I don't post here very often at all, but ShaunMcDonnell's recent hello-from-a-right-winger diary got me thinking I should write up something that's been on my mind lately, as it seems somewhat
relevant.
Let me start with a metaphor to, you know, tie the room together.
Two guys are in a car on their way from D.C. to Chicago, when they get lost somewhere in Ohio. Soon afterwards, they find themselves in a big city, and they start arguing about how they should get back on track. The driver of the car wants to go Northwest, while the passenger insists they should go West instead. They argue about this for what seems like hours, eventually saying a lot of mean things to each other, to the point that it almost comes to blows.
More after the fold...
It was only after they calmed down, put their assumptions away, and started really talking that they realized that the driver was thinking the whole time that they were currently in Cincinnati, whereas the passenger thought they were in Cleveland. Once they realized what had happened, they both mutually agreed to stop and look around, only to realize that they were actually in Columbus. Both of them then apologized to each other, agreed on their new heading, and went on their way as friends once again.
I'm guessing you can see what I'm getting at here.
We sometimes like to joke that people from the other side of the isle are "in a different reality" or whatever. But maybe some of that different reality is founded on different assumptions. If so, then maybe if we can put our goals and plans aside for a few minutes and talk about status instead, it might bring a few deep-rooted misunderstandings to light.
In a comment from the above-mentioned diary, ShaunMcDonnell was asked to clarify how he would be willing to vote for Bush again if given the chance, how he could believe anything Bush says, etc. He replied with the following:
For me, it comes down to the war. I believe that on 9/11 we were attacked by Radical Islam unprovoked. Bush was clear in the SOTU after the attack that other countries were either for us or against us when it came to the war on terror. He put Iraq, Iran, and NK on notice. Iraq and Saddam Hussein were given many changes in the UN to prove that they had disarmed. Saddam refused and we held true to our promise of disarmament even though we eventually found out that Saddam was bluffing. Saddam made the unfortunate decision of bluffing to Bush and the USA.
I, for one, have never entertained the thought that Bush lied, that he is an evil man or that he wants to take over the world. I believe his current actions are based on principal and not popularity.
Yes, we have lost countless lives in Iraq. 1 life lost is too much but sometimes necessary to defend this country. We live in an imperfect world where people have the freedom to make choices that can harm others. Unfortunately, those people have to be stopped.
I just hope that America continues to have what it takes to WIN this war because I believe that retreat now will only cause much more bloodshed down the road.
Thanks for listening.
Implicit in this quote are several assumptions that should be explored. I'm not going to give judging opinions on anything; I simply want to explore the assumptions, because I honestly feel it's the only way we're going to start bridging this enormous gap that we're facing with people from the other side right now.
I'm going to break this excerpt down into individual pieces, and from them I'll ask for clarification on some underlying assumptions. While I'll be asking in terms of what "you" think, please note that I am not asking ShaunMcDonnell specifically. Rather, I am asking anyone who reads this diary, in the hopes that they'll truly think about where they stand on these things. You don't necessarily have to tell me your responses, just think about them since it may help to influence how you discuss these issues with people (family, friends) that you've been having trouble talking with previously.
- I believe that on 9/11 we were attacked by Radical Islam unprovoked.
Do you believe that Radical Islam has any negative effect on your perception of Islam as a whole?
Do you believe that by virtue of Radical Islam being the perpetrator, that we were attacked for religious reasons, socio-political reasons, economic reasons, or all of the above?
If you had to choose between these two options, which do you believe the 9/11 hijackers would like to attack more: Christianity, or Capitalism?
Regarding "unprovoked", if you believe economics were involved at all in the decisions behind the attack, would you be willing to hear arguments that there may have been provocation you might not know about?
If such arguments were presented to you, regarding the above question or any other question, and they forced you to re-evaluate your beliefs, would you be angry at having to do so?
- Bush was clear in the SOTU after the attack that other countries were either for us or against us when it came to the war on terror. He put Iraq, Iran, and NK on notice.
Do you believe that when a person of authority makes a clear statement, that you should trust they are also right about what they are stating?
Do you believe that "for us or against us" translates into a choice between good and evil?
Do you believe that the USA is always the "good guy" regardless of its actions?
Do you believe that historical precedents regarding the use of pre-emptive war should or should not have bearing on our choice to wage it?
Do you believe that the War on Terror is primarily against a person/people, against a country/countries, or against a concept?
If Osama bin Laden were captured/killed, do you believe the War on Terror would be over?
If not, do you believe there is some enemy in the War on Terror of sufficient stature who can authoritatively surrender (like a country might in another war), such that the war will end?
Do you believe that the War On Terror can eventually be won?
If so, what are your qualifications for winning?
- Iraq and Saddam Hussein were given many changes in the UN to prove that they had disarmed. Saddam refused and we held true to our promise of disarmament even though we eventually found out that Saddam was bluffing. Saddam made the unfortunate decision of bluffing to Bush and the USA.
Do you believe that the UN's disapproval of the Iraq invasion should have forced us to delay it until such approval was achieved?
Do you believe the UN to be a useful body of international diplomacy?
Do you believe that once Saddam was removed from power in Iraq, that our mission there should have been completed?
Do you believe installing our form of government in another country to be a just action?
If you had to choose between these two options, which aspect of our government do you believe our leaders are more interested in installing in Iraq: Democracy, or Capitalism?
- I, for one, have never entertained the thought that Bush lied, that he is an evil man or that he wants to take over the world. I believe his current actions are based on principal and not popularity.
Do you believe Bush is responsible primarily for setting the direction of the country, or for carrying out the direction desired by the populace?
Do you believe Bush adheres to principal and not popularity out of resolve, or stubornness?
Do you believe that resolve, taken to the logical extreme of being completely immutable regardless of changing conditions, to be a positive trait?
- Yes, we have lost countless lives in Iraq. 1 life lost is too much but sometimes necessary to defend this country. We live in an imperfect world where people have the freedom to make choices that can harm others. Unfortunately, those people have to be stopped.
Do you believe a pre-emptive war can be justified as a matter of defense?
Do you believe that a pre-emptive war qualifies as a "choice that harms others"?
Do you believe that someone with the potential for making a harmful choice is as worthy of punishment as someone who has actually made one?
Do you believe that aggression can be stopped by aggression?
...
I could continue, but I think that's enough to start with for now. The main thing I'm trying to get across is that we're all coming from very different places that somewhat overlap and somewhat don't, and if the big political issues we need to resolve fall into that "somewhat don't" area, then it's very difficult for any real agreeable plan of action to be made.
If we're going to start bridging this gap about where we should go, maybe we should start talking about where we're standing now, and see if we can reach some common ground.
Thanks for reading,