2012-09-06 Editorial

Political discussions hard to have these days




	(click for larger version)

September 04, 2012 | 03:19 PM

I remember a steamy night in Florida.

That sounds like the start of a romance novel, but it was actually a recollection of a great political debate.

A co-worker and I were there for a seminar. We walked back to the hotel one night from a restaurant, a little tipsy, arguing politics all the way.

He was on one side of the political discussion; I was on the other.

Editorial

Mr. Feeney's lesson is easy to write about, hard to live
Aug 30, 2012

Additions, corrections, trivia
Aug 23, 2012

A Ryan flashback: Play forward the what if game
Aug 16, 2012

Blending Mayberry, modern realities
Aug 09, 2012

Those little things that drive us all crazy
Aug 02, 2012

Get More Editorial

Extras

e-mail this article link to a friend

Larger | Smaller

We disagreed on almost everything, but it was a blast. We needled each other. We threw out facts the other person didn't know and stretched a few facts here and there.

And when we were proven wrong or at least presented with facts that challenged us, we sheepishly changed the subject.

We wouldn't pummel the other person until they admitted they were totally wrong. The idea wasn't to force the other person into submission; we respected each other too much to do that.

For most of my life, I've relished such political discussions. Arguing about politics has been one of my favorite sports especially if it's followed by a friendly beer afterward.

But no more.

That's because it's increasingly difficult to talk about political differences.

The cliché that religion and politics are off limits has never been more true.

The problem: We're all so sure we're right.

And we tend to follow leaders who are similarly self assured. So we watch Fox or NSNBC to add fuel to our fires. There's rarely an attempt to see both sides of the story.

It's almost like the dark ages, when people were burned at the stake for suggesting that the sun was at the center of the universe. If someone disagrees with us, we demonize them.

All this is taking place at a time when we might all benefit by a little lack of self-assurance.

The world is a lot more complicated than the extremes have painted it. It always has been.

For instance, I can line up economists on both sides of the political spectrum. They're all educated; they're all smart. They just arrive at different conclusions. To suggest there's only one smart way to move ahead or that we've found the holy grail of economic computations is a pretty arrogant conceit.

We like self-assurance. We like our political heroes to be outspoken and self confident. That way we can feel more secure in our own beliefs.

We like consistency. We have a hard time believing that someone can be against abortion for instance, and still be a Democrat, or believe abortion is a woman's choice and be a Republican.

But a really strong person can also change his or her mind, take a stand different than their friends and not demonize those who disagree.

Doubters should note that Ronald Reagan was a Democrat at one time, but changed his mind. And Nazi General Ervin Rommel and the Confederate General Robert E. Lee were admired by their enemies because they were respected for who they were, not demonized because they were on a different side.

There's also a somewhat humorous aspect to this atmosphere. We often assume that the people we hang out with must agree with us because, well, we're hanging out together.

It's always a bit awkward when you're talking to someone you're on friendly terms with and discover that they disagree with you politically. We just assume that someone we like must be as "smart as we are."

Such realizations tend to be real conversation stoppers instead of conversation openers which is what they could be.

I was at a restaurant the other day and heard a man raise his voice to a woman sitting across from him.

He was taking a side on a political discussion and made no secret that he thought the woman was a moron for thinking otherwise.

It was as though he had received tablets from Mt. Sinai that morning and anyone disagreeing with him was either the devil or stupid.

Maybe they had a beer afterwards, and the line "it was a steamy night" had another meaning for them.

But from what I could tell, it was another example that the sport of political sparring is not a game worth playing anymore.

I still flash back to my days as a high school debater. It was a nerdy pursuit but instructive. That's because we switched sides every week and had to learn the arguments on both side of the story and argue them convincingly and with passion.

Maybe that's what we all should do.

Maybe both sides should have to present the other person's perspective before resorting to hardball.

Then the game might be fun again.

Feedback

Tags: Staff Editorial

Opposite political views
September 05, 2012 | 07:46 AM

A 50 year friendship ended last year because of political differences. As I've cut her out of my life - too toxic and hateful - I won't forward this to her, but I, too, remember discussions of opposing views and how I always learned something from the other person. Thanks for such clarity in your writing, John, it isn't 'fun' to discuss politics anymore, it now borders on dangerous.

Lynn Wesolek
Town of Geneva
Very little difference between Republicans and Dems
September 05, 2012 | 12:51 PM

I find it odd that there is such division in our political discussions when both sides are fiscally irresponsible, refuse to deal with the harsh realities of government spending and are both guilty of taking our nation down a path of financial ruin.

Both Republicans and Democrats are parties in which fiscal liberalism is rampant at the expense of our children and grandchildren, who are being saddled with the debt of government programs that we in the present want to use but donâ€™t want to pay for.

President Obama and the Democratic Party are criticized for their stimulus plan, while it was the Bush Administration that championed and passed the TARP bail-out plan for large financial institutions. I find it hard to justify either, as both are based on a redistribution of resources earned by taxpayers (or borrowed from future taxpayers) that benefits a few at the expense of the many. The TARP plan was later changed to add funding for the auto industry, so now taxpayers are part owners of GM and Chrysler (which was supported by â€œConservativeâ€ Congressman and Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan). So much for letting the free market decide the winners and losers in the automobile business.

Democrats seem to offer a plan that includes more of the same under Obama, along with plans to â€œtax the richâ€, which could not only kill job growth but could force more large US Corporations with foreign subsidiaries to legally leave profits off shore and out of the reach of the IRS.

On the other side Republicans offer a plan based on tax cuts as a way to grow our economy in order to eliminate or reduce our annual budget deficits. During the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress passed both tax cuts and tax rebates, neither of which grew the economy enough to offset federal spending. During the Bush administration the limit on the National Debt was raised eight times from $5.95 billion to $11.315 billion, so it is apparent that tax cuts and tax rebate checks did not provide the stimulus necessary to grow the economy enough to prevent deficit spending from occurring.

The bottom line is that both parties are guilty of failing to address the role that government spending has in the destruction of our economy and how it threatens the security of our nation. Recent history has demonstrated that stimulus plans and tax cuts are no substitute for cutting government spending.

Here is the harsh reality that neither party wants to tell the American People â€" If you look at the Proposed Federal Budget for 2012, the majority of spending is based on four large government programs plus interest on the National Debt. The budgetary estimates for Security / National Defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Interest Payments are at $2.6 trillion dollars. Total Federal Revenues are estimated at $2.47 trillion dollars for the same period, which means that government spending is already in the red without the costs of any other government programs. When you add in all other government programs, the total deficit for 2012 is projected at $1.33 trillion dollars, and the current budget forecasts show continuing deficits with no end in sight.

Without major spending cuts in government programs, including National Defense and Entitlements, our economy will continue to stagnate and our national debt will grow until investors realize that we are no longer a safe place for investment. At that point our nation will no longer be a leader in terms of business, industry, innovation, education or science, and will be nothing more than a bankrupt shell of its former self.

James from Lake Geneva