Jim Stillman
Randy InmanCommon Ground: Book Explores the Future of American Politics
October 22nd 2007 17:59
For those out there who think of me (and anyone who has the temerity to disagree with their “conventional wisdom”) as an irrational and, perhaps, unpatriotic Democrat/Liberal, I want to freely acknowledge reading and delighting in the politically slanted opinions of William Buckley, George Will and Cal Thomas. These advocates for their positions and viewpoints are, always, temperate and literate; they nearly always leave me with better insight into the American political scene. The columns of Messrs Buckley, Will and Thomas are not even in the same universe as the blathering of Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter and, indeed, many writers on this very site!
While I appreciate and enjoy those partisan writings, I deplore those who can see no value in the “other side’s” positions, who ascribe lack of patriotism to the other guy and whose aim is to divide us and destroy the opposition. These dividers are of both political extremes, have no hesitation about stretching the truth, picking and choosing isolated facts and misstating facts to justify their positions, but more important, to utterly destroy the opposition. On the right, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Mary Matalin are obvious examples, O’Reilly and Coulter being the most irresponsible and simply mean. On the left extreme, Michael Moore and James Carville stand out. It is not enough for these “dividers” to challenge the opposition’s positions; the opposition has to be utterly destroyed.
Over the past years, the political parties have become simplistic. Both parties portray opponents with broad and, on their face, childish brush strokes. Republicans suggest that anyone disagreeing with them were “godless heathens bent on destroying the country that only Republicans truly loved. . . .If you opposed a Republican policy, it was the same as being a terrorist.” Democratic extremists, on the other hand, accuse Republicans of being in favor of “moral intervention”, people who wanted to dictate their personal viewpoints upon everyone.
Two of the most partisan advocates, men who freely acknowledge their respective roles in promoting divisive political attitudes in this country, have written a book that may be too utopian to be realistic. In their book, Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel posit that, over the past thirty years or so, political campaigns have characterized opponents not simply as wrong but as corrupt and wicked. Such demonizing, the authors argue, is the essence of polarized politics and stems from the strong partisanship of activists who constitute an influential one-third of eligible voters, while the majority of voters who favor consensus are turned off and give up on voting and politics. Thomas and Beckel are at their best when describing the "ideologues, power brokers, and bottom feeders" that benefit from a heated political climate: talk-radio and cable-TV hosts, who win higher ratings; political blogs and websites, which get more hits; and campaign fundraisers, who find it easier to raise money. They also note that many now engaged in politics simply aren't old enough to remember a time when political opponents could regularly talk in a civil fashion to folks across the aisle, reach a compromise and get things done.
For years Beckel and Thomas contributed to the climate of polarization in Washington . . . and they admit it. "We're two guys who spent a lot of years in the polarizing business, but on opposing sides," they write. "We helped write the game plan, and we have participated in everything from getting money out of true believers to appearing on television to help spread the contentious message. In many cases, we wrote the message. We know the gig, and it's just about up."
The authors are optimistic that the polarization of politics is coming to an end as more and more Americans are becoming aware that compromise and consensus is better for the country. They set a good example: pundits from opposite sides who not only talk to each other but work together to find common ground on some of the most divisive issues facing us, from the war in Iraq to gay marriage to the Patriot Act. In several instances, they cannot agree; with regard to those issues, such as the invasion into Iraq and many “social issues”, they “agree to disagree” and explore ways to address the issues without personal attacks.
Messrs Thomas and Bickel state that the extremists account for, perhaps, 20 to 25 percent of the population. The majority of Americans want the politicians to work together. They urge that those in public office seek common ground.
I urge that we in the middle seize the power that is ours and demand that this occur.
While I appreciate and enjoy those partisan writings, I deplore those who can see no value in the “other side’s” positions, who ascribe lack of patriotism to the other guy and whose aim is to divide us and destroy the opposition. These dividers are of both political extremes, have no hesitation about stretching the truth, picking and choosing isolated facts and misstating facts to justify their positions, but more important, to utterly destroy the opposition. On the right, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Mary Matalin are obvious examples, O’Reilly and Coulter being the most irresponsible and simply mean. On the left extreme, Michael Moore and James Carville stand out. It is not enough for these “dividers” to challenge the opposition’s positions; the opposition has to be utterly destroyed.
Over the past years, the political parties have become simplistic. Both parties portray opponents with broad and, on their face, childish brush strokes. Republicans suggest that anyone disagreeing with them were “godless heathens bent on destroying the country that only Republicans truly loved. . . .If you opposed a Republican policy, it was the same as being a terrorist.” Democratic extremists, on the other hand, accuse Republicans of being in favor of “moral intervention”, people who wanted to dictate their personal viewpoints upon everyone.
Two of the most partisan advocates, men who freely acknowledge their respective roles in promoting divisive political attitudes in this country, have written a book that may be too utopian to be realistic. In their book, Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel posit that, over the past thirty years or so, political campaigns have characterized opponents not simply as wrong but as corrupt and wicked. Such demonizing, the authors argue, is the essence of polarized politics and stems from the strong partisanship of activists who constitute an influential one-third of eligible voters, while the majority of voters who favor consensus are turned off and give up on voting and politics. Thomas and Beckel are at their best when describing the "ideologues, power brokers, and bottom feeders" that benefit from a heated political climate: talk-radio and cable-TV hosts, who win higher ratings; political blogs and websites, which get more hits; and campaign fundraisers, who find it easier to raise money. They also note that many now engaged in politics simply aren't old enough to remember a time when political opponents could regularly talk in a civil fashion to folks across the aisle, reach a compromise and get things done.
For years Beckel and Thomas contributed to the climate of polarization in Washington . . . and they admit it. "We're two guys who spent a lot of years in the polarizing business, but on opposing sides," they write. "We helped write the game plan, and we have participated in everything from getting money out of true believers to appearing on television to help spread the contentious message. In many cases, we wrote the message. We know the gig, and it's just about up."
The authors are optimistic that the polarization of politics is coming to an end as more and more Americans are becoming aware that compromise and consensus is better for the country. They set a good example: pundits from opposite sides who not only talk to each other but work together to find common ground on some of the most divisive issues facing us, from the war in Iraq to gay marriage to the Patriot Act. In several instances, they cannot agree; with regard to those issues, such as the invasion into Iraq and many “social issues”, they “agree to disagree” and explore ways to address the issues without personal attacks.
Messrs Thomas and Bickel state that the extremists account for, perhaps, 20 to 25 percent of the population. The majority of Americans want the politicians to work together. They urge that those in public office seek common ground.
I urge that we in the middle seize the power that is ours and demand that this occur.
| 42 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
That segment of the population needs to be marginalized, not dealt with. When a person genuinely believes that they are part of the last generation on earth, or that god commands them to rape the earth and plunder whole societies, or to make war solely based on religious differences.
On every issue there is room for compromise, and for discussion. Except with that crowd, who hold up Coulter and O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Parshall. Are there shrill voices on the left? Of course they are. But those voices, however shrill, are not calling for America to abandon all its ideals in the hunt for corporate profits and crusader zeal.
A real political process would not welcome Brown shirts or Klansmen to its debate, and sane America cannot cater to, or compromise with, the far right.
Comment by Jim Stillman
Opinions of a curmudgeon
Political Certainty
As I noted, some of their ideas may be Utopian, but both Thomas and Beckel were leading talking heads who played a major role in polarizing the country. Will the SL's of the world ever think outside of cliches? Maybe not. Will Rush and Ann C ever become rational? Probably not. But the rest of us have to seize the dialogue.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three