> I find writing like this to be incredibly patronizing. As if people aren't already having polite discussions about politics. That's like saying it's patroniz

> I find writing like this to be incredibly patronizing. As if people aren't already having polite discussions about politics. That's like saying it's patronizing to read someone saying "please don't speed" because there's plenty of people not speeding. There's also plenty of people that are doing it, and it's those people that it's aimed at. > And that is where America is politically today. There are fundamental facts and values we disagree about. There is benefit in exploring what those are. Just because differences are reconcilable doesn't mean there isn't progress that can be made. There's world of difference in a conversation that is about how "you don't care about children/women" and "we disagree on some fundamentals so can't come to a perfect solution, but perhaps some compromise on specifics is possible, even if neither of us is happy". > As if people are voting and do not know what they are for and against. The funny part too is that we are at a point where that is least true. Voter's knowledge of their party's policies is at an all time high. But that's only half of it, it's not always what your group is for or against, but what the other group is for or against. I would hazard a guess that voter's accurate knowledge of the competing party's policies are is at an all time low. Sometimes it's not about what your party will do, as much as what you think they'll keep others from doing, if you honestly believe those others are going to "take all our guns" or the equivalent. There are fundamental differences, but I don't think they are at the policy level, they are far down and inform policies. I've found little at the political level that I fundamentally disagree with anyone. Usually it's a matter of one or both of us not having good data, and instead going on what we think the data is and how policies should affect it. Nobody wants poor people to be in the streets starving and freezing and sometimes causing crime, but most people don't want to devote so much to that issue that others don't get attention or they can't live their own lives. We're not disagreeing on some help to those people, we're disagreeing on how much help and how much money, and the answer to that is highly dependent on what you think works, why you think people are in that situation, whether they can ever get out of it, etc. Those are beliefs, but I think most people would be willing to reassess what they believe based on data, so they aren't fundamental.