Skip to main content

View Diary: Here's why: Scott Walker outspent Tom Barrett ten to one (239 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for the civil response. (0+ / 0-)

    I imaginatively understand they see my position as pure, unadulterated evil.  So how do I go about changing that perception?  

    I agree that I can't reason them out of a position they 'emotioned' themselves into.  I've spent 30+ years banging my head against that lesson.

    Would you propose asking leading questions?  (I actually had a decent experience out of town on business at a Houston bar one night, asking a 'taxed enough already' acolyte what he thought the highest marginal tax rate was in the glorious 1950s.  He guessed 15-20% and was shocked when I informed him it was over 90%--and instructed him NOT to take my word for it, but to investigate it on his own.)

    Personally, I like the graphs that show average family income since 1980 by quintile, w/ the lowest 1/5 flat to slightly down and the top 1/5 taking off like a rocket.  That's where the average wage-earner's raises are going, but how to make them realize--or care about--it?

    "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

    by bartcopfan on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 12:18:21 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Better late? (0+ / 0-)

      Sorry—couldn't get back here yesterday. And don't have much time today.

      I think you overestimate their view of your position as pure evil, as opposed to a combination of misguided and wishful thinking. In a nutshell (and I won't be surprised if you disagree with my opinion) I think that progressives and Tea Partiers agree on a surprisingly broad range of principles, but disagree on how to put them into practice.

      Just to cite a couple of issues, we both agree that taxes should be progressive; we disagree on where to draw the lines. Progressives (not Marxists) believe in private property, as do the TP folk; we disagree on the extent to which that right can be encroached on by the commonality.

      So, if the discussion is about tax rates, and we both agree that some tax must be levied and that it must be proportional to income, then the discussion now is over what needs to be funded and what tradeoffs each of us might be willing to tolerate in order to have a functioning polity.

      IMO, it is necessary to have these conversations in pretty much this fashion, because the first requisite of political discussion has to be evidence from each party of the so-called good will that recognizes that we're not trying to convert each other, just to work out a modus vivendi. If I do nothing but attack, then we're enemies fighting over territory. If I look for ways to come together, then we're partners based in a common enterprise, but who understand that a compromise needs to be worked out.

      I'd like to write more, but I gotta go. Good luck to us all.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site