"It is not about ME...it is about WE"

[kentuck]

As someone noted elsewhere on the board, we are in this together.

I think the discussion about the house fire in TN shows the true nature of DU. Most people here believe it is about "we". That is the democratic, progressive nature of most Democrats.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. Who are "we"?

I am very distrustful of any framing involving "we", for a variety of reasons. I think it's much better to frame statements in terms of well-defined categories like "people who live in area A and earn this much per year" or "people who hold that particular view" or even "everyone" than "we".

There is almost no law government can pass which will be to everyone's benefit and no-one's disadvantage.

In the context of house fire in TN, "we" did nothing to help put the fire out, so clearly "we" is not being used literally. And using it non-literally opens the way to all sorts of abuses of meaning.


Most particularly, when people start talking about "we", it almost always leads to talking about "they".

[kentuck]

2. With some folks, it always turns to money.

and it is those that I am distrustful of the most.

[Egnever]

4. Cause good intentions can pay for anything!

[kentuck]

5. and greed can pay for nothing...

there is a balance. That is why Democrats are the "government" Party. That is why Repubs hate "government". "We" have to decide what we want to pay for and what we don't. It defines what kind of a people we are.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. Most of the things that aren't money have nothing to do with politics

80% or more of politics is about a) what the state should spend money on and b) where it should get that money from.

I also note that you've already in effect moved from "we" to "we vs they", which is I think a common consequence of thinking in terms of "we" rather than "these people", and usually a bad thing.

[kentuck]

8. That is a reality.

What do you think it should be? "These people"??

Whether we want to accept it or not. Otherwise, we will find ourselves ground under their boot heels. It is "we" and "they". It always has been. "They" are winning. And "we" pay the price.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Can you give me a formal definition of "we" and "they"?

I don't just mean a characterisation, I mean a sufficiently rigorous definition that, for any given person, I can give a bunch of people the facts about them and they will be reliably able to put them into one of the two camps?

If not, your terms don't mean anything, they're just sound and fury.

[kentuck]

13. I'll make it simple ...

We are Democrats. We believe in workers rights. We believe government has a role to play to make people's lives better. We believe in equal rights for everyone. We believe in Social Security for our old folks. We believe people should be able to see a doctor if they are sick. We believe in a progressive tax system.

"They" do not believe the above.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. That doesn't work as a definition.

You haven't defined *what* rights for workers one has to support to be admitted to your club, or what rights everyone has to have, or what level of social security, or how progressive a tax system. You also haven't made clear what fraction of the things you list one has to support - is any deviation no matter how small enough to be branded "one of them"? And you appear to exclude 3rd-party progressives, although I guess you don't mean to.

These are *not* unimportant details; a political philosophy *is* details ("I don't know" is a perfectly good detail, but only if you specify it as such).

A large part of the reason I don't think "we" vs "they" is a good way of talking about politics is because it avoids going into the specifics. What I am arguing for is clarity in communication, and "we vs they" is very much antithetical to that.

[kentuck]

19. Sorry..

it doesn't work for you. It sounds like you prefer to confuse the specifics?? It is not that "unclear" to most Democrats.

[H2O Man]

22. Right.

There are some people here that aren't even close to being part of the democratic left. It's generally a waste of time talking with them. Plus, they have a habit of exposing their own pathetic agenda.

[Winterblues]

3. Conservatives say "you or me" while Liberals say "you and me"

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. Mathematicians say "Male restidents of Kentucky over 50 with an income of under $50k a year"

Which is why the world would be a better place if it was run by mathematicians.

[kentuck]

9. And what would that accomplish?

Would it change anything or promote the status quo as acceptable?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. It makes it possible to communicate, and to diagnose and treat problems

For as long as you're talking in terms of "we" and "they", without a formal definition of who "we" and "they" are, all you're accomplishing is making yourself and your friends feel righteous, you're not actually communicating any information of value.

[kentuck]

12. I have no problem with stating the facts to make your argument.

But as you know, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. That's just something people say to make not understanding how to use data seem more forgiveable.

Statistics are the only way to understand most political issues. Basic decisions of anecdote rather than data usually leads to bad decisions.

I would say that only people who understand how to analyse data are fit to hold political office. Sadly, they're massively outnumbered by people who don't, and who feel agrieved that these eletists keep telling them that they don't know what they're talking about just because they don't.

If I had to vote for Dictator of the Universe, I'd pick Ben Goldacre (see http://www.badscience.net/).

[seabeyond]

14. some can say the man was thinking about me and not we. not only family, and animals in danger

but the community as a whole by thinking about me.

[kentuck]

15. And some might say the homeless fellow ....

is hungry and a drug addict because it is his own fault. Does that mean he deserves no help??

[seabeyond]

16. apple and orange. people dont pay for the services, there will not be the money to provide

services.

that is a reality.

this is a ity in a different state receiving no money from the area they are covering. they are covering it because the county does not want to provide for their people. the county set it up so people didnt have to pay in this city in another state dependent on local taxes to survive.

a fire dept cannot survive under that system.

then everyone does without.

because of the me

all who work pay federal tax that then goes to the homeless...

[pscot]

20. We're talking about the basic assumptions

underlying the way this country is managed. The idea that anyone has a right to "run" the place or manipulate the citizenry for ther own ends is pernicious. America is a joint effort or Democracy fails. At present, our elites seem to have abandoned that idea, and are trying hard to convince us that Hobbes was right and that governance is a matter of dog eat dog; a war of all against all. They control the media and through it they promote the idea that greed, aggressive self-interest and deference to authority are the only values that matter. Franklin said the Constitutional Convention had given us a Republic, if we could keep it. It's not clear that we have either the understanding or the will to hang onto what we 've got. That house fire in Tennessee is about a lot more than DU. It points to one of the major fault lines spreading across the country beneath our feet.

[H2O Man]

21. Recommended.

Thanks.

[elehhhhna]

23. i wonder what we'd say of the homeowner was a teabagging ,

libertarian-I-got-mine/no-new-taxes asshat who hates all forms of government and its programs

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Different DUers would say different things.

A classic example of why "we" is a risky word to think in terms of.