I was reading my friend Gunner’s op ed piece in the DNJ this morning about how we’ve lost the ability to see both sides of all opinions and that people are no longer willing to compromise. Read for yourself, but here’s a snippet:
A brief look at the blog posts, the letters to the editors, and the comments that border on juvenile shows a polarized people on almost every subject. What is worse is that when someone tries to admit that both sides have some merit, but they also have failings, they are almost always viewed as being in the ‘other camp.
The only comment (so far) basically validates what he said. The comment didn’t see his point, but fell to sarcastic name calling (“genius”) and avidly pointed out that Gunner didn’t complain about former VP Dick Cheney’s motives during the Bush years. O.o
I tend to agree with Gunner on this one. Yes, my political views are very different than those of about half the country BUT I do think it’s important to consider all sides with issues. As distasteful as it may seem to each of us, perhaps spending 30 minutes each week listening to either MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann or Fox News Bill O. (the one you don’t usually watch) may shed light for each of us as to why the other half thinks like they do.
I am being careful not to say which side I fall on, but do think both sides have merit just as both (like Gunner said) have shortcomings. Are you willing to compromise or are you so rigid in your opinion that you’re willing to see be a part of our cracking civility to each other?
Filed under: Because I Can, Editorials, Really Random, Smyrna |
This is La Vergne, TN 
This is why George Washington warned against political parties. It’s why so many politicians go to Washington with good intentions of being bi-partisian but are unable to do so because of how powerful the political parties are once you get to Washington. When I was in a college class at church we had a 6 week series on the “unholy” trinity, the last of which was power. It is too easily ignored until you realize your addicted to it.
I am locally a conservative. I vote for candidates like Phil Bredesen and Jim Tracy who I believe best represent my political philosophy, regardless of whether an R or D comes after their name. But I could not in good conscience vote for a democrat on a national platform because my political views are opposite that of Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank whom I would be empowering.
I have a hard time with the two major parties. They both seem to be illogical amalgams of several unrelated ideals.
What I want from politicians are thoughtful and considered decisions, based on the best information and research. Instead, it appears that most politicking is based on the same dynamics that created high school cliques.
There is always two sides to every issue, but until we have candidates that are willing to stand up for their beliefs over the backing parties wishes politics will not change. As a young voter, I was told I must vote the political side my family had always voted. Thankfully I realized before my oldest son voted his first time that the person not the party was the true candidate. Realizing these two statements contradict each other, I must add my advice to him was to watch at least three different news stations in order to see the truest version of each candidate. Open minds can see more truth no matter the issue.
I like that, Katherine! Well thought out advice and I hope your son appreciates it! :)