Some interesting points raised by Gary Edwards. Let me see if I can address some of them, and/or raise a few of my own.
Starting with my own biases - and I think we're all agreed that we have them. I don't trust anyone who claims otherwise. Politically, and currently, I am about as deep "blue" as you can get...but that does not mean I agree on every single point. I believe Karin addressed this point about purity tests beautifully.
My family background is such that on one side of it I am largely on the same page politically, but not spiritually. There are signs that the latter is changing, though. I am also an unashamed Christian, and that puts me in the same spiritual camp with two of my cousins, but not politically. I do not know how much the political part has changed, since these cousins are on the opposite coast from me. It may be time to find out. Carefully.
So, with that background and taking just one issue: although at point blank range I am pro-DEI, I also have some serious and persistent misgivings about it. What they are, I'd rather not say here....and is that self-censorship? Is that induced by an unadmitted Democratic tendency to censor? (Back to purity tests.) I don't know. It's something I have to deal with, and I wrestle with it every day. I'll let you know when I have a better answer.
So to bring this full circle, let's say there are some issues on which I either agree with the sitting president on, or don't strongly disagree. Will I sometimes leave it alone in the interest of getting something positive done? Sure. But then, let's ask ourselves this, about any president: even if I agree that they are doing something right (even though I don't like them very much, and may consider them utterly unqualified for the job), do I trust them to do a *better* job than their opponent *on that issue*?
If the answer is "no", a noticeable majority of the time, then I cannot trust that candidate/president. If the answer is "no" ALL the time (or even close), then I have to consider them utterly unqualified. And that something had to be done about that.
That's where I am with the current administration.
I'd like to think I'm open minded enough to change my stance if proven wrong. But as I mentioned, we all have our biases. To claim otherwise is foolishness.
If you've read this far, Gary or anyone else, I commend you for your patience.
Interesting point of view, and typical of many on both sides of the partisan divide.
I probably could find a number of rightists saying the same thing from the opposite side of the partisan divide. As a reminder of a truth we can all see is the dysfunction in Democrat strongholds where is hard to blame a Republican.
Could it be the lack of balance is what holds us all back?
A lack of trust is a big problem, and it's evident in the falling trust we see in almost every institution. But, if you don't try, you'll be safe demonizing the other side, so if safety within your tribe is what you are after, keep at it.
The most self aware thing I see in your comment is the self censoring proclivity.
From that spark you may find your power. If you can stand your ground within your own tribe, how could you possibly be strong enough to find areas of compromise?
Finding a way to make progress thru compromise is the hard way, not the easier path.
Hi Gary, you're right. Finding commonality is essential. That's why this article includes statements such as,
"...we must prioritize building bridges with people who may be very different from ourselves. Collaboration with anyone who shares a commitment to democracy—even if we disagree on other important issues—is essential to resisting authoritarianism."
And, as many articles from The Smart Politics Way point out, our core dialogue tool is the Persuasion Conversation Cycle. In this model, the fourth step in every conversation is validation. That means finding ways to agree with what the other person says before ever offering an alternative vision of our own. So, in a dialogue with you on the topics above, my answer would be yes, and I would go on to explain why and under what circumstances I share your perspective.
Thanks for continuing the conversation. I understand you find my framing counterproductive, and I want to understand more about why. Is it the tone, the sense of urgency, the use of the word "resistance"—or something else?
To be clear, I do think we’re facing an imminent threat to democracy. I don’t want to sugar coat that. But I also don’t want the way I talk about our situation to alienate people who might otherwise be open to working together. If the framing is getting in the way of building that kind of coalition, I’d really like to understand how—so I can reflect on whether there's a better way to express what’s at stake.
I responded to you by engaging Seth in debate, not manipulative talk in your 10 steps.
As it goes on, he reveals himself more and more as an extremist, uninterested in making progress.
Real people see through manipulation now. We've now been shown it's everywhere, practiced by those in positions of trust, so we are very wary. Now that we're wary of manipulation, we can see it easier.
We probably see it where it isn't, so we do our own to check out the sources and gauge credibility.
Logic and facts, in otherwords, commonsense is far more powerful now than talking points and one sided viewpoints.
The shift away from legacy media is the result. Fewer and fewer are watching, subjecting themselves to endless manipulation.
If you noticed, Seth didn't fall completely into the coded words. So no, it's not the words you use, it's the underlying belief system that is intransigent and telling.
You just can't put lipstick on that pig and expect anyone to be fooled anymore.
Both fringes believe we are/have been facing a threat to our democracy. I may be alone in thinking it started about 25 years ago.
Let's say it's one third each for the threat comes from the right and one third from the left and one third that what we are seeing is a threat from the partisan divide that causes the government to swing wildly from left to right to left and make little common progress on important issues.
Actually, they are really all the same, since the base problem is all three thirds see a problem with compromise.
I noticed you didn't answer my question on what areas of potential agreement you could see making progress that most could support.
I could be wrong bou seem to be in the third that sees Trump as the big problem. Might I remind you that the other two thirds don't believe the same as you, so maybe you are not seeing the same reality as them.
My opinion is it's best just to get to work on finding areas where we all could make some progress and start making it, rather than making it harder to do so.
Half tongue-in-cheek, but half-serious, myself, I feel this is something like "There must be some areas of agreement with the [fundamentalist Afghanistan Taliban] that could be used to make some progress.". As in, suppose I agree with such a Taliban that, e.g. strong family ties are important. Is that really going to make a difference?
One problem is that some of this strikes me as a trap. For example, "Do you want less censorship?" - I do believe, contrary to many Democrats, that there was a problem with pressuring social media companies. But I don't think granting that is going make progress. I think it's going to be a setup - "AHA SO YOU *ADMIT* ...". And note Republicans are orders of magnitude worse, they're implementing insane amounts of censorship. I suspect Trump supporters aren't going to consider me trustworthy and credible, but just jump on that concession as justification for their favored regime. And if this happens, of course, I'm "doing it wrong".
Well, I'm a pretty purple independent who favors policies from both sides. We are the deciders in elections in case that isn't clear. So in many ways we are the primary targets of "Smart Politics"
That being said, my suggestion after a partisan picks out a commonality is to work with the other side to make some progress on the issue. It's NOT about some gotcha talking point.
That leads to positive changes. Trump is right when he says the Democrats will not find anything they like in his popular policies to move forward*. Why not?
Is it really just politicians grasping for power? It makes no sense not to find common ground and make some progress.l if you really want progress.
The only sense the current deadlock makes to me is positioning a way to take power, which again will be resisted by the other side.
Could it be that the real purpose is to manipulate the voters to gain power which is then used to enrich the partisans and their top supporters?
I think if you objectively look at the past, you may see that this is the better explanation for past politics and is at odds with better government and policy.
I mean in the big picture, what fuels deficit spending in a world where the government keeps getting kicked out by the voters.
(* As a point, I waited till the end to say the following ... of course the Republicans also resisted Democratic presidents. And if your first inclination is to complain that I didn't mention that earlier, then I think it's wise to consider that you may be part of the problem.
After all, its not theoretical that the lack of finding common ground with the current President is my point no matter who is currently on top, ... and the current President is Trump so I suggested finding commonality with his positions, its not favoritism, its pragmatism.)
Well, it's not completely evident to me that attempting to woo "independents" is the best strategy, IF it amounts to disowning one's base. That's an aspect which tend to be neglected - those "solutions" recommended for Democrats tend to involve being really nasty in "punching down" to prove one's bona-fides. It's striking how this does not seem apply to Republicans, who put their lunatic fringe in power, and don't seem to have a problem with it.
However, getting back to the main point, and taking it seriously - what does "work with the other side to make some progress on the issue" actually mean in practice? If we have a chat where I agree, yes, the social media pressures (e.g. "Twitter files") were a problem, what follows from that? Maybe you personally aren't going for a cheap "gotcha". But there's a whole machinery of high-attention outrage-mongers who have that cheap "gotcha" as literally their jobs. They live to blast out "EVEN THIS DEMOCRAT ADMITS DEMOCRATS WERE EVIL HERE!". And that's your answer. Who wants to be that person? It seems absurd for me for anyone to contend that means greater trust and credibility. No, it just means playing into the hater's hands.
That is, the flaw in the idea "It makes no sense not to find common ground and make some progress. if you really want progress." - is the big gulf between "common ground" and "make some progress". Per above, in practice, it's necessary to take into account that any good-faith attempt to find common ground is very vulnerable to a bad-faith defection to abuse it for further power. This is just one criticism I have regarding dialogue, in terms of "it does not work" to achieve effective change *at scale*. And this comment is already lengthy, I'll stop here.
I made one point that, e.g. if there's a left/ind/right 48%-4%-48% split, it may not make sense to try to get 3% in the "middle", IF the price is losing 5%, from the base - that's a net loss.
The other idea is that even making overtures for "common ground" can be quite risky, e.g. the gotcha! issue.
Both of these points seem to me very simple and clear problems, where sadly I don't see any practical solutions.
I think you far underestimate the size of the middle. It's not the difference between the winner and loser, that's just the percent of the middle that shifted.
I've seen stats that say Independents are the largest party affiliation. You may need to check that to see if I heard right.
So if it went D + 2 to R +2 nationwide and the middle is 33%, then I think the shift in the middle was 12% (again, check my maths)
I think some of that "independent" are people who are strongly aligned with one party, but don't want to formally declare themselves that way due to negative associations they have with the label. Anyway, the idea is that it's not at all clear there's some easily available pool of unaffiliated voters out there. People sometime say this, but in practice, I've usually seen a pretty long list of "asks", which amounts to "bash your base, punch punch punch down, give up on all your convictions - then maybe, maybe, I'll consider voting for you - we'll see. Oh, and if you don't do this, it's just proof you're intransigent and unwilling to compromise."
So we are agreeing that the bases are the problem here?
My personal opinion is not many voters agree completely with either party. People are individuals and lumping them together can cause some logical errors.
I think you missed my point that there aren't many swing districts. Many districts are solidly red or blue. While that works well to keep those areas, it causes deadlock nationally and makes compromise difficult.
I wouldn't phrase it as "the bases are the problem" - that sounds too much like a cliche perspective that the gol'darn extremists are keeping back the sensible centrists. A key point here is those "centrists" are often quite willing to sell out the interests of the "base", and the "base" is not wrong to oppose that deal. The problem is a bit like "One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter", as in "One person's ideological extremist is another's uncompromising dedication to principle".
Also, the bases are die hards. Look ar how the progressives voted for a moderate as the "better" alternative.
Also I think you place too much power on the executive, if they compromise, congress has much more impact on policy as it becomes law not just an executive order.
It's what happens between elections that really matters ....
Some interesting points raised by Gary Edwards. Let me see if I can address some of them, and/or raise a few of my own.
Starting with my own biases - and I think we're all agreed that we have them. I don't trust anyone who claims otherwise. Politically, and currently, I am about as deep "blue" as you can get...but that does not mean I agree on every single point. I believe Karin addressed this point about purity tests beautifully.
My family background is such that on one side of it I am largely on the same page politically, but not spiritually. There are signs that the latter is changing, though. I am also an unashamed Christian, and that puts me in the same spiritual camp with two of my cousins, but not politically. I do not know how much the political part has changed, since these cousins are on the opposite coast from me. It may be time to find out. Carefully.
So, with that background and taking just one issue: although at point blank range I am pro-DEI, I also have some serious and persistent misgivings about it. What they are, I'd rather not say here....and is that self-censorship? Is that induced by an unadmitted Democratic tendency to censor? (Back to purity tests.) I don't know. It's something I have to deal with, and I wrestle with it every day. I'll let you know when I have a better answer.
So to bring this full circle, let's say there are some issues on which I either agree with the sitting president on, or don't strongly disagree. Will I sometimes leave it alone in the interest of getting something positive done? Sure. But then, let's ask ourselves this, about any president: even if I agree that they are doing something right (even though I don't like them very much, and may consider them utterly unqualified for the job), do I trust them to do a *better* job than their opponent *on that issue*?
If the answer is "no", a noticeable majority of the time, then I cannot trust that candidate/president. If the answer is "no" ALL the time (or even close), then I have to consider them utterly unqualified. And that something had to be done about that.
That's where I am with the current administration.
I'd like to think I'm open minded enough to change my stance if proven wrong. But as I mentioned, we all have our biases. To claim otherwise is foolishness.
If you've read this far, Gary or anyone else, I commend you for your patience.
Interesting point of view, and typical of many on both sides of the partisan divide.
I probably could find a number of rightists saying the same thing from the opposite side of the partisan divide. As a reminder of a truth we can all see is the dysfunction in Democrat strongholds where is hard to blame a Republican.
Could it be the lack of balance is what holds us all back?
A lack of trust is a big problem, and it's evident in the falling trust we see in almost every institution. But, if you don't try, you'll be safe demonizing the other side, so if safety within your tribe is what you are after, keep at it.
The most self aware thing I see in your comment is the self censoring proclivity.
From that spark you may find your power. If you can stand your ground within your own tribe, how could you possibly be strong enough to find areas of compromise?
Finding a way to make progress thru compromise is the hard way, not the easier path.
Again, everything you are talking about is resistance. How about finding commonality?
Let's try this, what things is the current administration doing that you support?
For instance, do you think stemming the flow of migrants into the US is good?
Do you support eliminating duplications, corruption, and inefficiencies from the federal government?
Do you think reducing spending to prepaNdemic levels would be a good thing?
Do you want peace in Ukraine and in the middle east?
Do you want less censorship?
Do you want less US involvement in toppling other governments?
Are you OK with biological males being excluded from women's sports?
Do you want American jobs and industries and their union workers protected from foreign predatory trade practices?
There must be some areas of agreement with the current administration that could be used to make some progress.
Hi Gary, you're right. Finding commonality is essential. That's why this article includes statements such as,
"...we must prioritize building bridges with people who may be very different from ourselves. Collaboration with anyone who shares a commitment to democracy—even if we disagree on other important issues—is essential to resisting authoritarianism."
And, as many articles from The Smart Politics Way point out, our core dialogue tool is the Persuasion Conversation Cycle. In this model, the fourth step in every conversation is validation. That means finding ways to agree with what the other person says before ever offering an alternative vision of our own. So, in a dialogue with you on the topics above, my answer would be yes, and I would go on to explain why and under what circumstances I share your perspective.
Yet you frame everything as resistance and deplore how things are so desperate.
In my opinion, that is counterproductive and as you can see in the comments, your readers do not see it as you portray in this response to my comment.
I try to encourage productive dialog and making actual progress in the real world.
Hi Gary,
Thanks for continuing the conversation. I understand you find my framing counterproductive, and I want to understand more about why. Is it the tone, the sense of urgency, the use of the word "resistance"—or something else?
To be clear, I do think we’re facing an imminent threat to democracy. I don’t want to sugar coat that. But I also don’t want the way I talk about our situation to alienate people who might otherwise be open to working together. If the framing is getting in the way of building that kind of coalition, I’d really like to understand how—so I can reflect on whether there's a better way to express what’s at stake.
Hi Karin,
I responded to you by engaging Seth in debate, not manipulative talk in your 10 steps.
As it goes on, he reveals himself more and more as an extremist, uninterested in making progress.
Real people see through manipulation now. We've now been shown it's everywhere, practiced by those in positions of trust, so we are very wary. Now that we're wary of manipulation, we can see it easier.
We probably see it where it isn't, so we do our own to check out the sources and gauge credibility.
Logic and facts, in otherwords, commonsense is far more powerful now than talking points and one sided viewpoints.
The shift away from legacy media is the result. Fewer and fewer are watching, subjecting themselves to endless manipulation.
If you noticed, Seth didn't fall completely into the coded words. So no, it's not the words you use, it's the underlying belief system that is intransigent and telling.
You just can't put lipstick on that pig and expect anyone to be fooled anymore.
Both fringes believe we are/have been facing a threat to our democracy. I may be alone in thinking it started about 25 years ago.
Let's say it's one third each for the threat comes from the right and one third from the left and one third that what we are seeing is a threat from the partisan divide that causes the government to swing wildly from left to right to left and make little common progress on important issues.
Actually, they are really all the same, since the base problem is all three thirds see a problem with compromise.
I noticed you didn't answer my question on what areas of potential agreement you could see making progress that most could support.
I could be wrong bou seem to be in the third that sees Trump as the big problem. Might I remind you that the other two thirds don't believe the same as you, so maybe you are not seeing the same reality as them.
My opinion is it's best just to get to work on finding areas where we all could make some progress and start making it, rather than making it harder to do so.
Half tongue-in-cheek, but half-serious, myself, I feel this is something like "There must be some areas of agreement with the [fundamentalist Afghanistan Taliban] that could be used to make some progress.". As in, suppose I agree with such a Taliban that, e.g. strong family ties are important. Is that really going to make a difference?
One problem is that some of this strikes me as a trap. For example, "Do you want less censorship?" - I do believe, contrary to many Democrats, that there was a problem with pressuring social media companies. But I don't think granting that is going make progress. I think it's going to be a setup - "AHA SO YOU *ADMIT* ...". And note Republicans are orders of magnitude worse, they're implementing insane amounts of censorship. I suspect Trump supporters aren't going to consider me trustworthy and credible, but just jump on that concession as justification for their favored regime. And if this happens, of course, I'm "doing it wrong".
Well, I'm a pretty purple independent who favors policies from both sides. We are the deciders in elections in case that isn't clear. So in many ways we are the primary targets of "Smart Politics"
That being said, my suggestion after a partisan picks out a commonality is to work with the other side to make some progress on the issue. It's NOT about some gotcha talking point.
That leads to positive changes. Trump is right when he says the Democrats will not find anything they like in his popular policies to move forward*. Why not?
Is it really just politicians grasping for power? It makes no sense not to find common ground and make some progress.l if you really want progress.
The only sense the current deadlock makes to me is positioning a way to take power, which again will be resisted by the other side.
Could it be that the real purpose is to manipulate the voters to gain power which is then used to enrich the partisans and their top supporters?
I think if you objectively look at the past, you may see that this is the better explanation for past politics and is at odds with better government and policy.
I mean in the big picture, what fuels deficit spending in a world where the government keeps getting kicked out by the voters.
(* As a point, I waited till the end to say the following ... of course the Republicans also resisted Democratic presidents. And if your first inclination is to complain that I didn't mention that earlier, then I think it's wise to consider that you may be part of the problem.
After all, its not theoretical that the lack of finding common ground with the current President is my point no matter who is currently on top, ... and the current President is Trump so I suggested finding commonality with his positions, its not favoritism, its pragmatism.)
Well, it's not completely evident to me that attempting to woo "independents" is the best strategy, IF it amounts to disowning one's base. That's an aspect which tend to be neglected - those "solutions" recommended for Democrats tend to involve being really nasty in "punching down" to prove one's bona-fides. It's striking how this does not seem apply to Republicans, who put their lunatic fringe in power, and don't seem to have a problem with it.
However, getting back to the main point, and taking it seriously - what does "work with the other side to make some progress on the issue" actually mean in practice? If we have a chat where I agree, yes, the social media pressures (e.g. "Twitter files") were a problem, what follows from that? Maybe you personally aren't going for a cheap "gotcha". But there's a whole machinery of high-attention outrage-mongers who have that cheap "gotcha" as literally their jobs. They live to blast out "EVEN THIS DEMOCRAT ADMITS DEMOCRATS WERE EVIL HERE!". And that's your answer. Who wants to be that person? It seems absurd for me for anyone to contend that means greater trust and credibility. No, it just means playing into the hater's hands.
That is, the flaw in the idea "It makes no sense not to find common ground and make some progress. if you really want progress." - is the big gulf between "common ground" and "make some progress". Per above, in practice, it's necessary to take into account that any good-faith attempt to find common ground is very vulnerable to a bad-faith defection to abuse it for further power. This is just one criticism I have regarding dialogue, in terms of "it does not work" to achieve effective change *at scale*. And this comment is already lengthy, I'll stop here.
Oops, see comment below meant as a reply to you...
So you're saying gotchaism and whataboutism is not practical by both fringes?
Because they are. Why? Because that gets them elected by their base.
But once you get to national politics, what may work best in a solid blue or red area doesn't work.
There you have it! An explanation for what we see and why complete allegiance to "the base" causes deadlock and a lack of compromise and progress.
I'm a bit unsure if I'm being misunderstood.
I made one point that, e.g. if there's a left/ind/right 48%-4%-48% split, it may not make sense to try to get 3% in the "middle", IF the price is losing 5%, from the base - that's a net loss.
The other idea is that even making overtures for "common ground" can be quite risky, e.g. the gotcha! issue.
Both of these points seem to me very simple and clear problems, where sadly I don't see any practical solutions.
I think you far underestimate the size of the middle. It's not the difference between the winner and loser, that's just the percent of the middle that shifted.
I've seen stats that say Independents are the largest party affiliation. You may need to check that to see if I heard right.
So if it went D + 2 to R +2 nationwide and the middle is 33%, then I think the shift in the middle was 12% (again, check my maths)
I think some of that "independent" are people who are strongly aligned with one party, but don't want to formally declare themselves that way due to negative associations they have with the label. Anyway, the idea is that it's not at all clear there's some easily available pool of unaffiliated voters out there. People sometime say this, but in practice, I've usually seen a pretty long list of "asks", which amounts to "bash your base, punch punch punch down, give up on all your convictions - then maybe, maybe, I'll consider voting for you - we'll see. Oh, and if you don't do this, it's just proof you're intransigent and unwilling to compromise."
So we are agreeing that the bases are the problem here?
My personal opinion is not many voters agree completely with either party. People are individuals and lumping them together can cause some logical errors.
I think you missed my point that there aren't many swing districts. Many districts are solidly red or blue. While that works well to keep those areas, it causes deadlock nationally and makes compromise difficult.
I wouldn't phrase it as "the bases are the problem" - that sounds too much like a cliche perspective that the gol'darn extremists are keeping back the sensible centrists. A key point here is those "centrists" are often quite willing to sell out the interests of the "base", and the "base" is not wrong to oppose that deal. The problem is a bit like "One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter", as in "One person's ideological extremist is another's uncompromising dedication to principle".
Huh, so you do not see the bases as the most extreme elements of the parties?
In otherwords the ones who can't compromise?
Also, the bases are die hards. Look ar how the progressives voted for a moderate as the "better" alternative.
Also I think you place too much power on the executive, if they compromise, congress has much more impact on policy as it becomes law not just an executive order.
It's what happens between elections that really matters ....