Are we guilty?...

[GTurck]

Yesterday, in a conversation with my very conservative son, he and his wife made comments about why they hate my involvement with politics. I had a sudden shot of clarity and realized that they had conflated government, politics, and partisanship.

Are we all guilty of that? Have we let the media and the plutocrats back us into that corner so that when we talk about issues and policies it is only for the purpose of politics as a partisan endeavor rather than a matter of how to have a government? I am afraid so and this is the paradigm that must be changed to change everything else.

Government is the structure. Politics is the operating system. Partisanship is way we look at the other two and should be the least important. For too long partisanship has been the whole deal and it is time to make it the least. We will be liberal here and there will be conservatives but we have spent too long tearing down the structure and fouling up the operating system. I think I know where it started but now it is time to forget the genesis and who to blame and fix it.

[graham4anything]

1. Only by reelecting Barack Obama and all democrats and taking back the house

will stop the obstructoin of the republicantealibertarians.

the US was indeed built on compromise.
(To get the 1st amendment, the opposers demanded the 2nd, so a deal was made as the 1st was more important.)

24/7/365 media has destroyed the back door deal, which is how our country was built.
too much openess leads to nothing at all.
everyone cowers in fear.

the proverbial stories of Tip and Reagan never mention that it was done BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, NOT IN FRONT OF CAMERAS.

[piechartking]

2. I don't agree

I think that your partisanship is based on your philosophy on what role government should play in effecting policy. In the end, my opinion is that your partisan philosophy is the organic growth from your personal values and beliefs. In a sense, it is all conflated. But I don't agree that we talk about politics for the sake of politics. I think everyone wants to work for "good" policy, but depending on your personal views, you will identify with one major group or the other, and play the game to the advantage of your side.

But fundamentally, it's not the game for the sake of the game, but for the sake of bringing about effective policy.

[Skittles]

3. well that makes sense

howdy piechartking....wait...you're not Ross Perot are you?

[GTurck]

4. My son's...

comment was that he saw only the game and nothing about the policies or the reasons for them. He doesn't see the government in any of that and from experience I know that he is not unique.

[piechartking]

5. That sounds pretty...

common. My in-laws are very conservative, and when they get on the losing side of a policy argument with me, they never fail to default to "well, both sides are crooked" or something like that. That usually let's me know that they've lost, although I would prefer the occasional, "Wow. Never thought about it like that. Maybe you're right. Makes sense to me."

That being said, if your son is conservative it is more interesting to tease out what it is emotionally that he feels is keeping him secure in conservative beliefs. Have you ever discerned what conservative principles give him emotional comfort to the point that conflicting or tension-producing evidence is discarded or interpreted in a novel way?

But to just label it as "just politics" is disingenuous, because we all talk politics different than we discuss college football or the World Series. That's because it MEANS SOMETHING to everyone (again, it's an outgrowth of our personal beliefs and values).

[Curmudgeoness]

7. Hi, piechartking, welcome to DU.

Where have you been?

I have to agree with you that turning the conversation with the son toward what his reasons are for his beliefs is a good idea. I think if anyone wants to change the discussion from adversity to something more productive should go in this direction. I doubt that it would help, at least for me and my family, but it is better than just throwing nastiness back and forth.

Join the conversation more often.

[limpyhobbler]

6. Sounds like an excuse for Obama to link arms with the GOP to cut Social Security.

No benefit cuts should pass unless they can override a Presidential veto with a 2/3 majority.

Same for Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, Vets benefits, etc. People depend on these programs.

Talking bi-partisan co-operation is the first step to cutting programs people depend on. We need more partisanship, not less.

[Curmudgeoness]

8. We all may be guilty,

but I am not willing to change the way I discuss issues and policies. It is about partisanship when you look at everything that the government is involved in. And partisanship isn't really a personal choice----it is built over years of our own experiences and thought processes.

And as long as the Republicans keep up the rhetoric the way they are doing it, I think it is a mistake for us to get soft. I will make changes in the conversation when they do. Don't hold your breath.