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 :
Jun '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
David Parsons: Bless you, Paules, for that sly dig.
Thank you for noticing.
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Kofola
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 16 at 7:21am
Yes, then there's Edmund Burke who famously said the American Revolution was "a revolution not made but prevented." The debate about the radicalism v. conservatism of the American Revolution is a great one--and I happen to side with Burke on it.
Jul '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
The thing about this conversation is this: nobody in Washington is seriously discussing seizing everyone's 401(k). For goodness' sake, Congress has proved incapable of making such a slight adjustment to the nation's social safety net as raising the retirement age or raising payroll tax. They're not about to arbitrarily seize people's assets.
There's no reason to go frothing at the mouth over something that is at the remote edges of possibility.
America has real problems that are plenty big and intractable, and that are already at hand. I would like it if discussants on Ricochet focused on the problems we've got, rather than engage in (I daresay) self-indulgent fantasies about the revolution they'll lead once the government takes away their retirement.
May '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
I have been beating this drum for awhile now, so thank you Claire. I have been waiting for the formal "launch" of Ricochet to invite my broader range of progressive friends into the conversation (scary as that will be). But Rob and Adam and I share a few friends that are in fact high-profile, left-leaning honest-to-god pundits (though I don't share the same secret building-with-no-windows bond that they do ;-) but I'm hopeful that one or more might be persuaded to come and do a drive-by; even if -- like Harry Shearer -- it's only a temporary flirtation.
May '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
First, Major, thank you for putting your life on the line for us. God bless.
Second, the talk of revolution is not a call for revolution. Nobody's formulating any plans or wants such a tragedy to happen. There's just a common feeling that our times are extraordinary and that the American people are increasingly being ruled, rather than represented, by government. When citizens feel oppressed and no longer believe elections serve them, revolution is the first thing to comes to mind. That does not mean it is the limit of their thinking.
The same people talking about revolution around America are also voting... still placing faith in the system, but wondering how much freedom they're willing to sacrifice while doing so. As any soldier should know, human beings consider some things more valuable than life itself; freedom among them.
As for the likelihood of government seizing 401ks, I recommend reading this book about FDR and The New Deal. Our government now is similar to what it was then. The book demonstrates that such unbelievable acts have already happened in America. Small business owners went to jail under FDR for charging prices that were too low.
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
I'm right with you, Charlie.
Jul '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
In our defense, I would like to point out that the bulk of the comments on that thread made no reference to guns.
And that once the gun-talk (which is kinda like sports-talk) did emerge, we mutually agreed that, out of concern for the possibility of someone like the good Major coming upon the thread and using it to mis-characterize our community, we put any further talk of guns aside.
Perhaps the major should sample a half-dozen other Ricochet threads before he so cavalierly stereotypes us.
Sep '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Wow, fourteen comments before I could get online. How can someone tread water that fast?
1. Ursula, you barely get to your third sentence before calling me a criminal. That's what I'm talking about!
2. Mark, do you really think that taking everyone's 401k is feasible even if the administration wanted to? Why would you think that excess would be worth killing for but not any of the executive excesses from the last administration? As much as you may enjoy watching, not many of us feel a need for a Democratic insurgency. It is fun enough to watch yours.
3. David, way too much to respond in your short message. That wasn't contempt, it was tongue in cheek. Claire (and most, I hope) was clever enough to see that.
4. Jimmy, when threats of guns are no longer in the fringe then those of us who believe in discourse have lost and our republic is gone. That doesn't help.
5. Emily, well said. Conservatives are just out of power, probably briefly, there is no reason for so many threats of revolution. We on the left made it through the Bush years without threatening revolution, often.
Jul '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
In our defense, I would like to point out that the bulk of the comments on that thread made no reference to guns.
And that once the gun-talk (which is kinda like sports-talk) did emerge, we mutually agreed that, out of concern for the possibility of someone like the good Major coming upon the thread and using it to mis-characterize our community, we put any further talk of guns aside.
Perhaps the Major should sample a half-dozen other Ricochet threads before he so cavalierly stereotypes us.
Jun '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
The guns/religion comment, in printed form, makes it hard to believe that serious dialog can occur, unless it's forthright. It seems condescending; not a good footing for true dialog.
In the interest of dialog, I respectfully submit the following questions that perhaps Major Potoczny might address:
1. Is it the position of the Left that government should have a large role in orchestrating the lives of its citizens? If yes, on what grounds is this based? Can you defend the position logically that "government knows best" for my life?
2. Is it the position of the Left that what I earn ultimately belongs to the government? Why is the left opposed to reducing the spending of revenue it did not earn?
3. Do you really think the Left is interested in dialog with those on the Right?
In the end, I believe what we'd find is that the gap between opposing worldviews is getting wider. Makes dialog difficult, but not impossible. But make no mistake, dialog that results in another proverbial Gang of 14 will not fix what ails this nation. Civil discussion is wonderful, but the participants must also prove themselves civil, which seems rare now.
Jun '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Major, thanks for your service. I am a combat veteran myself. Sworn several times to defend the Constitution of the United States. I was one of the commenters that flirted with "2nd Amendment solutions" on the referenced thread. I admit that passion and implied violence quickly seems over-the-top or "ridiculous" (your word). Especially if you implicitly (not to say blindly) trust your government to stay within any constitutional bounds that the Founders would recognize. I believe that we currently face a much greater economic crisis than the Great Depression. New Deal response to the emergency: our government confiscated all privately-held gold as a prelude to debauching the currency wiping out the savings of millions, slaughtered and burned agricultural commodities at a time of wide-spread hunger, and turned infantry and tanks on the veteran's Bonus Army marching to demand a pension previously authorized by law. A bit earlier, the Wilson's Palmer raids jailed and beat thousands for less than Code Pink does today. A bit later, the property of 110 thousand Japanese was seized and these American citizens relocated and interned. Our government is capable of acts that are not tolerable
May '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
It's not that Christians and Muslims won't talk, it's just that the talking is usually one-sided. Christians are expected to tolerate the preachings of Islam yet if we were to preach the Gospel, we are intolerant extremists or worse. Christians believe that the only way to God is through Christ. Muslims also believe there is only one true way to Allah, yet we are the intolerant ones. In certain areas of Islamic community, we would be labeled infidels and marked for violence or death (see post on Molly Norris).
It's hard to have an honest and frank discussion about the issues when you are defending yourself against charges that you are racist, sexist, homophobes that hate Muslims. I'm all for a discussion with reasonable people who disagree with us, but those controlling the message do not want that honest discussion. They name call to purposely thwart such discussion. I'd rather hear why I'm wrong on the President's policies, but instead I get that we are racists treating him like a dog.
Sep '10
Re: 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.
Even under ideal circumstances, suing the government is extremely difficult – and flat-out impossible if a compliant judiciary rubberstamps everything the government does.
Edited on Sep 16, 2010 at 7:58amJul '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Jim Chase: The guns/religion comment, in printed form, makes it hard to believe that serious dialog can occur, unless it's forthright. It seems condescending; not a good footing for true dialog.
3 Do you really think the Left is interested in dialog with those on the Right?
Jim, I cannot recall the last time I have perceived a sincere interest from the Left on dialogue. Instead, the ideas of the Right are subjected to withering scorn and intentional distortion.
I would go so far as to doubt the Major's sincerity, as well, since he was so quick to seize upon a mere half-dozen comments out of tens of thousands in order to brand Ricochet members as some sort of gun kooks.
Sep '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Kenneth,
My orginal message was to Claire, I suspected she was clever enough to know that it was a joke. But all the talk about guns does help to answer her original question.
Jim,
1. Liberals believe that government should have a larger role in some areas, and conservatives believe that government should have a larger role in other areas. While you may want less taxes on very wealthy people, I want the government to let woman have greater reproductive rights and I would prefer the government let people smoke whatever they want in their homes.
2. Again, we can discuss the size of the budget but our disagreements are more about how the government spends it. I prefer less on aircraft carriers and banks but more on schools and roads.
3. Yes, Jim, we are interested in dialogue. Really. We can be civil and it would help if we resist the urge to talk about revolution. As someone currently in uniform in a war zone, I assume I and mine would be the targets.
Jun '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Donald Potoczny: "2. Mark, do you really think that taking everyone's 401k is feasible even if the administration wanted to? Why would you think that excess would be worth killing for but not any of the executive excesses from the last administration? As much as you may enjoy watching, not many of us feel a need for a Democratic insurgency. It is fun enough to watch yours."
The fact that siezing 401k's has been suggested (in exchange for more government promises, no less!) by people on the left means that the possibility exists no matter how remote.
As for a Democratic insurgency (snarky tone aside), you make the mistake of believing the Democratic leadership is working on your behalf. You might take the class warfare gambit that the left is so happy to play and apply it (if only theoretically) to your own party. See what you come up with.
Sincerely and respectfully (still),
Mark W. Paules
Jul '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Donald Potoczny: Kenneth,
My orginal message was to Claire, I suspected she was clever enough to know that it was a joke. But all the talk about guns does help to answer her original question.
I do not understand what you just said about "...her original question."
And to use the phrase "...all the talk about guns..." is a flippant exaggeration.
Jun '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Kenneth
Jim, I cannot recall the last time I have perceived a sincere interest from the Left on dialogue. Instead, the ideas of the Right are subjected to withering scorn and intentional distortion.
I understand Kenneth, but since the major is online now, I'll certainly give him the opportunity to speak his piece, or his peace. He'll have my benefit of the doubt, until he gives me cause otherwise.
Major, I also thank you for your service.
Sep '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
Thanks, Jim. This is a rough crowd.
Kenneth, "all the talk about guns" isn't flippant. I meant "all the messages that talked about violence as the answer to a political problem". Trust me, folks, it's not the answer. It may somehow be reassuring to shoot bottles and imagine they are government oppressors, but they don't help. They don't help here in Baghdad and they wouldn't help back home. I promise I won't joke about guns if that helps. I'm off to the mess hall. I'll try to catch up when I return.
May '10
Re: Let's Talk to Reasonable People Who Disagree With Us
I think the tone of the conversation can be aided by not characterizing intent on the part of the other side -- which is very hard to do but very important. They can be (hideous, tragically, fatally) wrong while having the very best of intentions. We have to discuss our vision of the end goal (to Rob's point about problems) and then discuss the most effective means.
A debate about stealing 401Ks (much as I love Dave and his posts) is not as helpful as a discussion about retirement, what's at stake, where do we need to get, how to get there, and what it's worth. Dave threw out some red meat, but in all fairness, most folks would dismiss the 401K concept out of hand, so it's not really the fight to be having.
Much better to discuss, for example, tax cuts and whether they are "cuts" at all and whether there might not be some legitimate point to be made that says, before you raise my taxes even further to address the deficit, why not spend an equal amount of attention discussing what federal spending we should forgo to reach that goal.