What we need in the U.S....

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Seattle, Mar 17, 2017.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    We need a Presidential candidate that can communicate and who is reasonable in his/her goals and who is better at communicating that to all of the voters. Obama was pretty good but he did seem to polarize some people. Maybe an even better approach to communicating would have helped that.

    In any event, the problem with most elections is that it just seems to be more of the same. The reasonable people are driven out of politics and we are left with the hacks and no one can really get too excited about those.

    Governance really shouldn't be all that political. It is here, mainly due to all the money and power involved but governance itself shouldn't really be all that polarizing. People aren't naturally either "Team Red" or "Team Blue".

    When the subject is brought up in a non-confrontational way most/many people will/can agree on the basics. This doesn't work on high drama network editorialized "news" shows and of course that is part of what helps to fan the flames.

    Some people are less educated (and less intelligent for that matter) than others but when politicians/government leaders take more time to explain what is being attempted and why, there would naturally be less fear and more consensus among the public.

    If every topic didn't simply become a shouting match I can't imagine that most people would feel that a giant wall was the best solution or use of taxpayers money. I also don't see any logic in the need to spend more money on the military.

    The conversation should be about how to reduce the size of the military while making it more effective while reducing it's footprint. It's already getting as much money as the next 10 or so largest militaries combined.

    I understand the concern over the economy. This will always be a concern and there will always be conversations regarding the haves and have nots and the gap between the two. There will always be some disagreements about the size of societal safety nets or "entitlement" programs.

    Reasonable people should always be able to find a balance here. What I don't see is any great desire for a massive wall or an even larger military.

    Yet, in the last campaign all you really saw were career politicians whose families have been in charge for years and years and who were almost all out of touch with actual voters.

    I'd like to see more fresh approaches coming from more candidates without the only fresh approach being a least common denominator populist like Trump.

    Do any of you see any possible tread toward more sane conversation and politicians with fresh approaches in any near future elections or will it just be more of the same?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You are never going to see a President better at communicating, or more "reasonable" - that is, willing to compromise, - than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.

    Whatever happened to the public discussion had nothing - nothing whatsoever, at all, in the least - to do with the inability to "communicate", or be "reasonable", of either of them.
    Tell that to Newt Gingrich in 1992. Or the audience for this bestselling, and mass media featured, and future Trump supporting leading Republican intellectual in 2003: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason:_Liberal_Treachery_from_the_Cold_War_to_the_War_on_Terrorism Or to the attendees - the Republican Congressional leadership - of the Caucus Room Conspiracy in 2009.

    Governance doesn't need to be polarizing, but governance stopped being a Republican Party priority in 1980.
    Not among the Republican voting base. They cannot be reached by reasonable explanation - they have no source they are willing to pay attention to.

    The job of explaining things naturally and in the past fell to journalists and pundits - those kinds of journalists and pundits no longer have jobs in the mass media, and regular people have little exposure to them.
    Which is one reason the corporate media and Republican media operations will see to it that everything they can arrange to be becomes a shouting match, and then tell you both sides are to blame - while they cut taxes for the wealthy and increase the US military budget.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I don't think you can blame Obama for polarization. Owing to fake news, there will always be some polarization. Fake news foment and are heavily dependent upon fake news like right wing radio and Fox News.

    What would help is a fair and honest discussion of the facts; with the rise of right wing fake news, that's not what we have today. Unfortunately, there isn't a "better way" of communicating under existing circumstances. When one side is immune from fact and reason, there can be no open and honest discussion. What we need is a return to the Fairness Doctrine which required an honest airing of issues.

    I don't have a problem with career politicians. Unfortunately, they are frequently scapegoated. We do need a fresh approach. But I doubt we will ever get there. The forces entrenched in state houses and Washington aren't going anywhere anytime soon even if you replaced all the "career politicians".

    And I don't think confrontational politics is a bad thing either. Confrontation led to significant changes in civil rights. Were it not for confrontation, blacks may still be sitting in the back of the bus.

    What is a problem is the lack of honest information. As Daniel Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.", but with the rise of right wing entertainment, that rule no longer applies. There is a war being waged on information, and we should all find that deeply disturbing. That's the real problem. That's why we are so polarized. The alt right has its own set of "facts", i.e. beliefs which are not consistent with reality. That's one reason why Republicans are having a great deal of trouble governing.

    Who wouldn't? Though, I wouldn't call Trumper the least common denominator. But that will not happen with Republicans in charge, and it may not happen with Democrats in charge. But at least there is some will on the Democratic side for change whereas there is no will on the Republican side for change.

    Unless we return to the Fairness Doctrine, I don't see open and honest discussion of public issues happening across the spectrum. As long as right wing echo chambers, i.e. fake news like right wing radio, are allowed to exist unchallenged, it will never happen. Because millions of people will be operating under a fake set of facts.

    There is zero chance Republicans will restore the Fairness Doctrine as they have long opposed it and are responsible for its demise. Republicans have long waged a war on honest information and that war continues to this day. The lack of honest information is the problem. That's why the nation is so polarized. That's why things will not change. Republicans have been and continue to be taught to summarily and without merit dismiss any information not derived from authorized Republican sources as "liberal". How can you have an honest discussion with someone who summarily and without merit dismisses all facts and reason as a liberal conspiracy? It's kinda like arguing with a Jim Jones supporter before the Jonestown debacle.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    The reason is that big elephant in the room that goes by another name that starts with an "R" and ends with "ism".
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    No they don't. One group believes in governance, the other wants to shrink it to a size where they can drown it in a bathtub.
     

Share This Page