The real wedge issue or is there one?

[Behind the Aegis]

This is my 2000th post and I have been here at DU almost a year now. I have read all kinds of threads. But, recently, I have seen more and more in-fighting. So I started to think. What are the real wedge issues? Gay rights? Reproductive rights? Euthanasia? State's rights? There seem to be so many. So I looked for a common thread and found that religion was the source for many of them. So is religion the real wedge issue? Perhaps.

As I was formulating this thread in my head, I popped into yet another "meat-eaters vs. veggie-eaters" thread. No religion there. Then, I thought about gun control. Very little religion there. So, perhaps religion is not the one real wedge issue. So what is it?

I love that their are so many opinions at DU. I learn much from reading things I find here. I have also found some really neat people that I wouldn't have found anywhere else in this small Oklahoma town.

So how do we come together and win elections? What are the real wedge issues we need to overcome to move forward?

[chomskysright]

1. Personal Privacy; let family matters stay that way: that vein...

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Personal privacy!

Now there is a common thread to many of things I listed! Of course, how far do we go with that? At some point, shouldn't we also be concerned with society as a whole? Also, what would be a "family matter" as opposed to a "societal matter?"

I really have been racking my brain to try and come to grips with some things recently. I guess I am trying too hard! :) However, the personal privacy "meme" may be a really good one to jump off of. Thanks!

[Az]

2. Ironically Tolerance

The power the right holds is intolerance. Here is an example:

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. -- Randall Terry

The left is the party of tolerance. This means that we cannot focus our issues on singular cases. We have a diversity of positions. The right meanwhile can whip up emotional fervor based on intolerance and fear. All the negative emotions are theirs to play with. And the negative emotions are the best for driving and controling people.

Tolerance best represents our society. We are a diverse society and without tolerance we would tear ourselves to peaces in short order. But this doesn't mean its easy to guide a nation with such a diverse spectrum of positions and beliefs.

This becomes exponentially more difficult when a faction of society decides it has had it with tolerance and throws away the social contract. Instead of trying to build a stronger diverse society they decide they will destroy the progress made in the name of diversity and attempt to force their world view in its place.

Against such an opposition a productive progressive tolerant group is helpless. Anything they attempt to build in good faith is easily destroyed. Destruction is always easier than construction. Thus the progressive agenda is rendered anemic and emaciated. The right points to the lefts failures as being the responsibility of their ideals instead of the destruction and resistance of their policies.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Another good point(s)

I am not as concerned with the right though. There hate and fear will continue to motivate them and delude them. I am more concerned with all the in-fighting within our party. How far do we go with tolerance? Must we also be tolerant of the intolerant?

This is what is happening in my mind...(it is pretty jumbled and scary in here)...how can we tolerate anti-choice people in our party? How about those that are anti-Union? Are we really a big tent or do we need to narrow our scope?

I am all for disagreeing. It is what makes us stronger in some cases. But, as of recent, it seems to do nothing but tear us down. so, how do we go from disagreement as a minus to a plus?

[Az]

6. My take on the problem

Its difficult. But it is dialog.

The form of society we currently have is called Post Modern. It is dependent on thriving dialog between the sides. It cannot mandate one position over the other. The only way progress can occur is if the various positions come together in vigorous dialog. They have to introduce their positions to one another and make them known. They may or may not convince each other of their positions but the effort creates understanding between the sides of how and why they hold the positions they do.

But our society has failed in this aspect. We have grown tired and lazy. The diverse groups fell back into their own little niches. They connected with themself but not with the other groups. Thus when they come together to put forward their cases they have enthusiasm for their causes only. Other views are seen as distractions. This is because they have no experience of how important they are to others.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Sympathy, Empathy, and Understanding

"They connected with themself but not with the other groups. Thus when they come together to put forward their cases they have enthusiasm for their causes only." I think you summed it up! If people stopped for one moment and thought, "how would I feel if this was me or my family?", then perhaps, a different form of dialog would emerge.

We all have issues near and dear to our hearts, but we should be able to stretch out and understand the needs of others, as they may not be our own. I am big pro-choice person, yet I am not a woman, nor will I ever get one pregnant (at least not with my knowledge). However, I feel it is important for me to stand side-by-side with my "sisters" on this topic.

I remember not that long ago a senator in Oregon, I believe, lost his son to suicide. He (the senator) had been against a bill that would have provided better mental health care. However, after the death of his son, he changed his position. Wouldn't it have been better had he thought "what if it was my loved one needing the help" before tragedy struck his family?

So how do we get others to try and understand our positions or passions in a way that doesn't disrespect their own feelings and positions?

[Az]

9. I feel guilty for doing this but it just fits too perfectly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3388274

[Behind the Aegis]

10. I saw that!

It was very well written. And, I agree that civility is important. HOWEVER, will it lead us to getting over our wedge issues? While it will for longer discussions, can it also help with resolution?

I read many of your posts. I will even open ones I am not interested in if I see your name.

I guess am I more asking how do we solve our wedge issues. If we are not civil and respectful, we will never get there. But, there has to be some common ground somewhere out there.

[Az]

11. Its the dialog

We have to be interested in each other. In what issues are important to us.

A lot of the damage seems to be coming from the media. Not just the news. But entertainment as well. We are being fed a diet of fear and isolation. Its in the corporations interests to have us isolated and afraid. Resisting turning to each other. Instead we have to turn to the things they want to sell us to make our lives better.

We have to reach out to each other. We have to remember that this is a nation of We The People. The first step to that is talking to others. Finding out the things that hurt them and the things that bring them joy.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. All very good points.

The real wedge comes from without, not within. If corporate and other major groups allow their interests to trump the "little guy/gal," then we will never get any where. It is almost like we are being told what to feel and think, instead of searching ourselves and expressing ourselves accordingly.

[Az]

14. We are quietly being entertained into oblivion n/t

[XemaSab]

23. Consensus-building

There's tolerating intolerable positions, such as, say, Hitler's ethnic cleansing, and then there's tolerating opinions on topics about which reasonable people can disagree and being able to understand other perspectives.

For example, I am pro-choice, but with misgivings. I think women should not be forced to bear an unwanted child, however, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control, but rather an emergency measure when all the other options have failed. My misgivings about abortion prompt me to look for solutions to unwanted pregnancy other than abortion, such as education about birth control and the morning after pill on the one end, and support for adoptions and maternal support on the other end, so that having a child isn't a personal disaster. We need to be more supportive of mothers, especially single mothers, in our society. We also need to educate the young about family planning options and make birth control more widely available, especially to the young.

If democrats agree to disagree on abortion, we are then free to look for ways to reduce abotion beyond simply making abortion illegal. The democrats can find solutions that the republicans, being under the sway of the fundies, will never seek.

[Az]

24. We are capable of nuance

But nuance requires consideration and understanding. If such a matter were presented in a way that those that see control of one's body as critical combined with education of how to avoid or deal with pregnancy beyond just aborting we can create a powerful coalition of positions.

[XemaSab]

25. Exactly

But the people on the farthest sides control the terms of the debate simply because they make the most noise.

It's hard to be a really loud and vocal advocate of a nuanced position.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. I like what you are saying

I wish more people were interested in consensus without getting bogged down in all the details. Yes, we should be mindful of which details remain and such. But we seem to just go back and forth, all the while getting our asses handed to us by people who rule by fear, hate, and intimidation. That just boggles my mind.

[libertypirate]

5. I think you are right

It's intolerance being sold as tolerance.

[EVDebs]

7. How long after the Iraq October elections will US troops remain ?

If you answer, as Sen John McCain did to CNN that it's "ten or twenty years...that's not so bad..."

See Bob Herbert's 'Heads in the Sand' article Sept 3, 2004 at http://www.spectrumz.com/z/fair_use/2004/09_04.html

"When asked this week on CNN how long the U.S. military is likely to remain in Iraq, Senator John McCain replied "probably" 10 or 20 years. "That's not so bad," he said"

The Prez himself said something along the lines of 'when Iraqis can take care of their own defense, that's when US troops can come home...'

Well then those two points of view just don't match up, now, do they ????

I just wish all the new bases (permanent bases ?) Bush & company are building in the Caspian/PersianGulf region weren't all going to require even more US troop committments too, but that would again be in contradiction to his statement about when US troops could return !

[KitchenWitch]

13. I think the big one IS religion

the RW used religion against us and "won"

[Behind the Aegis]

16. I agree somewhat too.

Religion was the major factor in many of the Terri threads. It has also been the major factor in a few others I have seen. It seems it is also taking hold in our own Party, and not is a good way.

[OrlandoGator]

15. Guns, Gays and God.

Howard Dean summed up the three biggest wedge issues succinctly.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. While accurate...

are those really the wedge issues in OUR party? I know they can be. I think those three issues could be overcome with the proper discussions. They have become so devise in our communities. How do we get over them though?

[OrlandoGator]

19. Gun control is the only one of the three that really seems to split DUers.

We all seem to agree on gay rights and religious freedom/privacy.

[applegrove]

17. We need to overcome wedging. It is tribalism. How colonial rule, ruled.

You empower lower kings.. you get them to impose their agenda on others. You have people so busy squabble-ling that they don't lift up their heads long enough to vote on things that are in their best interest.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. It's the squabbles that are the problem.

As I have said in other threads, I don't care what the right thinks because we will never be able to reach them (or it will be over the top hard). However, we need to come together as Democrats to keep them from becoming wedges in our own party.

[applegrove]

22. Exactly! We need to act out of empathy because that is how adults

form a coalition. We can only defeat the tribal adolescents if we behave as adults and extend a hand to all parts of our big tent. We have to fight to keep our plurality.

[XemaSab]

21. Federal power

vs local power seems to be a big problem for everyone, left and right. We're all for states' rights when the states are being liberal (like pro gay marriage) but not when they're being racist segregationists.

The role of religion in morality and civic society and when it's appropriate (if ever) to acknowledge religion in the public sphere seems contentious. It's a huge problem for the republicans as well, even if they don't know it yet.

There's also a real unease with the tyranny of the majority, even though we may idly flirt with populism. For example, in some areas the majority believes that the schools should openly espouse Christianity and Christian values.

Finally, there's a problem with minding other people's business. I'm mostly a vegetarian, but I try not to be fascist about it, and I eat dairy and eggs and honey and wear leather shoes and I'm not opposed to hunting, just modern factory farming. However, vegans have been known to jump on me for not being "vegetarian enough," and even though I try not to impose my beliefs on others, sometimes it's hard not to get confrontational when people seem to be willfully cruel or ignorant. The republicans are far worse about minding other people's business than we are, but we can be pretty bad.

Basically, we're in favor of a delegation of power that favors our political agenda. The republicans do the same thing.

We need a consistent policy that cites which decisions are local, which are state, and which are federal. Furthermore, we need to be very clear on the role of the courts, the role of the congress, and the role of the executive in the processes of government. I'm not sure many people in governement are clear on this, much less the citizenry.

[MissMarple]

26. You make some good points.

Discarding process to reach desired goal has gotten our country into a huge mess. I think wedge issues, or genuine differences of opinion will always be with us.

Many times the argument is over how to reach a desired goal rather than if the goal itself is desirable and, I think, are reflected in the disagreements over guns and abortion. In other issues like welfare, social security, health care availability, school prayer are more about the power of government, we argue should government be involved at all in these kinds of issues.

Constitutional processes ideally are to help us work our way through these issues to reach some sort of compromise. Sometimes the result is pretty good, sometimes...not so good. And as society changes new ways, methods and attitudes present themselves. Between ourselves, we should honor the spirit of discussion, compromise, and yes, from AZ's thread, civility. What unites many of us, I really believe, is a desire to get back to these, and even to improve our understanding and use of them. Bill Bradley's and John Danforth's articles in the NY Times posted in editorials give us a bit of hope that this can still happen on a broader, national level.

We will always disagree, we just have to honor the ways to do this without throwing the baby out with the bath water. There will be more culture wars, more arrogant and even ignorant people who want their own way.

Scorched earth is prevailing now, we have to stop it before it destroys our country. Making some priorities would be a good place to come together in this effort.

[Donailin]

28. When the exploitation of the gospel by the radical right leads to it's

logical conclusion (re:Schiavo) then I think we will need very little to come together. Quite frankly, I dislike being at odds with half the american population. I hate that Rove has successfully divided our country. I, and I think many people, long for the day when we could come together on practical things despite party affiliation. Example: in a normal universe, republicans and democrats can agree that spending money on war and giving tax cuts to rich while driving the national debt to epic proportions is outrageous and must be stopped. Rove has used the wedge issues to distract what's happening, because HE KNOWS that if there weren't any wedge issues to exploit, no one and I mean no one would be taking this sitting down.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. Explosion happening now

I am surprised that we haven't used wedge issues such as state's rights against the Rethugs. We should be able to avoid the issues laid out by Rove, as they are usually transparent. However, we also need stronger leadership that will call a spade a spade.