Over the past five years, our politics have become
crippled by the glaring disconnect between voters fed up with inaction in
Washington and those same voters actively shunning the middle ground on any
issues of consequence.
The irrational refusal to consider common ground is
explored in a new piece by nationally syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette,
who notes that too many public debates about complicated political problems are
sabotaged by simplistic answers and “intellectual shortcuts.” He logically
points out compromise positions on two hot topics – Planned Parenthood and
immigration – that are ignored by the left and the right.
Abortion and immigration
During the debate about Planned Parenthood funding,
Navarrette points out, it was rare to find someone who was pro-choice willing
to acknowledge being disgusted by the clandestine videos showing PP staff
cavalierly talking about harvesting a baby’s organs. Just as it was hard to
find anyone who was pro-life who found any value to PP’s overall mission.
Navarrette describes a recent conversation he had
with a cable TV news producer who asked where the commentator stood on the divide
between Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz over a Cruz amendment to the 2013 Senate
immigration bill, which would have granted legal status to illegal immigrants
but stopped short of bestowing citizenship.
Navarrette said he’d support Rubio’s prior comprehensive
immigration reform bill but with Cruz’s amendment attached, changing
citizenship to legal status.
The producer was surprised to hear the columnist stake
out a middle ground, calling it a unique perspective.
“We’d be a stronger country, and better people, if
we could agree to disagree on the important issues without always challenging
one another’s motives or character before retreating to our individual silos
with the likeminded. And if we listened more and didn’t just seek out those
opinions with which we agree, and actively avoid different points of view.
“And if we put a premium on truth and weren’t so
quick to excuse lies told by candidates we support while condemning those told
by candidates we oppose. And if we didn’t accept words as a permissible
substitute for actions, and consistently held candidates and elected officials
accountable when they do something wrong or say something offensive.
“And if we weren’t at each other’s throats over even minor
differences of opinion, insisting that everyone agree with us 100 percent of
the time. And if we demanded — from elected officials and from one another —
that we all put more thought, honesty and nuance into our discussion of policy
issues, instead of drawing out our perspectives in stark black-and-white terms
when the world comes in shades of gray.”
This is true. But we get our news on our facebook feeds where we tailor it to our biases. Practicality and compromise don't come across well there – especially not compared with ideological purity.
I've heard it regarding Bernie Sanders and the gun issue. Sanders is solidly liberal on everything, but then his gun votes come up and someone says, "I cannot support him! If I'm going to vote for THAT, why not just vote for a Republican?"
Mr. Free College Education becomes a conservative because of 3 votes on guns? Really?
I've noticed the same phenomenon with Republican friends of mine and our new US congress critter John Moolenaar. He's been in congress less than a year and they hate him already. And this was the same Moolenaar who was rated most conservative in the Michigan senate not long ago. Both sides are screaming for ideological purity. It's insane. Especially when you consider that most of the belligerents are ordinary people who have no way to significantly affect events. They have far too much in common with each other to be hating each other.