Comments on: The Elusive Common Ground

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:34:54 +0000

Alan,
I think the thing is that when specific issues are actually discussed, there’s not a lot of daylight between the various positions that people take. However, our politicians have raised divide and conquer to an artform. Therefore the rhetoric that we are subjected to has led us to feel that people whose opinions are really only slightly different than our own, are our enemies. That’s because it’s much easier for a politician to define him/herself by demonizing his opponent’s position than by explaining the merits of his own. It also makes for a stronger attachment between voter and politician because it’s based on fearmongering.

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:08:48 +0000

Have to disagree with the WaPo article claiming that Americans are greatly divided. Political scientists and sociologist have studied the partisan divide for the last decade or so and have found that the majority (65-75%) of Americans have views that are quite similar and marked with only minor differences.

But don’t take my word for it, read “America’s Moral Values Crisis” by Wayne Baker, “One Nation After All” by Alan Wolfe, or Morris Fiorina’s book whose title I can’t recall. All come to the same conclusion: America’s political values follow the “bell curve”, with most clustered around the median. If anything, there seems to be a generations-long convergence in political opinion.

The only place that polarization is clearly seen is among the political elites, the most politically active citizens. Which makes sense, since research since the 1920’s has shown that the stronger a person’s views, the more active they are in politics.

By: kritter

kritter — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:27:36 +0000

Of course I welcome a more bipartisan approach to lawmaking, and agree that hyperpartisanship stymies healthy debate on issues. Politics today seems to be about spouting hyperbole, and tagging your opponent with a nasty sound bite that will stick in the minds of the voting public. All nuances are lost in the process, as complex issues are reduced to catchy phrases. There may be a short-term political gain from this, but in the long run the best interests of the country are not served, since almost all political posturing is now highly misleading.

While I admire the intentions of these four elder statesmen, I find it tragic that today’s politicians can only come together to advocate for the national interest once they are out of office. This approach was tried years ago by George McGovern and Barry Goldwater, to no avail and Washingon’s poisonous politics has only gotten worse in the intervening years.

By: domajot

domajot — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:05:48 +0000

Again, I agree with Paul Silver. Ideas are the necessary beginning, but they have to be extended to concrete actions. Encouraging other politicians with potential is one such measure.

By: Paul Silver

Paul Silver — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:54:59 +0000

Perhaps these four leaders can make the most impact by endorsing candidates for Congress they believe would promote collaboration over partisanship.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:34:25 +0000

The article quoted one them saying: “Nobody wants a one-party system” and I respond nonsense. Most Americans live in a state where one party or the other are dominate. Most Americans vote in elections where few election are even competative.

The future of the United States is for their to be one party, the Democratic Party. The real question should not be about cooperation and gridlock but how will the political process function with the Democratic party in total control of the process. Is Mass, DC, or California the model for the rest of America?