3 ms·

We can be civil, we can agree to disagree, and still work on thing together in areas we do not disagree. Or we can fall to "he said, she said" blame games abou

We can be civil, we can agree to disagree, and still work on thing together in areas we do not disagree. Or we can fall to "he said, she said" blame games about whose mean tweets killed civil society, embracing unexamined the assumption that "mean tweets" were a cause, not a symptom. Look at the "abortion debate". It's still festering, largely because we've not yet had the central debate of "when and what is human." It's so much easier and more satisfying to mis-characterize the motivations of opponents, indulging in emotion, than to talk about the central point: people disagree on that question. If we resolved to compromise and live with different answers then the political parties wouldn't have the reliable fundraising item to lean on anymore. This approach has polluted nearly all of politics. wrestling with the problem is more profitable than solving it.

082349872349872 3y ago
Would proportional representation help?
- arp242 3y ago
  Partly, yes, but it's more than just that. Let's use abortion as that was mentioned: the SCOTUS deciding that abortion should always be legal, with very few restrictions, using a rather tortured and tenuous reading of the constitution (IMHO). Whatever you may think of the outcome, it's certainly not "consensus-building" in any meaningful way, and I fail to see how proportional representation would change anything here. If you compare this to European countries then "legalizing abortion" often meant passing a lot more nuanced legislation with a lot more compromise and process, which sometimes also took a lot longer. The result is that in most European countries there is no significant "repeal abortion legislation" movement, that even many Christian parties are not advocating for this (although some are), and that repealing this would be unthinkable in the foreseeable future. So I say the problems are deeper than just the electoral system, although that is part of it. Even some carefully nuanced compromise legislation widely supported by a majority of the population from both sides can be struck down by the SCOTUS as long as a small activist group takes an interest. Turns out you can't bully people in to agreeing with you, you can only bully them in to shutting up and resenting you. Who would have expected eh?

082349872349872 3y ago

Would proportional representation help?

arp242 3y ago
Partly, yes, but it's more than just that. Let's use abortion as that was mentioned: the SCOTUS deciding that abortion should always be legal, with very few restrictions, using a rather tortured and tenuous reading of the constitution (IMHO). Whatever you may think of the outcome, it's certainly not "consensus-building" in any meaningful way, and I fail to see how proportional representation would change anything here. If you compare this to European countries then "legalizing abortion" often meant passing a lot more nuanced legislation with a lot more compromise and process, which sometimes also took a lot longer. The result is that in most European countries there is no significant "repeal abortion legislation" movement, that even many Christian parties are not advocating for this (although some are), and that repealing this would be unthinkable in the foreseeable future. So I say the problems are deeper than just the electoral system, although that is part of it. Even some carefully nuanced compromise legislation widely supported by a majority of the population from both sides can be struck down by the SCOTUS as long as a small activist group takes an interest. Turns out you can't bully people in to agreeing with you, you can only bully them in to shutting up and resenting you. Who would have expected eh?