Democracy needs both sides talking

[NoPasaran]

I usually try to write funny stuff to keep you folks smiling. But today is different because I've got something I need to get off my chest.

I keep running into these well-intentioned people who think folks who oppose the war in Iraq ought to keep their mouths shut.

I've heard the same argument from the other side, too. But most of the time, the shut-up factor comes from the pro-war camp.

I find it disturbing that either side on the issue would think the other guys should put a lid on it, because this is supposed to be a democracy. What makes a democracy is not just letting the other person have his say. It's also listening to what the other person is saying and at least considering it

=more-
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/kelso/05/053004.html

[H2O Man]

1. democracy is when

all sides are able to have a voice. The of limiting discussion to one side, or debate to two sides, ignores the many different and often unique opinions that can be found in the American experience.

[PATRICK]

2. Can't split the difference on truth

If both sides believe the other is deluded or a liar then objective evidence as arbiter should be brought to bear. The definition of that evidence should be clear not yet another one-upsmanship flame war of sophistry and pyrotechnics.

The side that uses sophistry, tries to limit the other side, and takes personal anger the farthest- must get on track or lose.

If they want to argue like children or worse they shouldn't have a say in public policy for adults.

That is for an important issue. otherwise everyone can have the usual political steamfest. The divide we are talking about here is not opposing rational views but a claim to the truth that can and must be settled for dialogue not to be simply useless and absurd.

Now the evidence can be summed up. If the evidence is withheld, whose side do you suppose is doing the withholding?

The evidence about the false grounds for support of the war and the unanimity of world opinion for starts, just to lay groundwork. The conduct and success of operations and reconstruction next. The actual things Bush has offered for the future. The good things about the war besides the negatives(no Hussein) that we have that are not negatives and future plans.

If they don't accept some guidelines that go beyond some mystical unexamined faith you can't talk to them. But you can try to impress them with the need to get at the facts not AT dissenters' throats.

This two side business is becoming more like a war between light and darkness. Only recreating a civilized middle might stop this moral Civil War and forge an inclusive civil society where even idiots can get their say if it does not try to merit respect beyond what reality can bear.

[donhakman]

3. We used to call it

being polorized when we were in the Viet Nam war.

Now the split is even greater and more rancorous from the Congress on down to the chat room.

I have made my views clear on theis war for 3 years now.
I have been banned from about 20 websites for my views about this war.
Some of those forums I had posted to for 8 years.

Nope, the right wing will hear nothing of opposition.
People now merely decide not to listen.
They have their clear channel stream of brain rinse to tell them what to think even when it is against all odds of being true.

On this forum last year I called for a sex scandel to bring down the Bush regieme. The torture fiasco has fit the bill.
What we need now is a point of reconcilliation and agreement with the great brain washed fundamentalists of this country.
Perhaps something as basic as US led nuclear war is a bad idea for our children - all children - and world for centuries to come.

[myopic4141]

4. Nothing has changed for a long time.

Many years ago, ABC's Nightline periodically did town meeting style forums on issues of interest. I have since forgotten what the issue was and what night the particular show appeared on; but, I do clearly remember what Ted Koppel said about the participants. "Both of you are talking at one another instead of with one another." Individuals on each side of the argument had been so caught up in their own little worlds that each only echoed what was they had said beforehand instead of addressing any new issues raised. There was no debating the issue or civil discourse to be had nor was there any attempt at one. It was just echoes of past statements and adhominem attacks for 90 minutes (which is probably why this forum is no longer used). It only seems to have gotten worse after the years.
Only one of the talking head programs (McNeil News Hour on PBS) actually presents a forum where all sides can be heard while all the others stack the deck against the opposing view. Polarization is taking hold because no one wishes to hear the other side. Deaf ears are turned on everywhere so that no other viewpoint can be heard; but, that is only part of the problem. Added to the tools of debate are adhominem attacks and rudeness. There was a time when such tactics were sure signs of a losing argument for by doing so, the attacker demonstrated an inability to proceed with a good counter argument. Now these tools are worn as badges of honor towards winning a shouting match where none leave unscathed.
As long as each individual sits in their own private world of absolute truth, the rift will only become greater and greater until hatred overcomes anger and violence becomes the only solution to conflict resolution. Thus far, I see none reversing that course.

[Sugarbleus]

5. Interesting post NoPasaran....

I have been absent for several weeks; all the infighting and bad news from Iraq and DC got to me. I imploded.

I mean to come back to the discussions with a different attitude. That is the attitude and outlook you just mentioned in your post.

I heard a liberal talk show host say similar things the other night. In short, he called those that would NOT allow the other side to say anything either: Far left McCarthyism. I agree.

Just like everyone else, I wish to see Dubya frog walked outta there but it doesn't mean I can't listen to what some of the more moderate republicans are saying. It's good to "Learn" as much as one can in order to make a balanced judgement about any given subject. I don't follow the "pack". Though I am a liberal, I think independently.

Thanks for the post. Peace~

[OETKB]

6. Almost right on

You have hit the bull's eye. Now let's open the dialogue to see how we can get there. Ultimately we do have to live with those people who disagree with us. This reality has not sunk in for many of us who have been made so angry by this administration. In fact in an odd way Mr. Bush et al graphically point out, by their method of governing, what is missing to have the kind of dialogue among citizens with their representatives which will move us forward in spite of our differences.

I have expressed my thoughts in yesterday's postings and will not repeat them here in their entirety. In a nutshell, what is needed, IMHO, is to have an effective exchange in an atmosphere that holds each side's feet to the fire and tests each other's ideas. In order to do this we need extensive and complete information from the press and our government. We need overwhelming majority voting. We need a single bipartisan view and action on intelligence, defense, security, and foreign policy. In order to do this we will need to reform how our government makes these decisions. We need a true respect and participation in international law. We don't just disagree among ourselves here in the U.S. . Further and finally there can be no deviation from the minority rights outlined in our Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech, assembley, and press; a secular government which neither supports nor interferes with religious beliefs; protection from unlawful seizure must be kept firmly in place. As many of you point out(I've done a lot of reading without writing) context is important. If anyone wants to try to hash this out further I would like to test my own thoughts on this subject.

Getting rid of Mr. Bush will not entirely solve our problems, but his mere removal will sweep governmental flaws under the rug. I had to go back and read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" to see what was the basis for our democratic government. It clearly states the necessity of government and what form it needs to take. My personal models for their ideas, not their actions in all cases, on government are Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. I distinctly disagree with John Adams. Jefferson and Adams wrote letters to each other after years of estrangement on these subjects. When Adams began writing to Jefferson, he stated, "Neither one of us can die until we have fully explained ourselves to each other." They both died within hours of each other on July 4th, the holiday favored by Jefferson(Adams wanted it to be the day the Constitution was ratified). And yes I was a Deaniac. The real question: Is the power of the government going to lay in the hands of the people or are we going to annoint certain royalty and elites in this country?