an entire nation. The common good could go to hell, as long as the president was defeated in his next run for the office. I don't think you can. But of course, race has nothing to do with it. Yeah, sure you're right.

[Anonymous]

face it, the left resents the constitution and looks at it as irrelevant. the right loves the constitution and this is a huge rift. if you don't like what the constitution says... stop trying to go around it, twist the words, or undermine it, work to get it changed.

[Anonymous]

The problem lies squarely on the individual EGO. Each person should have their own opinion, no matter how right or wrong you may perceive that opinion to be. But no one has the right to force their belief onto anyone else. The more we judge each others beliefs, the more we have separation.

Some people throw tantrums when others do not share the belief that they consider to be "right". It is a completely egotistical and narcissistic view to have. And the tantrum they display in fighting over who is right and wrong is just archaic and childish.

When we can learn to live amongst each other, free of judgments, and free of having the need to be "right" all the time, our society will be much better off.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:face it, the left resents the constitution and looks at it as irrelevant. the right loves the constitution and this is a huge rift. if you don't like what the constitution says... stop trying to go around it, twist the words, or undermine it, work to get it changed.

This is pretty funny given that it has been Republican administrations which have essentially ignored large parts of the Constitution. Remember the fourth amendment? Bush and Cheney basically acted like that didn't exist. It has been Republicans who have suggested repealing the 14th Amendment. Rich Perry wants to repeal the 17th Amendment. Gosh, that's a lot of love the Right is showing.

[Anonymous]

nothing wrong with wanting to repeal any part of it as long as you obey it and defend it until you accomplish your appeal. the spirit of the constitution is a limited, divided and unconsolidated government and that is the source of america's greatness/superiority. the only time the government can be excused for pushing boundries is after war has been declared by congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:face it, the left resents the constitution and looks at it as irrelevant. the right loves the constitution and this is a huge rift. if you don't like what the constitution says... stop trying to go around it, twist the words, or undermine it, work to get it changed.

have you been drinking? I think you reversed it.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:The problem lies squarely on the individual EGO. Each person should have their own opinion, no matter how right or wrong you may perceive that opinion to be. But no one has the right to force their belief onto anyone else. The more we judge each others beliefs, the more we have separation.

Some people throw tantrums when others do not share the belief that they consider to be "right". It is a completely egotistical and narcissistic view to have. And the tantrum they display in fighting over who is right and wrong is just archaic and childish.

When we can learn to live amongst each other, free of judgments, and free of having the need to be "right" all the time, our society will be much better off.

When I read or hear things like this, I sincerely wonder how seriously - or I guess comprehensively - we're supposed to take it. I really am sincerely curious, so I wonder if you would answer some questions about the ideas. Some of the questions sound aggressive or rhetorical (to my ear, anyway), but that's just because I'm that unclear on where the boundaries of this thinking are.

1) If opinions aren't objectionable, at what point do they become something else that is objectionable?
a) When they're publicly stated? If not, then you would say I cannot/should not object when someone states, "We should kill all the niggers?"
b) When they're acted upon? Does one have "the right to force their belief" that we cannot murder each other on someone else?

2) You talk about fighting being childish, but you seem also to criticize disagreement generally. Is it the fighting - the manner of exchange - or the strength of the beliefs you consider egotistical?

3) Is your philosophy as furthered defined in your answers to #1 absolute? For example, if you say that we can stop a behavior, say, genocide, would we really have to wait until it's instituted before criticizing the belief that one class of people should be exterminated?

4) This one's more personal and rhetorical. By calling the rest of us egotistical, narcissistic, etc., aren't you doing exactly what you're criticizing? Aren't you objecting to the individual belief that it's moral to argue about politics and philosophy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:hey, lets just have an amicable divorce. you can be socialist and we will be capitalist. We'll see who thrives.

To get along, we would need to start by controlling the impulse to use inflammatory, misleading language like this. Sure, it's fun to hurl playground taunts. But we can't have a discussion if one side keeps using incorrect, insulting labels.

Perhaps we can start by educating our children what "socialist" actually means. Or maybe this poster's school covered it, but she was sick that day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:face it, the left resents the constitution and looks at it as irrelevant. the right loves the constitution and this is a huge rift. if you don't like what the constitution says... stop trying to go around it, twist the words, or undermine it, work to get it changed.

If the Right loves the constitution, it should support the ACLU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hey, lets just have an amicable divorce. you can be socialist and we will be capitalist. We'll see who thrives.

To get along, we would need to start by controlling the impulse to use inflammatory, misleading language like this. Sure, it's fun to hurl playground taunts. But we can't have a discussion if one side keeps using incorrect, insulting labels.

Perhaps we can start by educating our children what "socialist" actually means. Or maybe this poster's school covered it, but she was sick that day.

14:16 again. Thinking about my post, maybe the threshold problem is that both sides have to WANT to get along. The right doesn't want to get along because they are more successful at advancing their agenda when they act crazy and take hostages. Here's a good recent piece, by a former republican operative, explaining how this works: http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779

"Everyone knows that in a hostage situation, the reckless and amoral actor has the negotiating upper hand over the cautious and responsible actor because the latter is actually concerned about the life of the hostage, while the former does not care."