Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
I receive a lot of mail from strangers. I try to respond to it all, especially if it's friendly. Sometimes I just can't keep up with it, but I do try.
This came in today from Major Don Potoczny, who is now in Baghdad. I asked him for permission to post it, which he graciously gave me.
Claire,
I was hoping to find your analysis of the recent referendum but found Ricochet. I read a few posts and it really brought home the problem of political discourse today. When we only talk to those who think like us we come up with some fantastic characterizations of what the other side most be thinking. I was amazed to read about what we progressives are really thinking! Haha, I had no idea I thought such things.
The thread called The Theft of Your Retirement should scare anyone. How quickly so many posters thought of reaching for their guns over the ridiculous idea that the "government" would raid their 401ks. Why do you guys cling so hard to your guns and religion?
How can we be surprised that Christians and Muslims (Moslems?) can't communicate when conservatives and liberals won't talk?
From the left,
Don
I think we can talk to the Left, don't you? I hereby invite you to prove that we can--and can do so with civility and respect. I've invited Major Potoczny to join the conversation. Please keep in mind that he is in Baghdad on our behalf, so great courtesy would behoove us.
- Comment (144)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Thanks for posting this, Claire. I expect it will (should) lead to a good discussion. However, Don judging us all by a few comments on a single post/thread is sort of like us judging all Muslims by the actions of a few, isn't it? Sort of criminal. I mean, I am proud of Ricochet -- and am proud to share many conversations on here with my friends/family who are virtually all liberal -- because I feel like we don't support the stereotypes. I mean, if I had more time, I'd go through and share how many different opinions and nuances crop up under the umbrella of "conservative" threads here. There are so many examples, don't you agree? That said, Don, I'm deeply grateful for your service on behalf of me and my children. Stay safe, and stick with Ricochet!
Jun '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Dear Don (from the left),
I suppose "reaching for one's guns" is a cliche that is born out in the comment thread following The Theft of Your Retirement. Allow me to clarify. What the comment thread infers is that there is an absolute point beyond which the citizenry can be provoked into taking desperate measures. Until recently that threshold has been largely theoretical. The theft of the nation's retirement savings by a ruling oligarchy is recognized as one step too far for the following reasons:
1. It would cause a stock market collapse as people scramble to cash in their investments.
2. The stock market collapse would precipitate a run on the banks.
3. A Great Depression would follow.
4. We are tired of playing Charlie Brown and the football with the nation's ruling elites. The trust jar is empty now.
There is currently an insurgency within the Republican Party based in the Tea Party movement. I am waiting for Democrats to do the same within the Democratic establishment. We have room for a loyal opposition within the Tea Party.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Mark W. Paules
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
What a great note from Don, thanks for posting it Claire.
This quote stood out to me: "How can we be surprised that Christians and Muslims (Moslems?) can't communicate when conservatives and liberals won't talk?"
If I may add: how can we be surprised that liberals and conservatives can't communicate when conservatives sometimes won't talk to each other! We don't need a conservative civil war--or a war with the liberals--we just need to have conversations with open-minded people, and those people live on all sides of the political aisle. That's why Ricochet is so great--it facilitates that open conversation that our political life has been sorely lacking lately.
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
I'm actually with the Left--and with Ricochet's radical right-wing editors, as it happens--in agreeing that a discussion of this issue, however passionate, is not improved by the invocation of violence. But I don't agree with Major Potoczny that it is "ridiculous" to think the government is evaluating plans that would in effect undermine the value of 401Ks. Major Potoczny, I assume you looked carefully at the case that this is at least under consideration. What leads you to think it's "ridiculous?"
Feb '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
The problem is, it's not ridiculous at all to suspect the Left of wanting to raid 401(k) accounts. Oh, they won't call it that, but in effect many of them want to replace it with government-backed investments. Given the abysmal return on investment of the Social Security program, that is in effect a raid. Not to mention that once the government takes it over, it will be subject to possible future "modifications" to help the government fund everyone's retirement or stave off some financial crisis.
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
~Paules: Dear Don (from the left), What the comment thread infers is that there is an absolute point beyond which the citizenry can be provoked into taking desperate measures. Until recently that threshold has been largely theoretical. The theft of the nation's retirement savings by a ruling oligarchy is recognized as one step too far for the following reasons:
1. It would cause a stock market collapse as people scramble to cash in their investments.
2. The stock market collapse would precipitate a run on the banks.
3. A Great Depression would follow.
Paules, I'm not so convinced by your doomsday scenario, but I certainly think that theft of one's retirement is nothing to let pass lightly. Still, I think that "desperate measures," especially ones suggesting violence, should be left to the fringes of the political spectrum. Then, people like Don, along with the many voices we hear at Ricochet, can have a fascinating discussion, made all the more fascinating by our nuanced and differing beliefs, beliefs that sometimes swerve from the orthodoxy and are made all the more interesting for that.
May '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Emily Esfahani Smith
Still, I think that "desperate measures," especially ones suggesting violence, should be left to the fringes of the political spectrum. Then, people like Don, along with the many voices we hear at Ricochet, can have a fascinating discussion, made all the more fascinating by our nuanced and differing beliefs, beliefs that sometimes swerve from the orthodoxy and are made all the more interesting for that. · Sep 16 at 6:53am
I don't think that contemplating violence is a fringe reaction. There has been at least one plan floated with some level of seriousness that would involve seizing our retirement plans in favor of government-distributed retirement benefits. That is flat-out theft and our country has always honored the right of private citizens to use violence to defend their property from theft, even if that theft was committed by government officials.
I'm not suggesting that it's an ideal solution, but it's not beyond the pale.
Sep '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Out of respect for Claire, I will overlook the oozing contempt in that remark.
Major, we cling to our guns because we believe in our fundamental right to defend ourselves – either from common thugs, or from a greedy, arrogant government that regards us as nothing but lemons to be squeezed dry for tax revenue.
Major, we cling to our religion because we still hold dear the spiritual principles this country was founded upon, and because we know that the terrorists will hit us again. In dark days to come, only Faith will sustain us.
Hopefully, you will find those answers somewhat enlightening.
Jun '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Emily Esfahani Smith
"Still, I think that "desperate measures," especially ones suggesting violence, should be left to the fringes of the political spectrum. Then, people like Don, along with the many voices we hear at Ricochet, can have a fascinating discussion, made all the more fascinating by our nuanced and differing beliefs."
The problem is that "desperate measures" is now mainstream, and that is frightening indeed. It's a measure of the frustration within the electorate that it could come to this. The fact that sober and rational people are debating the potential for violence is proof in and of itself that a threshold does exist. You need to take that seriously. The first American Revolution was at one time only theoretical, but it eventually manifested in something totally unexpected. We are engaged now in the second American Revolution, but too many people are immersed in a nuanced discussion to see the reality.
Jul '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Emily Esfahani Smith
Paules, I'm not so convinced by your doomsday scenario, but I certainly think that theft of one's retirement is nothing to let pass lightly. Still, I think that "desperate measures," especially ones suggesting violence, should be left to the fringes of the political spectrum. · Sep 16 at 6:53
Emily, let me point you to Federalist 28:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
>
Was Hamilton on the fringes of the political spectrum?
Edited on Sep 16, 2010 at 7:13amRe: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
David Parsons
Out of respect for Claire, I will overlook the oozing contempt in that remark.
Oh, come on. That was obviously dry humor. I think.
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
This sounds to me like a revolutionary sentiment--taking arms against the government--and a revolution is, by definition, radical and on the fringe. Besides, how do know when to justify violence in the name of theft? You argue that theft of one's retirement could justify it. What about being taxed, as we all are? Some libertarians view tax as theft. Do you see the slippery slope?
There are cases when violence is justifiable, if regrettably so (like WWII). I don't see retirement theft as one such case. We have laws for a reason. If we don't like what the government is doing, we can sue or use proxies to sue. That's what's happening on the state level with health care. There's no need to jump to "desperate measures" when there are about a hundred--more!--steps we can take before we get to this hypothetical point of "desperation."
Feb '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
The founders "reached for their guns" over taxation and other issues. What a bunch of bitter clingers.
Don't get me wrong, I really don't think in this case violence is the answer, but we are in a period of major unrest. I doubt it will result in revolution, but we have only begun to see the major changes and tectonic shifts that are coming up.
The main reason I have little hope for a turn back to something resembling Constitutional rule is the squandering of our human social capital (the old American values, virtues, and ways of thinking) in the last few generations. Far too many people are now unwilling or even unable to function in the kind of society that would entail.
(For more on the concept of human capital I point you to Thomas Sowell's writings. A summary at Wikipedia.)
Edited on Sep 16, 2010 at 7:25amRe: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Emily Esfahani Smith
If we don't like what the government is doing, we can sue or use proxies to sue.
Or even vote.
Feb '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
An example of the squandering of human capital that I'm talking about. Many people in the federal welfare system view single moms as the only real parents. There may be some dads floating around here and there, but most of them are viewed just as overgrown kids or even problems for their families. Feminists have declared that it's best for boys to be raised by their mothers, not their fathers. This in spite of all the evidence that one of the major factors in children's success in almost every area of their life is the presence of an involved father.
What horrible things have we done to our social and family structure by trying to "help"?!? In many communities the father is now seen as optional, and the men take to their new non-role quite well. The result is a downward spiral, a vicious cycle, by which the only male role models for young boys (in spite of their mothers' best efforts) are a bunch of irresponsible grown-up boys. It's sickening what the welfare state has wrought. These may have been unintended consequences, but judged by the outcomes, it's been a massive failure.
May '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Emily Esfahani Smith
This sounds to me like a revolutionary sentiment--taking arms against the government--and a revolution is, by definition, radical and on the fringe. · Sep 16 at 7:15am
Mrs. Smith, please, meet Mr. Wood.
Sep '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
~Paules:
Emily Esfahani Smith
"Still, I think that "desperate measures," especially ones suggesting violence, should be left to the fringes of the political spectrum. Then, people like Don, along with the many voices we hear at Ricochet, can have a fascinating discussion, made all the more fascinating by our nuanced and differing beliefs."
We are engaged now in the second American Revolution, but too many people are immersed in a nuanced discussion to see the reality.
Bless you, Paules, for that sly dig. I positively hate the word "nuanced." It has been beaten to death by liberals. That goes for the word "vibrant," too. It is almost always used by liberals to justify some sort of multicultural abomination.
Emily, if you are not a liberal, never use the word "nuanced," again. Please, please, please, don't do it.
Jun '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Emily Esfahani Smith
"This sounds to me like a revolutionary sentiment--taking arms against the government--and a revolution is, by definition, radical and on the fringe. Besides, how do know when to justify violence in the name of theft? You argue that theft of one's retirement could justify it."
It is radical and revolutionary, but it's only "fringe" until it becomes actual. I'm in total agreement that we have many mechanisms that should be exhausted before contemplating violence. However, when a ruling oligarchy attempts to loot the nation's wealth leaving the entire populace in penury, that for many citizens will be a Rubicon crossed. You can see clearly by the early comments in this thread that this is undeniably the case.
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Claire Berlinski
Smith
If we don't like what the government is doing, we can sue or use proxies to sue.
Or even vote. · Sep 16 at 7:18am
Touche.
Michael -- I just read Federalist 28. I don't think Hamilton was on the fringe. He was making the argument that if the government betrays its constituents--by using unjust force on them--then the constituents have a right to defend themselves. The entire first half of the paper is devoted to making the case for a standing national army. Here is the paragraph preceding the one you quoted:
If the government betrays the constituents by using unjust force against them, then the constituents are justified to defend themselves.
Jul '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Emily Esfahani Smith
This sounds to me like a revolutionary sentiment--taking arms against the government--and a revolution is, by definition, radical and on the fringe.
Here's James Madison in Federalist 46:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments...forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe...the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.