Why is everyone "being in lockstep" w/party desirable? Debate is healthy, ideas come out.

[williesgirl]

The fact that Dems don't always agree with each other is HEALTHY for the country, not a bad thing.

Each Rep and Senator represents a different state/area of the country with constituents of diverse backgrounds/economic status etc.

I think we should ADVERTISE that all ideas from every Rep/Senator are welcome as we become the majority in both houses. Every view should be open to honest, constructive debate. Leaders aren't the only ones with good ideas. We need to welcome ideas from Republicans as well since they too represent Americans. We know how it feels to be totally left out for 12 years. Let's not become them.

We've allowed ourselves to take a hit on something that is positive!

Please comment and help get healthy, respecful debate back to DU. Kick if you agree.

[lcordero2]

1. they shouldn't be in lockstep

what is wrong is that poor people elect these officials then these officials turn around and decide to carry the water of rich people.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Since when has this place been in lockstep?

The rules allow and encourage wide open debate and we have plenty of that. Ain't no lockstep here.

[williesgirl]

3. Sorry, wrote that badly, didn't mean here. But did mean respectful debate

should return here too!

[patrice]

4. There is no process without interaction. Process is all we have to unite

everyone.

Process is neutral, pragmatic, task oriented, not biased. A vessel for what DIVERSE content we bring to it. That's why it is best to Respect Process.

[mondo joe]

5. Debate is healthy. Backbiting less sp. n/t

[personman]

6. American political debate is mostly a joke.

I personally agree with Noam Chomsky that debate in this country is kept within a narrow range of acceptable thought (framing), more or less acceptable to the owners.

I also think that range is more authoritarian and right-wing (or fascistic) then the interests of most people, which is why we require constant bombardment with propaganda in the form of framing by the media and text books we're taught from in schools.

The reason I bring this up is because I agree that every view should be open to honest, constructive debate, but I know honest, constructive debate simply doesn't happen here.

This usage of "moderate" bothers me as well. The idea that the position between 2 rich, white, right-wing, establishment-figure authoritarian christians could be called "moderate", I think is one example that shows how far off our political system is and how far away our leaders are from representing their people as a whole.

An "American moderate" or "centrist" is a position somewhere between right-wing and extreme right-wing, IMO, which I think is another frame, because the idea of "center" implies neither left nor right. It's misleading.

-personman

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." - Noam Chomsky

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection