The widening gap within American politics
There is a very good reason behind the growing divide between conservatives and liberals, and it has nothing to do with rhetoric, parties, over-sensitivity, or generally uncivil thinking.
It involves shared principles of government and the sad reality that we no longer share many (if any) with the political left in America.
For much of our nation's existence, parties argued over the wisest means to the same end. Under that paradigm, compromise is possible.
But what happens when one party decides to head to an entirely different destination?
The Democratic Party of today stands as a thing apart from the nation as founded. The platform of the Democratic Party declares an agenda largely incompatible with individual liberty and requires the abrogation of constitutional government to achieve.
There is no possible compromise between those who respect and wish to preserve (and restore) constitutionally limited government and those who want to scrap it in favor of some form of government-centric collectivism.
Therefore, there exists an ever widening chasm between men like myself and men like Hodgkinson, the Alexandria shooter.
Now, the most important takeaways from this terrible and avoidable incident is the recognition of that chasm, acceptance of its necessity and hopefully, the realization among those on the left that it is they who have created it by abandoning our founding values in favor of the failed and corrosive ones we have already fought multiple wars to defeat.
Dismiss the calls to "meet in the middle" on "common ground." Meeting someone halfway who is already over the cliff simply takes you both to your deaths.
Wild-eyed, over-the-top rhetoric has, like the poor, always been with us and always will. The solution to our present issue lies not in restricting speech, or in attempting to regulate what is and isn't an acceptable form of advocacy, but instead to honestly examine the root of the divergence of opinion.
Overheated rhetoric is a trigger to men like Hodgkinson, but it did not create him. The effort to supplant our constitutional republican form of government with collectivism of some form or another deserves the blame for that. It is that parting of the ways that has created the chasm between us, and there can be no compromise with an attempt to overturn our form of government. Elections permit the transfer of power in our system to occur based on the wishes of the governed, expressing their will by supporting a candidate.
Winning an election grants the power to determine the policies and direction our government will pursue during the winner's term of office. It does not grant the winner the power to change the form of government itself.
Another nation waging war against us does so to gain control over our people, our resources, and our land by defeating our government and replacing it with its own.
When one political ideology advocates doing precisely the same thing, its place of residence is irrelevant. An enemy is an enemy (from within or without) and is accorded that status not by location, but by intent.
Were conservatives to meet liberals halfway in this instance, we would have to participate in treason to do so.
It is the left that needs to return to supporting and defending constitutional government. Conservatives never stopped.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/the_widening_gap_within_american_politics.html#ixzz4kQM57syr
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
It involves shared principles of government and the sad reality that we no longer share many (if any) with the political left in America.
For much of our nation's existence, parties argued over the wisest means to the same end. Under that paradigm, compromise is possible.
But what happens when one party decides to head to an entirely different destination?
The Democratic Party of today stands as a thing apart from the nation as founded. The platform of the Democratic Party declares an agenda largely incompatible with individual liberty and requires the abrogation of constitutional government to achieve.
There is no possible compromise between those who respect and wish to preserve (and restore) constitutionally limited government and those who want to scrap it in favor of some form of government-centric collectivism.
Therefore, there exists an ever widening chasm between men like myself and men like Hodgkinson, the Alexandria shooter.
Now, the most important takeaways from this terrible and avoidable incident is the recognition of that chasm, acceptance of its necessity and hopefully, the realization among those on the left that it is they who have created it by abandoning our founding values in favor of the failed and corrosive ones we have already fought multiple wars to defeat.
Dismiss the calls to "meet in the middle" on "common ground." Meeting someone halfway who is already over the cliff simply takes you both to your deaths.
Wild-eyed, over-the-top rhetoric has, like the poor, always been with us and always will. The solution to our present issue lies not in restricting speech, or in attempting to regulate what is and isn't an acceptable form of advocacy, but instead to honestly examine the root of the divergence of opinion.
Overheated rhetoric is a trigger to men like Hodgkinson, but it did not create him. The effort to supplant our constitutional republican form of government with collectivism of some form or another deserves the blame for that. It is that parting of the ways that has created the chasm between us, and there can be no compromise with an attempt to overturn our form of government. Elections permit the transfer of power in our system to occur based on the wishes of the governed, expressing their will by supporting a candidate.
Winning an election grants the power to determine the policies and direction our government will pursue during the winner's term of office. It does not grant the winner the power to change the form of government itself.
Another nation waging war against us does so to gain control over our people, our resources, and our land by defeating our government and replacing it with its own.
When one political ideology advocates doing precisely the same thing, its place of residence is irrelevant. An enemy is an enemy (from within or without) and is accorded that status not by location, but by intent.
Were conservatives to meet liberals halfway in this instance, we would have to participate in treason to do so.
It is the left that needs to return to supporting and defending constitutional government. Conservatives never stopped.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/the_widening_gap_within_american_politics.html#ixzz4kQM57syr
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Tags
Who is online
113 visitors
Conservatives haven't changed. The liberals on the other hand have gone far progressive left and created an unbridgeable divide. The Democrats need another Kennedy/Bill Clinton figure to bring my old party a bit closer to center/ center left.
Conservatives haven't changed.. only the Dems? Are you kidding? Both parties have pulled to the extremes and the sad thing is that neither can recognize it.
Conservatives haven't changed.. only the Dems? Are you kidding? Both parties have pulled to the extremes and the sad thing is that neither can recognize it.
I would have bet 100 dollars you couldn't make a comment on a political article without using the word both in it.
I bet you a $100 you couldn't stop being blind to your own parties extremes.
It's hilarious to watch independents blame everybody else.
Is anything in politics the fault of independents Perrie?
And I'll bet you $100 that every independent thinks that every Democrat or Republican is a blind robotic follower of their party's ideology.
Good one Randy.
Thanks...and true. The majority of independents think that they are somehow morally or intellectually superior because they do not belong to one of the two major parties.
I will let them speak for themselves about that. I'm sure a lot of independents just like to see compromise.
No a lot of independents would like to see common sense and moderation. And the fact that the both of you are utterly convinced that independents belong to a party secretly is a big part of the problem. Frankly, I find it obnoxious, arrogant, and close minded.
One name, Aeonpax.
Thanks for proving my theory right, Randy.
Aeonpax is the very description of thinking that anyone who identifies with a political party is a mindless robot to that party's ideology.
"Frankly, I find it obnoxious, arrogant, and close minded", that most independents including most on this site, seem to believe the same.
" Frankly, I find it obnoxious, arrogant, and close minded" , that most independents including most on this site, seem to believe the same.
Gee Randy, nice way to twist my words... let me remind you of what I actually said in full:
after these two comments:
Thanks...and true. The majority of independents think that they are somehow morally or intellectually superior because they do not belong to one of the two major parties.
REPLY
I will let them speak for themselves about that. I'm sure a lot of independents just like to see compromise.
I said:
No a lot of independents would like to see common sense and moderation. And the fact that the both of you are utterly convinced that independents belong to a party secretly is a big part of the problem. Frankly, I find it obnoxious, arrogant, and close minded.
I didn't say a damn thing about Democrats or Republicans or partisans.. just your perception of independents.
Please don't twist my words.
Maybe that was what was pissing Aeon off so much in that cut and paste, but I don't want to speak for her.
And the fact that the both of you are utterly convinced that independents belong to a party secretly is a big part of the problem. Frankly, I find it obnoxious, arrogant, and close minded.
I have never said independents are part of a party, secretly or otherwise.
What I have said is that suggesting that political independents are more independent thinkers than partisans is not necessarily true, unknowable, and in my opinion wishful thinking.
I as a "partisan" according to you choose to advocate for a broad liberal policy. It doesn't mean I havent thought about it and what parts I agree with or dont and what parts I would like to see changed. There is no reason whatsoever to think that an independent gives these things more thought than I do and I challenge you to make the case that there is.
I didn't say a damn thing about Democrats or Republicans or partisans.. just your perception of independents.
Perrie, John can decide how he feels about it, but the fact is that Aeonpax attacked and insulted at least myself in a completely unprovoked manner, completely out of the blue, in and a very smug and very condescending manner, for no other reason then that I identify with the Democratic Party. The attack was not just unprovoked and insulting, but it was made from an attitude of supposed intellectual and moral superiority that simply does not exist and was completely uncalled for. To me this was a prefect representation of the feeling of far too many people who claim to be independents and their feelings toward people who identify with one political party or another. They seem to think (wrongly and stupidly) that we are somehow robots, blind followers or stereotypes and that they are better, morally superior and smarter human beings because they don't associate with either party. They themselves have become just what they claim to sneer at about people who do claim to be Democrats or Republicans; smug, superior, self-satisfied, egotistical, sarcastic, robotic ideologues. Aeonpax is just one of the more extreme examples of several independents on this site.
Randy,
Just as I don't speak for Aeon, please don't make assumptions about me. When i go through the trouble of telling you how I feel, I am being very exact in my wording. Very rarely do I make a blanket statement, since I feel most things are shades of gray.
As I said Aeonpax is the most extreme example, however I have felt that attitude to one degree or another from just about every independent on this site. I agree that there are shades of grey.
I don't speak to you either. I upset your precious little pets here. Poor you.
Really Aeon? Give me a break. I don't need your pity. I'm a big girl. I speak for me, you for you and no one here is my pet.
Your words betray your bias.
Try following better.
Try speaking better.
OK I have discussions like this with my 22 year olds.. done.
Yeah, I understand. I've had better conversations with 9 year olds. Done and done.
Next time we'll go with I'm rubber and you're glue. Sheesh.
You don't know when to quit, do you?
Randy, there are "independents" that have an arrogant view toward people who support the political parties.
The only reason I don't want to name names is because I feel there is room for agreement and common ground.
It is not logical to blanketedly say non partisans are more thoughtful than partisans , and I will just leave it at that for now.
See how fragile these people are. They are not concerned with the issue, they keep on bringing up my perceived arrogance. In other words, they are attacking the messenger, NOT discussing the issue. I just hope I never see either one of these hypocrites criticize another person for attacking a poster when it's exactly what they are doing.
Stuff and nonsense.
In other words, I dare to stand up to Randy and his twisted, ultra left wing democrat ideology.
You can do whatever you like Aeon. Both you and Randy are grownups.
Randy and his twisted, ultra left wing democrat ideology.
Which shows you haven't read many of my posts and haven't even the slightest idea of the type of person that I am. If you would take some time to get to know me I think you would be pleasantly surprised.
Coming from an extremist, left wing democrat, it is an amusing yet stupid comment.
There is an arrogance to independents , in general, but I would not ascribe it to any individual unless they professed that arrogance themselves, and I don't want to apply it to anyone on Newstalkers at this point.
Both democratic and republican parties are equally as guilty for producing mindless partisan eunuchs that are incapable of independent thought.
There is a fatal flaw to your logic Aeon. It assumes that only non-Democrats and non-Republicans can think for themselves. If you are a Democrat or Republican someone tells you what to think and what to believe in. That's just nonsense. Sure it may be true in some cases, but it is not an axiom.
reply
If you are a Democrat or Republican someone tells you what to think and what to believe in. That's just nonsense.
I agree. I am a Democrat and I think for myself. I also believe that this idea that both sides are equally guilty is a false equivalency.
reply
It's a generalization but I mean BOTH democrats and republicans equally. You proved nothing.
reply
People who are "partisan" and usually and in general vote for a party can still be described as thinking for themselves. It depends on the individual.
reply
Democrats and Republicans are not equal. That is a false equivalency. Their standards are different. What their goals are are different, etc. They are completely different on the law, how they look at social issues and health care are different. Many people say they both the same thing, but that is just an absurd elitist cop out.
reply
See reply below.
reply
Sorry, you are such a partisan democrat, you have zero credibility on this topic.
reply
And you are such a hateful toward any party elitist that you have zero credibility on this subject.
reply
How original, coming from a common partisan democrat.
Conservatives haven't changed, but they have been consistently wrong.
Come on Hal, there used to be moderation in both parties and now there is hardly any. I used to be able to find people I wanted to vote for... now I have to waste my vote. That is a sad commentary.
There is a lot more then you think, though it's mostly on the liberal side and if you don't see it then you are just plain not looking very hard or gave up looking a long time ago and just assume that it it's not there.
"There is a lot more then you think, though it's mostly on the liberal side..."
Lol.
Well Randy, you can't tell with the Dems in this last election. It was a very limited field and at present no one is jumping out at me. I would have liked to see some young blood out there. As for the Republicans, Kasich is a moderate Republican. So was Marco Rubio and George Pataki. That is why they didn't stand a chance. Again, would have liked to see some fresh faces.
There was a reason you didn't vote for Trump , right?
Is that reason gone now?
Kasich is a moderate Republican.
If Kasich had been the GOP nominee I almost certainly would have voted for him. It wouldn't have done much good as I live in California which is deep blue, but he would not have been the first Republican I have voted for President. I voted for Ford also.
That is why they didn't stand a chance. Again, would have liked to see some fresh faces.
The Democrats have a good combination of experienced and fresh faces. I see Sharrod Brown as a possible nominee for experience (and to take the mid-west, with someone like Cory Booker as the VP. Or Kamala Harris. Also there is a great Congressman out of Texas who is rising fast in the Party and has a great future named Joaquin Castro (also a great VP choice!), along with his twin brother Julian. The Congressman from my district here in California, Dr. Raul Ruiz is looking to rise fast also. The Democratic bench is growing quickly.
Blessed be the polarized, for compromise is unable to cure their mental impairment and they will dwell in the house without windows or doors, forever.
It's hard to compromise when you reach out your hand and it is constantly slapped away.
So why slap our hand away? There is plenty of room for compromise on a bi partisan health care bill. There is plenty of room for it on infrastructure improvements and again on creating apprenticeship programs so that non four year college grads can be trained for high paying specialized blue collar jobs. Trump has offered compromise on all three.
The Democrats are the one getting their hands slapped away when it comes to the health care bill They are not even being allowed to see it, let alone help craft it in a bi-partisan manner! As for the others, they have not come to the floor yet. It's hard to work on Bills that are not there.
The democrats didn't compromise in the House at all. The thing is that if nothing is done, Obamacare will collapse under its own weight.
There was nothing to compromise with! What the GOP was proposing was not a health care bill, it was a tax cut for the rich that was being paid for by major cuts to Medicaid. It had a 17% approval rating! There was no healthcare in the bill at all and the GOP refused to change it in any manner. Again the Democrats had their hands slapped away.
Obamacare will only collapse if the GOP continues to sabotage it by causing the insurance companies to be so insecure about what health care is going to look like that they are pulling back. It is NOT collapsing under it's own weight. That is a complete LIE! If the GOP stops sabotaging it it would continue to work fine and most people in it want it! Also the insurance companies are opposed to the joke of the tax cut bill the GOP is calling a health care plan because, while they will get a one time good payout, they will lose millions of long term customers.
When the bill that the Senate GOP is too cowardly and ashamed to show the public is finally revealed the GOP Senators and Congress people will be terrified to go near their home office during the Fourth of July break because their constituents will be there in angry mobs ready to tear them apart! Metaphorically speaking of course.