Beautiful Minds Needed to Reach Across the Divide

Perhaps you were a fan of the movie A Beautiful Mind which was a biographical look at the troubled life of mathematician John Nash. You might be a mathematician yourself, versed in the details of gaming theory, or you might well be sick and tired of so little getting accomplished by the political leaders of this country as they spend more time looking to beat 'the other guys' than they do practicing thoughtful governance.
   My guess is that most of you fall into the third catagory. If so, or out of general curiousity, please continue reading below the fold to see what may be done, both theoretically and practically, to get our leaders to lead and so lend hope to our now uncertain future.

  Adam Smith posited that self-interest promotes the most efficient use of resources and so results in the best outcome for the wellbeing of the public. John Nash turned that around by suggesting that even in a noncooperative setting (like politics) the best results are attained by acting not with self-interest, but with consideration for the desires and actions of all the players on the field.
  If I recall correctly, Newt Gingrich accelerated the partisanship in Congress because of two critical chancges he made in the way the House does business. Prior to Gingrich becoming Speaker, all freshmen Reps went through orientation together, getting to know one another, enduring similar hardships and experiences, creating friendships that might last for years. Gingrich had each party run its own orientation, so that there was no chance for cross-party relationships to develop from the start of a congressman's term; the other guys were the enemy right from the start. Gingrich also discouraged congressmen from staying in DC while the House was not in session. This has had the effect of preventing socialization between members of the House and further perpetuating the "Us/Them" mentality. Democrats and Republicans have been fighting for advantage with more vigor, expending ever more energy and resources (increasing cost and decreasing utility) to win. Win what you say, doesn't really matter, just so long as we win. Oh, and before you say it's just the other guys who go out of their way to win, I will remind you of the heavy handedness of the DCCC
in 2006.
   Hubert Humphrey and Barry Goldwater would go at it on the Senate floor hammer and tongs with rhetorical sparks just a flying, but when off the floor of the Senate they were good friends.
   So what gets the most reward, or utility, for the most people? Two sides hammering each other with gerrymandered districts, strident labeling, expending resources that could be better spent all which reflect the pure self-interest reflected in the Adam Smith paradigm.
   In the movie, A Beautiful Mind, Nash's epiphany comes while in a bar when he realizes that his male friends will have a better chance of scoring with a woman if they pursue the less attractive women rather than all competing for the same blonde bombshell. If they do compete for the blonde they will block each other, waste resources and, at best, only one of them will gain any "utility" out of the situation. If they work with each other's goals in mind they will have a greater chance of success.

  We need Beautiful Minds, people who will communicate with each other, who will have a rational conversation to learn the motives and desires of the other side so as not to block each other in a way that justs wastes resources. So will you do this? Will you have patient chats with coworkers and neighbors? Will you reach out to the right wing bloggers with class, adding comments and posts that might let them better understand your thinking, motives and desires? Here are some websites you might try this notion out on -   Rightmarch.com,   Townhall.com, Patriotpost, and the Heritage Foundation.
  Also, at every opportunity, please encourage your elected officials to engage each other civily and so work for the best outcomes for their constituents.
  John Nash is certainly a mathematical genius, but his greatest contribution just might be in providing our crowded society with a model of living that let's us be individuals, with individual goals and aspirations, but working in such a way as to provide the best outcome for all of us who must share life on planet Earth.

•  It sounds good on Paper.

  But the repubs. have an image to uphold,so they think, and until they are the minority in every sense their behavior will continue. Thats my thoughts.

  by Owllwoman on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 04:37:11 PM PDT

  •  Republican world

    They live in their own reality, their own universe with its own rules, very different from ours.

    One of the most important Republican World Rules is, "might is right."  I could go on and on, and just might some day.

    "You can't negotiate with them." JRE

    Let me guess, are you for Obama or Hillary?

    by Helpless on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 04:57:44 PM PDT

    •  You only see them as caricatures. And while

      many of their front men in the media make it easy to do, there are thoughtful republicans who earnestly believe in their ideals every bit as much as you believe in yours.

      Let me guess, are you for Obama or Hillary?

      I am not sure how that is relevant. I am for sensible leadership. I will ofer that I would enthusiastically work for either one should he/she get the nomination.

      by persondem on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:25:21 PM PDT

      •  The thoughtful ones are not in charge over there

        by Helpless on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:16:29 PM PDT

•  what was the name of the dixie chicks song?

  "not ready to make nice?" pretty much where i'm at too.

  by rasbobbo on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 04:38:51 PM PDT

•  Not really ... but

  Will you have patient chats with coworkers and neighbors? Will you reach out to the right wing bloggers with class, adding comments and posts that might let them better understand your thinking, motives and desires?

  I WILL make a point to be civil and persuasiveto right-wing dKos commentators, as long as they maintain basic politeness.  

  I think I persuaded a recovering Republican the other day that the ACLU really IS about rights for all, not just "godless atheists" such as myself!  And another similar guy came around, based on evidence I gave him, to admitting that the Iraqis really DO clearly want us out, and there ain't no "maybe" about it as he had at first claimed.

  Those felt pretty good.  Tiny little steps, chipping away, but good.  

  by lgmcp on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 04:51:47 PM PDT

  •  That is it. You have created ripples

    that could well spread their influence beyond those persons you directly influenced.
    That is what this world needs more of. Thank you.

    by persondem on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 04:54:23 PM PDT

    •  Thank you. It felt like ripples and it felt good

      But even so, that was interacting with "recovering" conservatives. I do pretty well with those who already here and beginning to question or adjust their own beliefs. I fear I'm not quite ready to venture onto true right-wing turf.   When I meet a real hard-core Bush supporter, I am just so filled with rage and resentment, that it is really really hard for me to engage with them non-confrontationally.  

      by lgmcp on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:03:38 PM PDT

•  civilly disagree

  Now is not the time for bipartisanship, or cozy collegiality in Washington (nor in the blogosphere).  It is the time to break apart the establishment rapport, which has left us with seven years of catastrophe and corruption, no viable opposition and no accountability.

  Your title reminds me of another beautiful mind.

  "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths," Barbara Bush said on ABC's "Good Morning America" on March 18, 2003. "Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

  It's not a mathematical equation.  But if it were, you would need to factor in the hundreds of thousands of people who have been killed, maimed and tortured -- because so few of our "leaders" would dare to disrupt the "unity" in Washington with what our governance requires at this time: genuine revolt.

  by vivadissent on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 04:58:16 PM PDT

  •  Nowhere in the OP was there an attempt to muzzle

    anyone's speech. Any issue can be broached and discussed as priorites warrant, if done with a measure of courtesy.
     You seem to be saying that the views of nearly 100 million Americans (30%) can be ignored or trampled on. (30% is about the % who still back Bush et al and the neocon wave.) Also your B. Bush quote does not seem germane.

    by persondem on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:19:19 PM PDT

    •  honestly

      I don't care about "the views" of the 30%.  

      I absolutely believe that their support of neoconservatism should be trampled on -- likewise the support of any other '-ism' that shows itself to be so destructive and debasing to democracy, peace and human life.

      That's why the quote is germane -- what could be more relevant than "body bags and deaths"?  Certainly not the perservation of gentlemanly agreement, nor the avoidance of making beautiful minds uncomfortable with incivilty.

      The incessant push, by the DC establishment, to squelch "partisanship" is, in fact, a desperate effort to muzzle the noisy opposition.  Witness the censuring of MoveOn, by bipartisan agreement.

      by vivadissent on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:56:46 PM PDT

      •  I really don't hink you get it. Which is fine.

        I don't care about "the views" of the 30%.  

         The above indicates that you are part of the problem of the same ilk as the neocon media types who disparage the "liberal left" at every opportunity.

        The incessant push, by the DC establishment, to squelch "partisanship" is, in fact, a desperate effort to muzzle the noisy opposition

         Then they are part of the problem as well. The OP mentioned nothing of agreeing blindly with the other side, just realizing that citizens of this country may have difering views and they have a right to them.

        by persondem on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:09:09 PM PDT

        •  I don't get it either. Never have. This war was

          illegal and wrong from the very beginning, and there is no point where I see that anyone thinking it otherwise is entitled to their views as they are based on utter lies.

          That's not being part of the problem.  That's called telling the truth.

          by Karma for All on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:14:18 PM PDT

          •  Fine, tell the truth.

            That's called telling the truth

            Agreed on the war, but this diary was about far more than the friggin' war in Iraq, in fact it not even about the war in Iraq. It's about the war that you can't let go of, that you can't even see that you are perpetuating.

            by persondem on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:21:27 PM PDT

            •  Hmmm. Perhaps you're having a little trouble

              handling someone that doesn't agree with you right now...so much for that theory huh.  I don't buy into the reverse psycho-babble-ology going on here.  If there were ever a time to say wrong is wrong, it would be now.  This war was the greatest crime our nation has wrought in two centuries.  I think it's ALL about the war, especially as none of our representatives are able to do a damned thing to stop it because they're too busy trying to get along rather than present any kind of opposition at all.

               

              by Karma for All on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:28:08 PM PDT

              •  Ahh so you are going to the personal thing.

                Disappointing. What you don't get is that we are having a civil dialogue - no name calling or such nonsense.

                handling someone that doesn't agree with you right now...so much for that theory huh

                 If you can have this sort of discourse with me (which btw backs my OP not disproves it) why not with a republican?

                by persondem on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:35:27 PM PDT

                •  Excuse me. When you tell me I'm part of the

                  problem brought on by the people you're suggesting we have a nice chat over tea with that are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands at this point, I call that a "personal" thing.  I also think that if you can't discuss the merits you allege of making nice with Republican criminals without trying to assign blame to me personally to defend your theory that you are pretty much not practicing what you are preaching.  In other words, if you can't argue with people you supposedly agree with without making accusations like you just did, it's likely impossible you're going to do it with someone you are at complete odds with.  Just my observation which can extend to a general statement:  This is not the time to talk it out, these are not things that can be talked out.  These are things that can only be remedied by justice.

                  That's my entire point.  

                  by Karma for All on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:43:05 PM PDT

                  •  You have focused on the war in Iraq

                    which does nothing to further a discussion related to the overall message of the OP.
                     Is that hijacking?? I am not sure, as I am rather new to this diary/blog business.
                     You jump to hyperbole so easily in your description of "them" and in your comments to me. Did you check out the gaming theory links? Do you get the difference between Smith and Nash? How this is bigger than any one issue, even one as damaging as the mess in Iraq?
                     Fine, put the bastards responsible against the wall of justice. Please do. Just realize that the ignorance of most of the 30% is not their fault. And those people are the ones with which you might want to

                    have a nice chat over tea

                    by persondem on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:57:28 PM PDT

                    •  There is no other issue for me when people are

                      being killed.  Do you know that some estimate the number of Iraqi deaths in the hundred thousands?  We have no way of knowing, and even conservative estimates admit to tens of thousands.  Hijacking?  Nope.  Just telling you that it's beyond talking when it comes to people dying.

                      I have chatted with these people, they are unfortunately in my family, work with me, in my community, I've even gone face to face with them in the street over the war.  I am telling you that George W. Bush and his handlers have managed to harness the power of the worst parts of the psyche's of people in that 30% and given them a route to bring it to the surface.  I'm not talking to people that think it's OK to be racially prejudiced in the year 2007, I'm just telling them they're wrong and I won't stand for it in my country.  I'm not talking to people that think it's OK to  be homophobic in the year 2007, I'm just telling them it's wrong and I'm not going to stand for it in my country.  I'm not talking to people that would support the deaths of tens of thousands based on utter and complete lies, I'm just telling them it's wrong and I won't stand for it in my country.  I'm not talking to people who use religion to proclaim superiority to others, I'm just telling them it's wrong and I'm not going to stand for it in my country.  Too many issues where the line is in the sand.  Talking is for when the other side is reasonable and fair, we're not at that point by a long shot.  Right now the other side is criminal and socio-pathological.  They need to be shut down and treated when they are out of a place where they can do harm.

                      by Karma for All on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 08:32:17 PM PDT

        •  false equivalences

          you are part of the problem of the same ilk as the neocon media types who disparage the "liberal left" at every opportunity

          I thoroughly reject your just-the-other-side-of-the-coin equivalence.  It is preposterous to suggest, at this point, that "this side" and "that side" are the same-- that we're just bickering across an aisle.  

          The problem isn't disagreement or polarization.  
          The problem is ideology and policy that advocate war, murder, torture, dehumanization.  That is not a "differing view"; and I don't accept the right of 30% -- or 90%, for that matter -- to push forward such beliefs and agendas.

          It's not 'he said/she said.'  People are dying.  Because of the atrocious, and largely unopposed, decisions and actions of our leadership.  
          For our moral and practical survival, this demands scrutiny, outrage and fierce dispute.

          It isn't a rhetorical exercise, it is calamity.

          by vivadissent on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:30:57 PM PDT

          •  But it's not 30% who really

            believe that this war is good.

            That is not a "differing view"; and I don't accept the right of 30% -- or 90%, for that matter -- to push forward such beliefs and agendas.

             Most of that 30% are regular folks just looking to make it through the day. The NeoCon leadership can certainly rot in Hell, but the little republcans have been conned. So educate them, that's what the OP is about, civil dialogue.
             
             There's a poster on my local blog who has a sig line that reads something like " Eighty percent of republicans are democrats who don't realize it yet." RFK
              that would leave a lot of folks who could be persuaded my reasoned discourse.

            by persondem on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:40:59 PM PDT

            •  3 replies for the 30%

              1 - Personal responsibility.  Presumably, these are adults.  Most probably have access to the same range of information that I do (whether or not they choose to make use of those resources).  If they have not developed critical thinking skills by now (developed primarily in childhood), I cannot craft a new mental process for them.  As adults, they are ultimately responsible for their own poor decisions.  

              2 - It has been made fairly clear that the administration's approval rating will not fall below the 20's, regardless of its crimes/failures.  This may actually be a sociological/political constant in our times, with a similar portion of the population able to cling defiantly to any figure or policy, no matter how disgraced, if provided with even the shoddiest of propaganda efforts.  In this case, the dominance (and cravenness) of right-wing media has a good chance of sustaining this level of support.

              3 - To put it bluntly, we don't need them.  The most profound and important changes in our history were not supported by 100% of the population.  Many were not even supported by a majority.  In this case, the majority stands with us; and the layout of the opposition, as a practical matter (e.g. electoral maps), does not prevent our success.
              Those who hold out in opposition disempower themselves.  But that is their right.

              by vivadissent on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 07:23:35 PM PDT

              •  I like your reply

                Some considerations ...

                1. Conservative brains work differenly as shown in a recently released study. Info here

                You might consider them like a student with a learning disability in school. They are capable of learning but need assistance.

                2. If the 30% who persist in supporting Bush have no other information sources than Fox, Rush, right wing blogs or their right leaning hometown rag then of course they will contnue to think Bush is wonderful and that the evil lefties are plotting the downfall of civilization.

                3. You are correct that now we don't need them, though without 60 votes in the senate a case could be made that we do need them. However times change, critical events happen and a time may come when we do need them. The electoral map is not so differenct than 2000 or 2004.

                Conversing with republicans might not make more liberals, but it well could increase the number of moderates in the world at the expense of the 30%.

                by persondem on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 07:50:25 PM PDT

    •  It's exactly germaine. She represents the

      utter ignorance that spawns the policies and supports the crimes of this administration.

      There is no discussion when people are dying for lies.    

      by Karma for All on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:12:33 PM PDT

      •  Fine so you don't let them stay ignorant.

        How are the "unwashed" neocon masses going to be educated if you don't talk to them?

        by persondem on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:17:21 PM PDT

        •  They are going to watch as justice is exercised

          upon the criminals they call their leaders.  An object lesson in cause and effect in which we don't accept the destruction of our democracy or the crimes against humanity practiced by the Bush administration.  I think that'll do it.

          by Karma for All on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:19:40 PM PDT

  •  I recced you with some reservation.

    I appreciate your quotation of Barbara Bush.  But I do think that bipartisanship could be a powerful answer to the vexing problems we face.  You could "break part the establishment rapport," whatever you're referring to... but how about, instead of party lines, our country's leaders begin to engage each others' beautiful (human) minds?

    Yeah, I can be a Pollyanna....  I won't apologize for it....

    by DontTaseMeBro on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:56:56 PM PDT

  •  Exactly.

    What goals are we supposed to talk them out of?  Do we really think people that are at the height of hubris it takes to kill people without reason are going to "come around"?  Are we going to somehow "capture" the people who are supporting this war?  Some wrongs are just too wrong to be talked out.  Some wrongs deserve jailtime, that would be the remedy for this administration, and the one that would bring around its supporters, or at the very least, push them back under the rocks they crawled out from under.

    All manner of evil is loose since Bush took office.  Look at the racism rearing again, this is the time to beat the demons back, not try to work it out.

    by Karma for All on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:10:22 PM PDT

•  Politics is a blood sport

  the Rethugs made it that way so no quarter from this quarter.

  by stevej on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:06:22 PM PDT

  •  It doesn't have to be. If Jefferson

    and Adams had been as divided and unable to work with the other side as you, then the great experiment in democracy that is the USA would likely not have happened.

    by persondem on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:21:14 PM PDT

    •  Jefferson and Adams

      were some of the fiercest partisans in our history.  They fought passionately, and sometimes dirty-- and didn't always kiss and make up after the fight.

      by vivadissent on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:29:33 PM PDT

      •  Agreed. Like a couple of bickering midwives.

        But they did get the job done and gave birth to our nation. They were Americans first.

        by persondem on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:32:11 PM PDT

    •  Difference being that they had a common goal,

      which was to build a free society.  Now the goal of Republicans is to dismantle ours.  

      by Karma for All on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:15:56 PM PDT

      •  You see them in extremes just as they see us.

        Now the goal of Republicans is to dismantle ours.

         Please. Do you really think the rank and file average Joe citizen who is a registered republican is going to bed every night thinking of ways to subvert the Constitution??

         The leadership perhaps, and they deserve a very warm place in the afterlife and very cold place in Levenworth. But there are, what, 40-50 million republicans, poor folks in Miss., farmers in NC, older rep. in New England who still identify with the party of Lincoln. The are not ALL NeoCon crettins.

        by persondem on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:28:17 PM PDT

        •  No, I think it's worse. I think the average

          Republican that is a member of the 30% supporting Dubya is racist, nationalist, obsessed with the military, brainwashed by religion, or homophobic, sometimes all of the above.  I'm referring to Bush supporters here, and I'm giving no quarter to the entire Republican establishment and a good part of the Democrats who have allowed these people to come to power and continue to operate.

          by Karma for All on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:33:40 PM PDT

•  There are many divides to be crossed

  I appreciate the sentiment of your diary, and I've made efforts in the same spirit.

  My talk with a US naval officer

  Shedding light on our predicament

  Haiku and Bullet Points for Refugees

  The result has been a couple of recoveries, but not many readers. It's worth saying, nonetheless.

  by Flywheel on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:34:53 PM PDT

  •  Well done. Keep talking/posting/writing.

    And you are very correct in saying that there are many divides to cross.

    by persondem on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:42:35 PM PDT

•  I just can't get past Barbara Bush's beautiful

  mind statement, sorry.  There is some ignorance that just has to be stamped out before any progress can be made.

  by Karma for All on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:04:25 PM PDT

•  Conservatism is intellectually, morally bankrupt

  They've proved it beyond all doubt with both their failures and their successes. Conservatives therefore can have nothing to contribute to the national dialogue. Every concession we make to them only screws America.

  We're right; they're wrong - let's lock them out of power forever.

  by Visceral on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:04:29 PM PDT