It’s Time For Common Ground

[Zguy28]

IT’S TIME FOR COMMON GROUND

By Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel

Tribune Media Services

September 27 2007

Full Article

“Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.” — Richard Armour, American poet and novelist

Following last year’s election, which returned Democrats to a congressional majority for the first time in 12 years, both President Bush

and soon-to-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged themselves to a noble cause: the pursuit of common ground.

The president said, “I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.” Rep. Pelosi agreed, saying, “Extending the

hand of partnership to the president — not partisanship, but partnership —

(I) say let’s work together to come to some common ground where we can solve the

problem in Iraq.”

It sounded good to the public, most of whom do not embrace the extremes of left or right. Unfortunately, the idea was stillborn.

The plague of partisanship that has so infected politics for the last 25 years would not be cured with high-minded statements from the

top leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties. It wasn’t long before partisan business as usual resumed.

Today’s divisions are caused by a polarization, unseen at this depth in a long time. Politics has always been a contact sport,

but the elements cheering and promoting division for their own ends are more intense than any we’ve witnessed in all our years in Washington.

Dr. James Q. Wilson, professor of public policy at Pepperdine University in California, defined polarization in a February 2006 essay

for Commentary magazine: “an intense commitment to a candidate, a culture, or an ideology that sets people in one group definitively

apart from people in another, rival group.” In other words, the goal of polarization is to knock off the other side before they knock you off.

We no longer debate ideas and settle for the best of them, whether we agree completely or not. We now seek to demonize the “other side”

as having ideas born in the mind of Satan. One’s opponent, or the opposing side, is smeared as evil and corrupt with no

redeeming qualities. Once one has been so labeled, it is difficult to search for, much less reach, common ground. Who wants to be associated

with people out to “destroy America”? We thought that was the objective of Osama bin Laden, not our fellow Americans of the opposite party.

Numerous interest groups benefit financially from polarization. Others profit by increasing their political power. Television — especially cable TV —

promotes confrontation over conversation. We have been called by show bookers and asked for our opinions on certain subjects. When they

prove not to be as extreme as what the booker is looking for, we have been passed over in favor of people with more toxic views. The preferred

guests are people who will shout at each other, question the other person’s patriotism and accuse the other of trying to ruin the country,

rather than two people who might do their best to agree on policies that could benefit the majority.

The primary goal of most activists on the extreme right and left is to demonize the opposition in a way that enhances the interests

of the polarizers. We should know. We have done our share to fan the flames of polarization. We can say with assurance born of

experience that common ground would threaten the place of polarizers at the top of their organizations and reduce their influence at the political table.

Numerous surveys over several years have found that Americans believe even the most partisan issues — from abortion to Iraq — can be

resolved, or at least moved from stalemate, with an honest commitment from elected leaders in Washington to find consensus. More importantly,

voters are prepared to punish candidates whose extremist positions make that objective impossible.

We believe polarization’s dominance over politics is coming to an end. While we recognize that polarizers will always be with us,

like most bullies, polarizers aren’t nearly as tough as their reputations would have you believe. We believe it is possible — indeed it is

essential — that, in the next two election cycles, polarization will be eclipsed by a return to bipartisanship and consensus. Common ground

politics will emerge as the preferred territory where smart politics is played and polarization will be relegated to the fringes where it belongs.

To do this we have set out several specific recommendations in our new book “Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America.”

The first, modeled on the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, would have the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees appear

together four times — once in each region of the country — during the 2008 presidential campaign. Each candidate would find something

worthy to say about the character of the other and agree on something the other has said so that — no matter who wins — that policy

would be incorporated into the new president’s agenda.

No matter which candidate wins, he (or she) should promise to govern on common ground principles and mean it. Here are some

of our recommendations. They are by no means

exhaustive, but they are a beginning:

PRINCIPLE 1. There must be agreement that a problem exists and agreement on the goal that needs to be reached to solve the problem.

Without an agreement that a problem exists, no goals can be reached. Not all issues suggest agreement. We disagree on the approach

to guns, for example. In such cases it is better to move on to other issues, lest the common ground waters become poisoned over

one failure to reach consensus. We agree there are too many abortions and that providing more information to women would

substantially reduce their number without legislation or intervention by the Supreme Court. Polarizers would oppose such an approach

because it gives neither side all it wants, but it would reduce the number of abortions, which pro-life and pro-choice people claim to want.

PRINCIPLE 2. For a controversial issue to be resolved in a common ground climate, it must contain elements of the historical orthodoxy

of both parties. Republicans favor individual responsibility, accountability and entrepreneurial capitalism; Democrats believe in

helping the powerless and the “little guy” against the politically powerful and wealthy. We believe both of these historical orthodoxies can be

used to forge a common ground approach to a lot of issues, which could lead to…

PRINCIPLE 3. Chances for consensus on a solution increase dramatically when fresh ideas are brought to the table. Poverty is an example.

We believe both the government (this appeals to Democrats) and the private sector (this appeals to Republicans) can work together to reduce

poverty in America. We believe that without adding new government programs, but applying the micro-loan principles successfully

practiced by the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, poverty in America can be substantially reduced.

PRINCIPLE 4. A common ground strategy for governing must be provided with the maximum possible amount of political cover.

The increase in the federal minimum wage earlier this year received support from Republicans and Democrats. After Democrats

argued for it and Republicans against it, the two sides reached agreement when Democrats supported a Republican position of

tax breaks for small business, which Republicans believed would be harmed by a minimum-wage increase. Both sides got

something. Neither side achieved everything.

Common ground was served and people who make the minimum wage can have a higher floor from which to start out their working

lives and, it is hoped, move up the ladder.

Remainder of article at link.

[Cskin]

And let me guess, Hillary Clinton can take us there. :doh:

[Zguy28]

And let me guess, Hillary Clinton can take us there. :doh:

You just proved their point. Way to go! :thumbsup:

[hokie4redskins]

This might be the most pointless article/thread in the history of the world.

:obvious:

[JosephGibbs]

Sounds all well and good. I believe this happens more than we think. Politcians are always giving in here or taking there especially when it comes to congressional bills, there is always a give and take. It is probably not in the same spirit as the article would advocate, but to get the other side to agree to your piece of legislation, some common ground would have to be met.

[Zguy28]

This might be the most pointless article/thread in the history of the world.

:obvious:

Because it was ultimately about you?

[TMK9973]

Nice thoughts.... but ultimitly fluf.

Here is the fact -People don't WANT to compermise.

Lets look at principile 1.

We agree there are too many abortions and that providing more information to women would

substantially reduce their number without legislation or intervention by the Supreme Court. Polarizers would oppose such an approach

because it gives neither side all it wants, but it would reduce the number of abortions, which pro-life and pro-choice people claim to want

Ok -So what does that mean? More information to women? Zguy - Are you ok with that meaning more money to groups such as planned parenthood and teaching women in schools about Birth Control?

Are you willing to compermise on that? Are you willing to do that even while abortion is still legal?

I would be ok with money going to encourge Adaption - But NOT if it ment taking money away from teaching about Birth control. I would be not support any plan that included access to abortions harder....

So how do you bridge a gap like that?

[hokie4redskins]

Because it was ultimately about you?

Nah, I'd just prefer reading articles about bears ****ting in the woods or the sky being blue.

:thumbsup:

Alright, I'm done bumping this thread.

[Zguy28]

Alright, I'm done bumping this thread.

Thank you.

[LUVTHEHOGS_83]

Democrats and Republicans will never come together. Political ego and party loyalty leads to irrational debates over even the simplest issues. Politics will always be dirty, to liberals everything Bush does is wrong, to Republicans everything Bill Clinton did was wrong. It's a dead horse.