6 ms·

Don't you think that is a very cynical view? The party or parties you disagree with may not share your views, but they do have many things in common with you. I

Don't you think that is a very cynical view? The party or parties you disagree with may not share your views, but they do have many things in common with you. In order to build bridges with other parties, it's important to believe that the majority of people who get involved in government, regardless of party, are motivated primarily by the desire to serve their neighbors and their country; otherwise they would find better ways to spend their time. Without that belief, it will be near impossible to form agreements across the aisle.

Aloha 2y ago
it is cynical - but its not wrong either. Nothing will change until average Americans are fed up with the status quo, and force change - that goes for basic things like making the parties work together.
the_gastropod 2y ago
Look, I'm not saying the Republican Party are Nazis. But let's just imagine they were. Would we still have to believe they were good-faith actors just trying to improve their country? I do not believe the majority of Republican politicians today are trying to improve the country. I think the majority are self-serving, self-interested, and corrupt. This isn't the party of George Bush—who I disagree with about virtually everything, but seemed genuinely interested in trying to do a good job. This is now the party of Donald Trump, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, James Comer, Ted Cruz, and so on. There is no equivalent to any of these characters on the left. There is no compromising with obviously bad-faith actors like this.
- iaaan 2y ago
  As a trans person (and you can substitute pretty much any identity that is commonly understood to be marginalized and the point stands), there is no middle ground to be found working with republicans. I'm either allowed to exist, work, own property, access healthcare, etc., or I'm not. I'm either being discriminated against or I'm not. I'm not interested in compromise here.
lokar 2y ago
I mostly agree with you, but disagree on one point: What is a party? I think there still is a Republican Party that fits your description. I meet them in every day life all the time. They are reasonable, agree on many things, and are willing to seek compromise. I hope they are the majority, if not the voting majority. But they are not well represented by 90% of the current Republican office holders.
- tacocataco 2y ago
  Perhaps those conservatives you're referring to would like to vote for a more moderate candidate, but they are chained to the Republicans via First Past The Post voting.
  - lokar 2y ago
    That, and some just don’t vote
a_wild_dandan 2y ago
That's a wonderful perspective, and largely shared by one party! If you can make the other party act like adults, we'll be in business.
- redeeman 2y ago
  thats what both parties say. Those who make blanket statements like this tends to be partisan hacks filled with extremely low levels of information.
thomastjeffery 2y ago
I won't believe that after seeing the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
redmajor12 2y ago
[dead]
dragonwriter 2y ago
> Don't you think that is a very cynical view? It's a realistic view. > The party or parties you disagree with may not share your views, but they do have many things in common with you. In The major party I disagree with least doesn’t share my most of views but has many things, in broad focus, in common with me. That’s very much not true of the major party I disagree with most. > In order to build bridges with other parties, it’s important to believe that the majority of people who get involved in government, regardless of party, are motivated primarily by the desire to serve their neighbors and their country Why would “building bridges with other parties” be a goal? A lot of people seem to have gotten ideas that the long realignment period from 1930s to the 1990s when the salient political divides were not along the same axis as the divide between the major parties (though they were approaching alignment at the end of the period) was a norm and not an aberration, and thus have fetishized bipartisanship which was simply a result of ideological factions crossing partisan boundaries rather than generally being contained within major parties. When that applies, you don't need to build bridges between parties, the factions inherently provide it; when it doesn't, you don't have a commonality to build on. And, in any case, this is the fallacy of argument to the consequences of belief – you are justifying a belief in a fact claim not by any evidence that it represents the actual facts, but by the notionally desirable consequences of believing it independent of its truth. > Without that belief, it will be near impossible to form agreements across the aisle. I actually think that its a lot easier to achieve agreements across the aisle, where there is utility in doings so, by observing the actual things that the specific goals the other side has in concrete terms and appealing to them, rather than fantasizing a distant abstraction like “serving the neighbors and their country”. The latter is only useful once you determine a concrete operationalization that comports with the actual behavior of the individuals involved, but that offers nothing between a low-level concrete model of interests that avoids any high-level abstractions. Now, to the extent that its often a concrete low-level interest that they want to be seen as motivated by the desire to serve their neighbors and their country, that may be useful, but that’s different than believing that that is their actual motivation.

Aloha 2y ago

it is cynical - but its not wrong either. Nothing will change until average Americans are fed up with the status quo, and force change - that goes for basic things like making the parties work together.

the_gastropod 2y ago

Look, I'm not saying the Republican Party are Nazis. But let's just imagine they were. Would we still have to believe they were good-faith actors just trying to improve their country? I do not believe the majority of Republican politicians today are trying to improve the country. I think the majority are self-serving, self-interested, and corrupt. This isn't the party of George Bush—who I disagree with about virtually everything, but seemed genuinely interested in trying to do a good job. This is now the party of Donald Trump, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, James Comer, Ted Cruz, and so on. There is no equivalent to any of these characters on the left. There is no compromising with obviously bad-faith actors like this.

iaaan 2y ago
As a trans person (and you can substitute pretty much any identity that is commonly understood to be marginalized and the point stands), there is no middle ground to be found working with republicans. I'm either allowed to exist, work, own property, access healthcare, etc., or I'm not. I'm either being discriminated against or I'm not. I'm not interested in compromise here.

lokar 2y ago

I mostly agree with you, but disagree on one point: What is a party? I think there still is a Republican Party that fits your description. I meet them in every day life all the time. They are reasonable, agree on many things, and are willing to seek compromise. I hope they are the majority, if not the voting majority. But they are not well represented by 90% of the current Republican office holders.

tacocataco 2y ago
Perhaps those conservatives you're referring to would like to vote for a more moderate candidate, but they are chained to the Republicans via First Past The Post voting.
- lokar 2y ago
  That, and some just don’t vote

a_wild_dandan 2y ago

That's a wonderful perspective, and largely shared by one party! If you can make the other party act like adults, we'll be in business.

redeeman 2y ago
thats what both parties say. Those who make blanket statements like this tends to be partisan hacks filled with extremely low levels of information.

thomastjeffery 2y ago

I won't believe that after seeing the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

redmajor12 2y ago

[dead]

dragonwriter 2y ago

> Don't you think that is a very cynical view? It's a realistic view. > The party or parties you disagree with may not share your views, but they do have many things in common with you. In The major party I disagree with least doesn’t share my most of views but has many things, in broad focus, in common with me. That’s very much not true of the major party I disagree with most. > In order to build bridges with other parties, it’s important to believe that the majority of people who get involved in government, regardless of party, are motivated primarily by the desire to serve their neighbors and their country Why would “building bridges with other parties” be a goal? A lot of people seem to have gotten ideas that the long realignment period from 1930s to the 1990s when the salient political divides were not along the same axis as the divide between the major parties (though they were approaching alignment at the end of the period) was a norm and not an aberration, and thus have fetishized bipartisanship which was simply a result of ideological factions crossing partisan boundaries rather than generally being contained within major parties. When that applies, you don't need to build bridges between parties, the factions inherently provide it; when it doesn't, you don't have a commonality to build on. And, in any case, this is the fallacy of argument to the consequences of belief – you are justifying a belief in a fact claim not by any evidence that it represents the actual facts, but by the notionally desirable consequences of believing it independent of its truth. > Without that belief, it will be near impossible to form agreements across the aisle. I actually think that its a lot easier to achieve agreements across the aisle, where there is utility in doings so, by observing the actual things that the specific goals the other side has in concrete terms and appealing to them, rather than fantasizing a distant abstraction like “serving the neighbors and their country”. The latter is only useful once you determine a concrete operationalization that comports with the actual behavior of the individuals involved, but that offers nothing between a low-level concrete model of interests that avoids any high-level abstractions. Now, to the extent that its often a concrete low-level interest that they want to be seen as motivated by the desire to serve their neighbors and their country, that may be useful, but that’s different than believing that that is their actual motivation.