Time to Mend Fences...

[Overpaid Slacker]

OK, I didn't want to hijack TW's thread, but a few folks have mentioned this "time for W to bring people together" idea.

I've got no problem with the idea, other than, well, everything it implies about the last 4 years. It takes two to mend fences.

There is no way on God's green Earth that W could've united the country these past 4 years, other than caving into every Dem demand. The Dem's were angry -- stark, raving, sputtering insane, some of them -- and there was no force known to man that was going to draw them to W's bosom, plain and simple.

Just as a fer instance, W worked very closely with BigFatTedKennedy on education, raising spending 60% (from memory, but it's about that) AND giving BFTK an award of some sort for his service and work on the project.

How did BFTK respond -- with some of the foulest, nastiest, and often most spectacularly false shrieking criticism of W and the administration. OK, BFTK, we get it, you disagree... you think W should personally be drawn and quartered for Abu Ghraib, or based on even allegations about Gitmo. And in pandering to your most rabid contingent you've got to refer to W and his admin as Taliban, rather than disagree like the statesman you want us to think you are.

The Dems didn't want to be united, they wanted to be angry, self-righteous and snivelling (not all of them, but I'm trying to make a point here, and all it really takes is the extreme polarization of the radical left to pull the would-be united apart). Every single thing W did, or didn't do that Dem's thought he should've done, they seized upon with unholy sanctimony, and unprecedented complicity to publicize.

This is not to say that W did everything right, or that he should be immune from criticism, but even you partisan lefties have to admit that shrieking -- not merely disagreeing, but shrieking about EVERY SINGLE fault or flaw, real or perceived, was not exactly an overture of peace.

This was going on well before Iraq, well before 9/11 when W couldn't get his cabinet confirmed, so I don't believe there was one instant where "he turned his back" on bipartisanship. It wasn't there to begin with from the other side. In fact, as I said earlier, unless W became a Liberal, there was just going to come one time, one issue, where any lefty could say "see!!! we'll never get along, look at how he acts!!!" Well, it's a fact of life that a president from the other party is not going to do/support what you want all -- or even most -- of the time.

OK, enough. The point is, that Dems are going to have to want to unite. They've got to accept that they're a minority power, whose agenda is wildly more popular with the media than with the public that elects them. They've got not to set terms like a manipulative passive aggressive broad, where if W doesn't do what the D's want where and when, the Woman Scorned routine begins all over again.

Here's hoping, genuinely, that that'll happen, but it'll take some soul-searching by the Dems and quieting their most radical elements.

JP

[wludavid]

Unfortunately, a lot of it comes down to game theory. "We won't unite until they decide they want to." Who will cave first? It will probably have to be the dems, but I hope that W doesn't take that as tacit approval of the way he's run the country the last 4 years. I'm reminded of the screaming and "shrieking" and name-calling from the Right when Clinton was in office, and I didn't see the polarization that we see today.

I didn't see one moment when he "turned his back" either, but he has certainly earned this divided populace. I didn't vote for him either time, but I was glad it wasn't Gore in office when the planes his the towers. He was the right man for the job and had the undivided support of the nation and the great majority of the industrialized world. To say that the Left has always been at his throat is a twisting of the truth. There are always name-calling detractors. Bush's actions have multiplied his shriekers a hundredfold.

[mikester]

The thing is that now President Bush doesn't have to worry about running for president again. He's at his limit and this term he can do as he pleases without worry about much more than impeachment. Historically this is when the President does their most independant thinking and acting.

I'm more worried now - The election was quite decisive unlike 2000 so accepting that is alright with me. The fact is people don't want senators as presidents they want governors or better. Men with executive experience. The democratic party is in a world of hurt and needs to evolve into something with stronger leadership and it's member base needs to grow up a bit in my opinion.

[Moses]

Look, the whole nation is moving in the same direction. GOP gains in the House, Senate with the Supreme court to follow. This election was not an affirmation of a populist like Reagan, this was a slam-dunk rejection of the liberal Democrat philosophy.

Until the Democrats realign and run a true moderate, the bleeding (and whining) will continue. Don't believe me? Nominate Hillary in 2008 and watch the carnage.

[joeclarke]

time to mend fences - absolutely.

[Moses]

Originally posted by joeclarke
... why would anyone even gave a second glance to any "liberal Democrat philosophy"?

Appeasement and a "world opinion litmus test" are part of the liberal Democrat philosopy I'm talking about.

[Mule]

The demo ticket for 2008

[juanbenae]

mule, or should i say horses ass, we porsche owners (lib&repub) here for the most part are trying to mend fences and be civil to one another again. please do not continue to stir things up, in fact why dont you crawl back into the hole you came from? the only thing worse than a soar loser is a jackass of a winner, which to this point today you have been.

so, in review, your work here is done, please move along and we will try to return to the reason we all frequent this place, a common love for a make of car. do you even own a porsche, or do you spead your cancer to for the sake of it?

[Overpaid Slacker]

Mule -
I can't see the pic you posted, but lemme 'splain something. I want there to be unity; I want there to be bipartisanship; I want there to be spirited, but respectful disagreement.

The rank-and-file follow the examples set by their leaders (hence the name, no?). If BFTK hurles such invective, and members of the Senate out-and-out call W a "Liar" for something about which he was simply mistaken, the r&f are going to be carrying "Bush = Nazi" signs in the streets.

Dem BigWigs have been playing down, pandering to their electorate; and not infrequently lying to or otherwise deceiving/misleading them. If that's what the dems thought they needed to energize their base, they've been proven wrong -- in TWO elections now. They need to become statesmen and elevate, rather than deign to, their wards.

Moses is right -- this is a humiliating repudiation of the Liberal agenda of recent years, and it's going to sting like Hell. But, swallow the pride, come up with some genuine solutions and proposals, present them in good faith, treat your adversaries honorably and work together.

If, two years from now, Libs, unchanged in their tactics, are still standing in the wilderness shouting "W didn't unite America!! W didn't unite America!!" it's not going to fool anyone. OK, it'll fool MA, NH, CA, OR, etc. but so what. Look where that got 'em this time.

This loss is an excellent opportunity for the DNC to clean house, take stock and tidy up. Had Kerry won, the DNC would've felt validated in their extremism, and that combined with 4 I'd-bet-my-930 disastrous pusillanimous, irresolute years (up against a strongly GOP/Conservative Congress) would have further weakened the DNC.

To wit, Mule, I wasn't being sarcastic. I'd like detente, but the Libs have got to want it enough to give up the howling martyr complex.

JP

[stomachmonkey]

The reason for the divide is each group thinks that they are correct in their opinion and view.

I am troubled by the divide and think that a more moderate approach from BOTH sides is warranted, if not we are in deep shlt and things will only get worse.

You suggest that Dems need to come to the table and want to unite, that Reps are eager willing and ready to do so.

Dems see it as the opposite.

Neither side is right and at the same time both are wrong.

We simply can not embrace each others point of view.

Wish I'd left this thread alone.

I've just depressed myself.

I don't see how we fix this when we can't find the middle ground.

That goes equally for both sides.

Scott

[bryanthompson]

Mending fences, huh?

k911sc
11-03-2004 01:21 PM: we porsche owners (lib&repub) here for the most part are trying to mend fences and be civil to one another again.

11-03-2004 01:36 PM: dont bother clowd, he knows not another way, in nebraska.

[MichiganMat]

I've said this in another thread already, but VillageVoice summed things up pretty well this morning:

Its easier to vote for the kid who steals lunch money than it is for the kid who got his lunch money stollen

The Dems have some work to do. As a Dem, I hope we can find a way to sell our message without resorting to stealing. I'd hate to see that happen.

Even though 54 million of my fellow Americans voted for the Democratic ticket this year, I can't help but feel out of place in this country. I don't go to Church, I don't support the war, I have gay friends who I think deserve to be recognized and protected. I don't own a gun or a big SUV, I support the environment, and my family has had an incredibly hard time living the American dream.

54 million Americans feel the way I do, but today I don't feel represented. This has to change.

[jyl]

I don't see very good prospects for unity. Several reasons:

1. The political parties (on both sides) have learned that their best chances are by focusing on their hard-core base. Look at this election: very few voters crossed party lines (10% or less, I think). Rather than risk losing even a sliver of their bases by moving toward the center, the parties will probably try to improve turnout within their bases. So the Democrats might think "just 2% more turnout in a couple of key precincts will do it" while the Republicans might think similarly in their strong areas.

2. This election campaign was fantastically expensive, and the fund-raising laws mean each party and its ideological allies increasingly have to raise that money at the grassroots level. Anger and fear motivates the hard-core grassroots supporters to contribute money. If you don't have a billion dollars (or whatever it ended up being), you can't get to the finish line.

3. The technology of campaigning is decreasingly about calm and reasonable debate, and more about photo ops, sound bites, attacks by proxy, rapid-fire spin emails, and so on. This isn't unlike the TV we watch, frankly. If the inclusive, positive, unifying campaign of our fantasies is "The Cosby Show", today's campaigns are like "Fear Factor" and "CrossFire".

4. So, all of the above talks about campaigns - why can't people mend fences between campaigns? Well, American elections and between-elections politicking, are increasingly being fought on so-called "character" grounds. Is so-and-so a family man, a good Christian, a traitor, a tax evader, etc. These sorts of contests are inherently very divisive, and the divisions last a long time.

Look, for example, at the nastiness that has developed in this forum of ostensible Porsche brotherhood. People showed up, with little or no prior history of participation in the rest of the PP BBS, and started posting aggressively - and plenty of BBS long-timers got aggressive too. The resulting bad blood permeates even this thread about fence-mending - for example words like "foulest", "spectacularly false", "rabid", "snivelling", and "unholy" are not exactly fence-mending language. Not to mention the folks who talk about "filthy liberals" and so on in their forum signatures - again, not exactly a fence-mending sort of tone.

Now, I actually think the fundamental, underlying attitudes and views of the large majority of Americans is not anywhere near as divided and combative as it might seem after this election. Of course there are going to be a range of views, but I recall seeing surveys that show most Americans share most basic beliefs and values, and this is my experience personally.

But my point is that the tactics that raise money and win elections reward, and almost require, the parties to divide the electorate into "us" and "them", pandering to the one while demonizing the other. With Presidential elections coming along every few years, and Washington in a pretty much permanent state of electioneering and fundraising anyway, the people are pretty much being herded into the ideological equivalent of armed camps.

This is just my opinion - but while I'm not the oldest guy here, I've been watching and voting in elections since Reagan beat Carter, and I'll tell you, the anger, negativism, and personal attacks in this election, by both sides, and their proxies, and their grassroots supporters on Internet bulletin boards and elsewhere, is like nothing I've ever seen. I am not saying I was immune to it, by the way. I tried not to step over the line, but I'm sure I did.

[CamB]

I don't see a lot of prospect for unity either, unless unity is a code word for liberals accepting conservative beliefs. As Moses said:

Look, the whole nation is moving in the same direction. GOP gains in the House, Senate with the Supreme court to follow. This election was not an affirmation of a populist like Reagan, this was a slam-dunk rejection of the liberal Democrat philosophy.

I wonder if the USA isn't about to enter a 4 year experiment in relatively unconstrained conservatism. A bad thing? Well I think so, but obviously not all do.

[Burnin' oil]

Cam, is that you? How's the snow? We're getting record amounts with record early openings. Snow, it's a good thing.

[juanbenae]

i was telling him to not bother because it will continue to go around and around. kind of like you have continued to today. when will you stop? being a richard that is?

[jyl]

Originally posted by MichiganMat
Even though 54 million of my fellow Americans voted for the Democratic ticket this year, I can't help but feel out of place in this country. I don't go to Church, I don't support the war, I have gay friends who I think deserve to be recognized and protected. I don't own a gun or a big SUV, I support the environment, and my family has had an incredibly hard time living the American dream.

54 million Americans feel the way I do, but today I don't feel represented. This has to change.

Don't feel isolated.

You'd call mine a church-going family, me occasionally while my wife and daughter go to mass every week and then teach and attend (respectively) CCD class. I did support the war at its outset, now I think it was a mistake that we have to see through to the end. I have gay friends too, some of the best people I know. I do own a gun, and a big SUV to boot. I support the environment. And I'm getting by, although the recession and bear market has been very tough. Heck, I have sometimes voted Republican in the past, and my wife was a life-long Republican until 2 years ago.

So on some level you and I might look pretty different. Yet it is clear to me, too, that the current Administration and the majorities in the House/Senate are taking the country in a direction 180 degrees from what I believe in - and that they neither need nor care about my support.

[gaijinda]

Originally posted by MichiganMat


Even though 54 million of my fellow Americans voted for the Democratic ticket this year, I can't help but feel out of place in this country. I don't go to Church, I don't support the war, I have gay friends who I think deserve to be recognized and protected. I don't own a gun or a big SUV, I support the environment, and my family has had an incredibly hard time living the American dream.

54 million Americans feel the way I do, but today I don't feel represented. This has to change. [/B]

MM: Wow, this hurts. Kind of mistrust on both sides.

Many rural folks feel put upon by the city slickers from back east. That is how Bush won this thing.

This is why I am a big proponent of local politics. City, County, State, Village, you name it. This country is too big and too diverse to make everyone happy on the Federal level.. San Fran is different from rural Ohio and should be..

As the Chinese say: Heaven is very high and the Emperor is far away. I think we can all find some political equilibrium closer to home, where even if our guy loses, we are not left out. It may take a change of neighborhood or state, but we could all find that..

[RoninLB]

I don't expect political peace.
Not only is Bush's preemption a supreme knife into the Dem party anti-war base, but his attempt to reduce the "demand" for government is another knife into the liberal big goverment consensus.

Barry Goldwater to Regan to Bush. It's the caretakers of the philosophical difference over the post WW2 welfare state.

Bush pitched aggressive reform. Kerry pitched Stop reform.

The Rep win changes everything, again. The voters had a real choice concerning completely different approaches to major issues.

[CamB]

Originally posted by Burnin' oil
Cam, is that you? How's the snow? We're getting record amounts with record early openings. Snow, it's a good thing.

Snow's still just hanging in (1 North Island field only), but spring has well and truely arrived. Its about 20 deg C and blue sky today and I'm going to wag work from 2pm this afternoon to ride my bike.