Run In With Mr. Edwards

In article 78vYc.224$_g7.16@attbi_s52, "Jay Honeck"
writes:


I don't think that any of this is new. However, our parents and
grand-parents were able to keep a lid on these kinds of disagreements by
maintaining a higher level of courtesy and decorum that has been all but
lost in America. Today, no one bats an eye at calling someone else "stupid"
or "immoral" because of what they believe -- and this is a radical change
that is harming our political system.


Jay,

I have an alternate theory for the polarization in US political life, and that
is that we have created an illusion that makes our political efforts from both
sides produce counter intuitive results. That leads to frustration and anger as
people cling to that illusion and see their goals fall further away. Sort of
like pulling back on the stick makes the houses get smaller, but only to a
point after which pulling back on the stick makes the houses get bigger really
fast.

The illusion we have created is the progressive income tax. We ignore the whole
concept of imbedded taxes (payroll taxes, corporate and personal income taxes,
and others) which become invisbly imbedded in the price of goods and services,
and those imbedded taxes fall very regressively on the poor.

The result is that the more progressive we make the income tax, the more the
poor fall behind and the greater the separation becomes. It is a hard concept
to wrap your mind around, but it is provably true. We see it happening all
around us every day. The more the Democrats succeed in shifting the income tax
burden to the rich, the greater the gap between rich and poor becomes, and the
history of the last 50 years proves it. I will email a copy of an editorial I
wrote for a local liberal paper explaining the paradox. It is too long to post
here, but I will email a copy to anyone who wants it.

But you can see that when every success becomes a failure, and every defeat
makes things better, the left is going batty as their class warfare fails.

And yes, I do have a solution to the problem.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

The lack of civility you describe certainly exists all over Usenet, but I
don't think it's such a big deal in the real world. Nor have things changed
that much over generations. And I don't think lack of compromise explains
any of what sucks in the U.S Congress. Here are some anecdotal examples to
support these points. Take them for what you will.

o Remember the heat Dan Burton (senator or congressman from Indiana) took for
calling President Clinton a "scumbag"?

o The History Channel ran a program last night about what led to the duel in
which Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton. Lots of hateful, vindictive, and
back-stabbing rhetoric was behind it, and not just between those two.

o Compromise happens in Congress every day. It often takes the form of
"Vote for my pork-barrel project to give other people's money to my
constituents, and I'll vote for yours".

Compromise as an end in itself, especially when it comes to moral values, is
not a good thing.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

"Jay Honeck" wrote

Well, that's EXACTLY what compromise is -- and it's been going on in America
for generations.

If fact, it is this almost unique feature of American political life that
has enabled our democracy to survive while so many others have perished.
Our ability to come to terms with our opponents -- as opposed to crushing
them -- is what makes our democracy work.

At the moment, however, I see very little of this sentiment at the national
level. It's "my way, or the highway" on a myriad of issues -- and the
rhetoric is reaching a dangerous volume.

Trouble is, the real "meaty" issues that divide Republicans from Democrats
(i.e.: Abortion; marriage; stem cell research; the purpose of government;
taxes; the right to bear arms; religion; etc.) are "black and white" issues,
with little room for compromise.

I don't think that any of this is new. However, our parents and
grand-parents were able to keep a lid on these kinds of disagreements by
maintaining a higher level of courtesy and decorum that has been all but
lost in America. Today, no one bats an eye at calling someone else "stupid"
or "immoral" because of what they believe -- and this is a radical change
that is harming our political system.

This naturally creates hard feelings, making any compromise MUCH more
difficult to achieve. The end result is political grid-lock, followed by
increasing frustration amongst the electorate, followed by revolution or
civil war, if carried to its ultimate conclusion.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:0mbYc.62972$9d6.35025@attbi_s54...
Six paragraphs of blather, but no answer to the actual question asked.
And why exactly does "compromise" represent some sort of holy grail
you seem to imply?

Because if the people of the United States don't re-learn what
"compromise"
means, we're headed down a one-way path to Balkanization.

What does it mean to you?
Seems Americans have been compromising for generations (and geting noting in
return).


In some ways, and in some locales, it's already happened.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:nARXc.246074$eM2.18242@attbi_s51...
Just wondering what "compromise" means to a mid-westerner.

Compromise can't really happen until we return to a time before political
correctness made it wrong to call someone "crippled" but made it okay to
vocally and publicly insult someone for what they believe.

Sadly, I don't think this is going to change soon, as the moral issues
dividing the two parties are so stark.

see that's your problem Jay you are naive. Neither party has any morals, and
they are so united in the one thing they have in common, getting into power.

The problem with two party politics is that its really a case of having a
pig in a poke. Its damnation whichever way you vote.

some political commentator commented that "every political career ends in
failure".

cb

In article , "CB"
wrote:

see that's your problem Jay you are naive. Neither party has any morals,
and
they are so united in the one thing they have in common, getting into
power.

nope. the sole objective is being re-elected.

think about it.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "CB"
wrote:

see that's your problem Jay you are naive. Neither party has any morals,
and
they are so united in the one thing they have in common, getting into
power.

nope. the sole objective is being re-elected.

1) Getting INTO power.
2) Staying in power.

That's about it.
think about it.

Indeed, notice the hysterics/psychosis of those dumped from power (i.e.,
Democrats, Taliban, Iraq...)

In article , "Tom S."
wrote:

nope. the sole objective is being re-elected.

1) Getting INTO power.
2) Staying in power.

right. and summarized as getting re-elected.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "CB"
wrote:

see that's your problem Jay you are naive. Neither party has any
morals,
and
they are so united in the one thing they have in common, getting into
power.

nope. the sole objective is being re-elected.

1) Getting INTO power.
2) Staying in power.

That's about it.
think about it.

Indeed, notice the hysterics/psychosis of those dumped from power (i.e.,
Democrats, Taliban, Iraq...)
and the hysterics/psychosis of those who think they may be dumped from power
(ie the Texas ****)

Sadly, I don't think this is going to change soon, as the moral issues
dividing the two parties are so stark.

see that's your problem Jay you are naive. Neither party has any morals,
and
they are so united in the one thing they have in common, getting into
power.

I didn't say the "party's moral issues are stark" -- I said "the moral
issues dividing the two parties are so stark."

The parties have no morals. However, the moral issues (abortion; taxes;
marriage; stem cell research; etc.) that separate the parties are in areas
that don't lend themselves well to compromise, since there are usually only
two diametrically opposed choices for each issue.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:brbYc.251496$eM2.49663@attbi_s51...
snip However, the moral issues (abortion; taxes;
marriage; stem cell research; etc.) that separate the parties are in areas
that don't lend themselves well to compromise, since there are usually
only
two diametrically opposed choices for each issue.

But there are plenty of people in each party that disagree with the party
line on one or more of these issues. Cheney's stance on the marraige
amendment is a particularly interesting example. There are plenty of
Republicans who wish President Bush would leave his religion at church. I
know Rush Limbaugh fans who believe the second amendment is outdated. And
there are Democrats who are against abortion. And for school vouchers. (Put
me at the top of the school voucher list)

While the party lines are didactic and polarized, the populations within
them are much more diverse.

Michael