Skypixie0
for someone who doesn't believe, you've done a remarkable summation of the viewpoint of a small town “Christian” communities view of the world.
Sie Haben Recht- You have “Right”
Where I and my community and small towns everywhere find themselves appalled is that there is no sense of community ( mutual strengthening) among the “opponents”.

I'm not related by blood to anyone in my current community, but we are a family- if I moved back to the small town where I grew up, I would be blood relation to at least half, and among that half would be blood relation to the remaining half. What happens when you let small boys play “Who's got the biggest dick'?
They forget that they are all family. I have 5 brothers and 54 first cousins just for a start. I never did LIKE some of them very much, a couple I still don't. Some of them are a little short on smarts and get into and cause trouble. Didn't like them much either. Point is, they're family, so I always LOVE them. As I've gotten older, I've realized there isn't anyone who isn't in my family, and I love them.

Doesn't mean hey don't annoy the ever loving piss out of me sometimes. And I return the favor. BUT —end of the day. We're family and we look out for each other.

Token,

I've always been amazed at the ability of christians to adopt certain ideas and then refer to them as "their own". The concept of all mankind as "brethren" far predates the religious take-over of it.

I'm happy that there are still some christians who pay more than lip service to it though. Some ideas are better for being borrowed by others for it is the idea, not the source which is important.

;-)
.

Sky

I'm only "Christian" because that's what my community calls itself- I'm just a believer in US ( Which doesn't mean I want to taker warm showers with anyone in particular -- )
:-)

Unfortunately for a lot of right wing Republicans, intolerance seems to be fundamental to their platform - i.e. intolerance of women who choose to terminate pregnancies and gay people who choose to marriage.

I'm on the side of the goat!!! What? :D

This is why I unfriended a cousin on FB. He would harangue me & call it banter because I dare to believe that everyone has an equal right to live their lives as they see fit. He thinks if you don't think like him then you want the world to live on welfare. Quite the disparity.

I hope someone besides the choir hears you.

Excellent. I may need to unfriend some people too because they keep posting "Share this if you think X about Y and Z" and it's always such vicious stuff. I like to think we're better than that. Everyone should get some time on their soapbox with respectful listeners, without being shouted down, and without being made to feel that dissent is un-American. I'm going now . . . /R

Point well taken, sky. Ideas indeed are not people. A close friend is very conservative and we try never to discuss politics, but when it rears its ugly head we agree to disagree.

Dr. B.,
For shame!
You couldn't resist an opportunity to "point the finger at THEM EVIL OTHERS", could you? They, of course, will respond by similar name calling. Can you not see that their position is, to them, just as "obviously the only valid one", as yours is to you?

My personal understanding of life makes me much more inclined to hold "liberal" ideas than conservative ones. But we - especially we - MUST ALWAYS make it abundantly clear that our disagreement is with certain ideas, attitudes, policies and philosophies and that we DO NOT consider the people holding those ideas to be one whit less worthy of respect than those whose opinion agrees with ours.

I have noticed that when I have occasion to berate either a liberal or a conservative for ad hominem attacks on those of differing opinions, the most likely response is either to continue that attack or to say something childish like, "Well, they started it."

I don't give a fettered fuck who "started it." I'd like very much to see it end. As a person of liberal persuasions, I'd like it to be us who makes a huge effort to bring that about. We liberals are, after all, the ones who claim that human values are of the utmost importance.

Let the ideas clash - not the people.


Tinkie,
You watch out for that goat. He's even randier than you! And don't let him talk you into playing leap-frog with him..... those horns of his are some wicked!


jp,
Your cousin has a right to his opinion - and to express it. What he does not have a right to do is to offer personally insulting comments about you as a person. When we make known our ideas we invite others to examine them and offer their own opinions about them. We must not think that those who attack our ideas are necessarily attacking us.

On the other hand, those who disagree with our opinions and use that disagreement as a means of making personal attacks, should be taught to know the difference between those two kinds of response. If you don't take the time to show them that difference, who will?


nilesite,

B I N G O !!
;-)
.

Erica,
That's an excellent start! The next step is to listen to the other person's opinion with the respect that is due to your friend as a friend and a person. You'd be amazed at how much you both have in common. Ot is when we stop listening to and respecting those others that we can so easily be led to think of them as "evil".

Neither philosophy is at all perfect. Neither is without serious flaws. We both could use a good, long look at what "them other guys" have going for them. I suspect that we have more in common with them than we have differences.
.

i'm voting for Tink....

SB,
I can certainly understand that!

;-)
.

Sky - as we step over homeless vets, schizos, teens prostituting themselves and living in tribes under overpasses, see the lines at the emergency rooms, watch the cops sweep black kids off the streets (or shooting them because they are "suspicious") and locking them up for smoking dope while the celebs have been snorting since the days of Studio 54, while food banks do a booming business cause daddy is out of work (his job is in China thanks to "free trade") and his son joins the army cause he has no prospects and no hope, while we send space craft over a people who can't make their own washing machines and blast them like a video game from outside Los Angeles and Jamie Dimon tells us how Wall Street is properly regulated -

Well I have a hard tme being so "tolerant" of fascists. Yeah. I'll call them names.

Regards.

Sky, I tried. I really did. He is set in stone, as well being a monument maker which is quite apropos to his attitude, and I had to give up for my own health. My sister saw the last interaction and agreed that he was totally out of line. She didn't tell him that, unfortunately, just me. And my Dad, who had been trying to get me to give the jerk another chance.

the reasoned arguments by definition require reason from two sides and yes the Friends Service Committee is doing work in Congress to attempt real communication. My purpose was that the least among us, those with no voice, those told and shown they are seen as useless, abject failures, burdens by Stop and Frisk, disenfranchization, denial of even toilets are still fellow citizens and Americans and when one party states clearly their position is to deny them any place in society, it is a position more damaging and inhumane than simply spitting or pissing on them- in the old days chamber pots would be emptied on them. And when the words of Jesus are twisted to the point when the Rich are worthy and the poor worthless, I do not pretend to be Samuel but even a sinner should speak out.

It is in the best interest of the Republicans to consider their course, perhaps even realize their original base was the remnants of the Whigs after the "Know Nothings" had decimated that party and that their current base, in their own words is old, white, fat and fearful.

Admittedly I sometimes talk from the gut- I sit Friends Meetings but only achieve peace of the moment.

toritto,
Can you not separate the ideas you find so distasteful (me too) from the person who holds those ideas? MUST you play the silly game of blaming "them" for all the ills of the world?

Not only do you do this, but you then have the temerity to jump on them for doing it too!

What is your solution? You already know that it is highly unlikely that those who hold such opinions are going to just disappear. Are you going to line them up against a wall and kill them? Or are you going to find a way to accommodate ALL of the people in your society?

This does NOT mean that you have to, in any way, lose your distaste for their ideas. Nor does it mean that you have to water down your own opinions. Is it not a basic principle of the "progressive" philosophy to always consider people as more important than whatever ideas they might espouse? Or are liberals only "tolerant" of other liberals? Doesn't sound too awfully "progressive" to me.


phyllis,
Look at what you just said........

""...........as well being a monument maker which is quite apropos to his attitude...........""

That was an unkind and inappropriate ad hominem attack on him as a person. It was totally unnecessary to making your point. MUST you adopt the same attack methods that you so despise when "they" do it? Right now you sound worse than him! His philosophy may not include respect for you as a person over and above your ideas. Must yours also be so "conservative" in tone?

Sure it's hard to be progressive when being attacked at that low level but if you don't do that then he has won the argument by making you act in the same way, with the same disrespect, that he does!

.

Dear Sky...

Thought-provoking post...now, where did I leave that left-side of my brain?

Kenneth,

No sir; you are in error. Reasoned arguments do not require reason from both sides. In fact it is almost impossible for that to happen. For each side considers the arguments of the other side to be 'unreasoned'.

But this is a digression for my blog is not about 'reason'. It is about respect. The person's IDEAS are NOT the person! You may disagree and disrespect those ideas for ideas are open to that.

BUT.... you ought not to disrespect the person as a fellow human being who, like you, is working with what he has been taught, learned in life, and figured out for himself. He came to different conclusions than you did. He genuinely thinks that his opinions hold water - just as you do!

In every society that has ever existed there are those who would deny any others, who differ in their opinions, any place in the society. Religious 'believers' are often the worst for this, as history shows. One recent American president even went so far as to say that atheists should not be allowed to run for public office!

What little I know of the Society of Friends is mostly good. What I've 'heard" about them is mostly bad. I can only conclude that what I've heard is in error - it simply does not match my personal experience.

Generally, however, religion aligns itself with the powers that be. It know full well that political power and religious power are enhanced when joined together. As an atheist, I have worked with, and along side of, many religious people. I think their ideas about religion are wrong. I also appreciate and applaud their actual charitable works. I don't really give a shit whether they help those in need because they want to earn a place in heaven or because their own personal moral code inspires them to do this. The fact is that those who do this are of great aid to those in need. That is what I look at.

Those who piss on the poor, literally or figuratively do such wrong because they have forgotten that we are all equally human. They are indeed very fearful people. I find it easy to pity them while it is impossible to like them - an doubly impossible to "love" them. But like them, love them or hate them, I MUST always accord them the respect that is due to any human being. If I do not - I become them.
;-)

PS
Although not particularly fearful, I too am old, fat, and white.
.

"...you DO have to regain your respect for the others as fellow humans." Wouldn't that depend upon their behavior rather than their rhetoric?

Why should I respect anyone who is a liar, bigot and misogynist for political advantage? Why should I respect anyone who disregards the needs of children because their parents come from another country? Why should I respect anyone who condemns "others" out of hand because they have a different name for G_D? Why should I respect anyone who dismiss the misfortune of people born into poverty because they believe they're getting what they deserve and in the same breath claim to be a "true christian?"

I understand what you're trying to say with this post, but there is the straight up question of "Good Faith" and that is the real two way street that ignorant bigots of any political persuasion never seem to find.

I'm afraid this "Toleration" of other people's ideas is a foolish fiction of idealists everywhere, and you too have fallen prey to the idea.

The elephant in the room is that 50% of people are below average in intelligence. Couple that with the decline in education and you've got a lot of idiots running around trying to 'run' things because of the inborn desire to impose our world view on others.

That desire, by the way, is essential to the creation of nations.

It's the basis of religion, democracy, dictatorships, etc. If we did not have bias and intolerance of other ideas we would never have become our own country.

Tolerance is for losers. Tolerance is just another word for bending over for the competition.

Ah! There's the crux. Are we cooperative or competitive? Do we find ways to assimilate everyone into a single functioning unit or do we eradicate the competition until only our world view dominates?

You have inspired me.

This was brilliantly written, BTW. I haven't been this excited in a while!

jmac,
NO! It cannot depend upon their behaviour any more than it can depend upon their politics, religion, skin colour, gender, orientation, age or any of the other ways in which we differ. Everyone is due a certain respect just because they are human. Period. That respect can increase or decrease depending on many things but that basic, rock bottom, respect must always remain. Without that, we cannot ever overcome out differences and will forever be at war with each other.

We've had thousands of years to develop a decent civilization. We have not done so. It is time we began. A good starting point is to recognize and respect each others as fellow humans.

We need not all agree that greed is a good basis for a society to be founded upon. We need not agree that humanitarian principles are good principles to found our society on. But we must, no matter what other differences we have, agree on a basic level of respect for each other as members of the human tribe.

And, until enough people do respect all others, it falls on us who see the need for it to just do it. No "two way street" needed.

You, and a few others here, keep harping on how "wrong" them other guys are. Some of you speak of that regretfully and some use it as an excuse for doing the same thing you criticize them for. Get this straight, when you base your opinions and attitudes and actions on those of the very people you despise, you become them. Do you think they'll ever see the error of their ways when you adopt those very ways yourself?

If you were the only person in the whole damned world that insisted upon respecting others for their humanity, it would still be worth your while to do so - for yourself - for your own self respect and sense of self worth. Just to know that you have not found it necessary to join them in their unhealthy, unhappy, arrogant ways.


Doug,
You have just done the exact same thing that your more liberal minded fellow citizens have done here. You've tried to move the discussion into an argument about who is right and who is wrong.

For the purposes of this discussion, I don't give a flying fuck who is right or who is wrong. What I'm trying to put across is that y'all live in the same country - even if not in the same world - and you seem to be taking a road that will lead to each side trying to exterminate the other. And in that kind of war nobody wins. All lose.

It is incumbent upon all thinking citizens to respect their fellow citizens even if - no, particularly if, - you think them wrong.

I personally doubt that 50% of people are below average intelligence. Yes, Doug, I know where you get that statistic from but 'averaging' done in that way, for that purpose is misleading and erroneous. Average intelligence is not calculated in that way. Average intelligence is calculated by determining the mid point between the highest and the lowest, NOT by using average numbers of people of various intelligence levels. I would have thought you'd know that if you are among those on the high side. But even you, when you state that """........50% of people........""", have acknowledged that all of us are people. Can you not respect that humanity in all others even if you think them not as smart as you? I didn't ask that you respect their intelligence, y'know. Nor did I ask you to respect their ideas. I asked that you respect them as fellow humans who have all the same rights to their opinions that you want for yourself.

.

Every lifetime politician will and are saying the way the congress is now, there can be no work done, or deals made. There is no more compromise, the hallmark of democracy. They act like kids playing and if they can't shoot all the time, they take their ball and go home. How can anyone, and even George the First said this yesterday, sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter the problem, that the moron Grover Norquist is passing out. Who knows what the future may bring. Aliens may attack from outer-space, but we could not defend ourselves because of Grover the fucking idiot Norquist and his band of Merry Morons signing petitions. What a way to run a country!

Humans have a right to their opinion?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

scanner,
Let me say ONCE AGAIN...... this is NOT about what the different sides stand for or are doing. BOTH sides do idiotic things. Both sides have denigrated and shown great disrespect for the people whose ideas are different from theirs.

I have seen, and signed, petitions and pledges in regard to things I think are OK. If I am prepared to have someone prepare such a petition or pledge about things I agree with, how can I then make mock of someone from the other camp doing the exact same thing?

What's sauce for the goose............ y'know?
.

BOKO,

I have, reluctantly, edited out your comment.

It was a good comment. I agree with more of it than I disagree with.....
BUT.... it is so far off topic that I just couldn't leave it here.

It would make a good post, perhaps a great one, though. If you didn't keep a copy of it, I did. I'll be happy to send it to you if you PM me.

.

It was not off topic, it was exactly what this post is really about in the present political context, you just didn't like your post being called the bourgeois shit that it is.

BOKO,
It was pure political posturing and you know it. If you're convinced that it was so good, why not post it on your own page? Or on a blog by one of the ultra-right fascists who blog on OS? It would fit right in there.

And please try to keep in mind that, on my blog, I decide what my post "is really about", not you.

.

I suppose you meant to say "in my opinion you are in error in your opinion" which then opens to your points, which I find very valid though people starving, in fear, crying may want a bit more than knowing there is a reasoned discussion in quiet rooms.

Kenneth,

Y'got me!

Although, in my defence, I must point out that every comment here, as with my blog, could be prefaced by "in my opinion". I don't, and I suspect that others don't, express something that could be called, "not my opinion", without labelling it as such.

While I would like to also think that reasoned discussions are, or could, take place, I have not asked for that. I have asked that we all consider "them others" to be equally human beings and as such, equally entitled to their opinions. I have also asked that when we disagree with those opinions which we find others expressing that, to us, are abhorrent or outré and that we're unable to respect, that we continue to give the respect that is due, to the person.

Surely offering respect to another is not beyond our capabilities no matter what doggone opinions he/she has. That respect might just be the only basis for initiating those reasoned discussions of which you spoke. Certainly I can't imagine them happening with out it.

As to those in need: Are they served better by acrimony amongst others? I do not know if reasoned discussions will be of any help to them but I DO know that us offering disrespect to each other is no help to them.
.

Sky

I've just nominated you for a "Reader's Pick" ( someone go second) I sometimes think the basic difference between your view of the world and mine is that I view this as one of many "virtual realities" I've participated in over my "Gaming Career" ( actually just killing time, waiting for my parents to come pick me up) and you find that an unprovable assertion. I absolutely respect that. And I absolutely respect what you are putting forth here in terms of dealing with all beings in a respectful manner, even if you know they are shit house rat crazy. Bravo, sir.

2nding
well done.

animist, devoted progressive
thanks for the reminder, that grass
can also take root, and turn green, there
in the middle ground, between the extremes.

(and i don't mean herb... well,
maybe...)

When the North American Spring arrives or this plane crashes please wake me up. I'd hate to miss either.

,
/R

This is the first time I've even bothered to log in (much less post) for months. I've been so disenchanted with the extreme "my way is the only way" views, often followed by vicious personal attacks that I've chosen to read what I enjoy and walk away without comment or rating from all.

Thank you, Sky, for a post I felt compelled to weigh in on!

Just like the massive redwood trees in California, we may stand uniquely, proudly and grandly individual, yet without the unseen, entwined connectedness of the far-reaching roots beneath, none of them (none of us!) could exist as we do.
I do not ask that anyone - much less everyone - agree with me, but rather listen to my thoughts just as I would listen to yours.

Respect and tolerance are being cast aside in society as irrelevant. I join you in crying out for their return, before it's too late. I wonder daily if it already is.

Token,

Thank you for that nomination. I had not looked into the RPs before now. It would certainly seem a very worthy effort and of far more importance to budding writers than the foolish way the EPs are done.



Inverted,
My thanks to you for seconding Token's nomination of this blog.

Actually, it might help if "the green middle ground" was indeed leaf! It could possibly relax some very tight rectums into betraying a little humanity..... ;-)




Creekend!!!!

Is that really you? I thought you'd been taken up in the Second Rapture or something. I've missed your pithy comments! (No, I haven't developed a lisp.)




Barb,

You said a lot when you said....
""Respect and tolerance are being cast aside in society as irrelevant. I join you in crying out for their return, before it's too late. I wonder daily if it already is.""

I fear, Barb. I fear.......

.

I guess I get what you're saying but I have to point out that you did not, in fact, see the "banter" we were engaged in. You did not see my reasoned arguments and my invitation to discourse. You did not see his responses belittling my opinions and beliefs and his follow-on posts making fun of my positions with his conservative friends. Therefore, when I say he has a rigid attitude carved in stone, I have a basis for my opinion that you are lacking in your rebuttal.

So true. Whether it's a custody dispute, a civil dispute, political candidates, a couple arguing, friends who disagree, religious differences..., listening to both sides and seeing the merit or reasoning of each makes perfect sense. It's illogical to ignore one side, but people do it. They are afraid of processing new information, seeing ambiguity, finding out they might be wrong or that someone they didn't respect enough might be right or whatever. Instead, people get angry. It's sad and creepy and scary.

phyllis,

I'm sorry to see that you seem to have missed my point completely. I have no doubt that what you have said, about the nastiness of his behaviour, is perfectly true. I also have no doubt that you, being the gutsy person that you are, gave back s good as you got.

Soooooo, how did that work out? Are you and him friends again? Didn't think so.

Y'see phyllis, I'll not get drawn into a discussion of who said what to whom. The fact is that respect for the other AS A PERSON was lacking. If it was lacking by both of you, that didn't help the situation. If it was only lacking by one of you then that one needs to be shown that there is another way to treat people. Under the circumstances that you described, you were the only person who could set that example. Did you? Or did you show such love for his tactics that you adopted them and used his method of attack right back at him?

If that's what you did, please try not to hate him too much for you have become him.

Yes, I know, this turn the other cheek shit is likely to just get your other cheek slapped too. But once in a while, if you keep at it, it makes an impression. It may only have a very small chance of working if the other person is a total dickhead. B U T ...... adopting his scurrilous ways has NO chance of setting a good example.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but it seems to me that he used ad hominem attacks on you, as a person, when your topic of conversation was originally about something else. Did that make you hear him better? Did you come to understand what he were saying? Did you come to think that he had a valid point? Do you now appreciate him and his thinking more than you did before he did that?

No?

Then how will YOU doing what HE did help HIM to hear and understand YOU better?

Sure it doesn't often make anyone suddenly slap themself on the forehead and apologize for their bad behaviour, but at least you won't be the one who ought to do that! You will have the confidence of knowing that you behaved with proper respect towards another - albeit very annoying - person under very trying circumstances. Can he respect himself for how he treated you? I doubt it. When you act with respect you can always maintain your own self respect. You never have to be the one who feels, in their heart, that they acted badly.

The point is that by showing him respect - that does not mean respecting what he says or does - you benefit even if he doesn't.



jackie2,

You hit the nail on the head when you said, '''They are afraid......."".

That is exactly right! That is why they attack you instead of your ideas about the topic under discussion. That fear drives them to drop all respect for you as a person and just have at you in any way that occurs to them. If you respond in kind, the war is on!

I have had occasions where I've gotten really freakin' mad at someone and gone on the attack, I cool down pretty quickly if they, instead of also going to war, stay calm and maintain a respect for me as a person even when they don't like my ideas or actions. Let's face it, it's a bit embarrassing to be the only one shouting; especially if one is shouting at someone who is showing one the proper respect.

.

Yo (that's american I believe) Sky,

FRed(tm) n I have our hands full of late. OS being a battleground we decided to concentrate our efforts on a more seri'arse matter caused by Global Warming, a badly hung GB Parliament and weather forecasters who need beHeading.

Basically, April we had a heat wave. Yes fluckin April, unheard of. Since then it's rained. Many days a months worth in 24 hours. We're used to England being a car park but now it's a lake.
Of course, the French own all of our water supply firms, so they instigated garden hosepipe bans. Gods honest truth, that's what the vindictive bastards did.

Anyway, the UK being a small insignificant third world island has started to float nearer to France. Well we can't allow that can we, so FRed(tm) and I started a radical 'movement' to use shock and thousands of awes or maybe they're paddles to try and move us back nearer the East Coast of America.

It's an effort but the smell of garlic is just too repulsive.

,
"Press post comment please FRed(tm) then we'll go dry orf your fur Boy."

Skypixio,

You are singing my tune! One of the reasons I called myself a small-r republican not a capital-R one in my last post is the admiration I have for what the founding fathers tried to accomplish stitching together a nation out of so many different "factions." It's one of the reasons I chose to live in colonial city like Boston. While differing opinions about things may be inevitable given our different background and competing interests, we do not have to differ as to the kind of government we will live under -- one as you said that provides for domestic tranquility by accommodating differences rather than exacerbating them. And when right wingers accuse liberals of being hypocrites for dismissing all ideas that do not conform to their "left wing orthodoxy" what they mean of course is the disrespect liberals have for conservative notions of a society shaped not by compromise and negotiation between groups but intolerant demands that everyone conform to the conservative's narrow worldview. Words and ideas are meaningless to this kind of conservative. They just use liberal ideas of tolerance against them in order to advance a society that would be radically intolerant of difference if it ever came to pass.

But I've gone on long enough. Why not let the founders speak for themselves, here in my favorite short essay on American politics, Madison's Federalist 10, which is titled: "The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection." Don't tell me it's ideas about compromise and accommodation don't stand as a powerful rebuke to everything the Tea Party envisions, even if they do wear colonial garb:

To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected.

Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true.

It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.

The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

Madison then continues by proposing the "republican" solution in which representatives are chosen to negotiate differences -- elites, as it were, whose "republican virtue" enables them to separate themselves from their own interests and those of their constituents in order to at least see the broader context in which the "rights" of their constituents must be insisted on or given ground in the name of the common good.

High minded stuff, but something today's GOP no longer believes in.

Ted,

Thank you for this major contribution to this discussion.

One can see, by the very tone of Madison's essay, that the men of his day were accustomed to indicating respect for those to whom they addressed themselves or about whom they spoke.

Madison expected to be accorded the civility which he accorded to others. Would that this were so today! I am sorry that you have laid this failing solely at the feet of the Tea Party and the GOP for I have found it to exist in equal measure across all American and Canadian political parties. I suspect that it exists, to some degree at least, in political parties everywhere.

I think that Madison missed an important observation however. He, as you do, assumed that any system embodying democratic character must use elections as a fair and equitable means , ""......in which representatives are chosen to negotiate differences......"".

It seems to me that this is erroneous. Elections are a major cause of factions-of-hate coming into existence. Elections, contrary to our stated philosophy, do not elect "the best person for the job". Candidates are put forward by political parties (factions) and are controlled by them so as to serve the interests of those political parties. The aims and goals of those political parties are not the same as the aims and goals of the electorate. Those political parties are wont to sell out to the highest bidder. When this happens we end up with a democracy in name only for the majority of "our" representatives, aren't "our" representatives at all but are representing those who have bought the political party with which they are associated. This is as true of those parties which are considered 'left, liberal or progressive' as it is of those on the 'right'.

When goaded by inflammatory rhetoric by both sides, the citizens feel that it is incumbent upon them to "choose a side" and stick with it come hell or high water. To excuse its sins and errors and extol its virtues. This is fine but they are also goaded into making ridiculous charges against those who support other points of view.

I, for one, flat out do not believe the common accusations each side makes against "them evil others." And this method of dealing with opposing opinions leaves people blindly following one party line and never even hearing what anyone else says.

But my biggest complaint is that it causes people to lose any semblance of respect for those who hold differing opinions. Not just lose respect for those opinions, you understand, but lose respect for their fellow citizens, human beings like themselves, who hold those opinions.

This lack of respect quickly degenerates into name calling and then demonizing of "them others" as "evil beings" who need not truly be considered human at all, who want to "impose" their "evil agenda" upon all free men.

The truth is that different people think very differently and this difference leads them to hold differing ideas about what things like democracy, freedom, etc., means to them. Since neither side is ever always correct - humans are not perfect enough to 'always' be right - it is relatively easy to find errors in the other guy's philosophy enough to demonize it and him.

And, to me, this all begins when we lose or fail to have, respect for the person. We have so intertwined the ideas which a person puts forward with the person himself, that we judge it fair dinkum to hate a person if we dislike his opinions.

This will not; this cannot, lead to any form of democracy in the long run. A democracy is composed of people; people judged equals in their humanity in spite of there being differences in their abilities and opinions. A democracy cannot be built by "demons" and "good guys" who are at war with each other within the nation. Or, for that matter, within the world. A democracy can only be built by a people whose respect for each other can withstand all attempts to demonize one portion of the population.

.

Well said. Since it's impossible to argue this point to those who do not share it, my current practice is to turn off, tune out, ignore them. Don't know if it helps them, but it does help me!

Skypixieo,

I really don't disagree with anything you say, other than to say a fuller reading of Madison would show he is much more sympathetic to your concern about how politics, even democratic politics, causes people to demonize one another. It's what Madison called "factionalism" and he knew it had caused the collapse of all previous republics before his.

Elections are divisive by their very nature since at the end of the day people have to decide what lever to pull. But politics do not need to be as divisive as they have been. This divide and conquer stuff using wedge issues has always been with us, but of late it seems to be worse. Maybe that is due to the power of media. And as someone who at various times has called himself a conservative and a liberal, a Republican and a Democrat, I know how much overlap there really is in issues. I still quote Madison and Walter Lippmann now that I am on the progressive side just as I did when I thought I was standing up for standards of civility and community against unchained egotism as a conservative. A lot of the polarization between us is artificial because our politics are filled with lies and deception.

This post has received a Readers' Picks award.

I'm glad this got an RP because I missed it. It's true, if we could stay with respecting the other while we disagree at least there would be less misery.

I try, Lord I do try but I'm human and I lose my cool but when I fail, all I can do is try again. Sometimes the best thing I can do is stay away from people if they're truly Toxic People.

Still, sometimes it feels fabulous to knock some fool in the head, if only to get a moment of quiet!

Thanks for the wisdom, perhaps we'll get there in degrees.

This is brilliant! We did teach respect for the views of others at one time. I did NOT mean that you had to agree with them. Somehow, somewhere, we went astray. Finding the path back will be hard.
I've been re-reading Machiavelli's ~ The Prince ~ lately. The first time I read it it seemed so wrong and from another time. It now sounds hauntingly familiar. R

So we should be tolerant of, the Ku Klux Klan, the Koch Brothers, the National Man Boy Love Association, the Communist Party and the militant jihadist Muslims.

I think I will stick to defining my enemies clearly. I will let them know that they are my enemies. As for my friends, I will look for friends who do not want to kill, enslave, steal from me or eat me, if you don't mind.

Oh Zuma! You naughty girl!

Where did I ever say that, '''.....we should be tolerant of, the Ku Klux Klan, the Koch Brothers, the National Man Boy Love Association, the Communist Party and the militant jihadist Muslims.""

This is a classic "straw man" argument. You imply that I said something which I have NOT said, and then argue against what YOU implied that I said.

My point - made over and over again - is that you are ALWAYS free to argue against ANY idea, concept, philosophy, political system, etc., etc. Ideas are ALWAYS open to examination and criticism..... ALWAYS!! But it is juvenile, immature, and unproductive to attack the person - unless, of course you think there is some value in having a fight over something - nasty names - that is not the point being argued!

All I ask is that you attack the IDEA..... NOT the person.

.

Even though it is couched in non-partisan (or political) terms, what is being suggested here is ideology, anti-capitalism ideology at that. Now, I do not at all regard that as a "bad" thing. However, it's seems based on a non-specific definition of human be-ing. What does it mean to be human? How does humanity manifest itself? A person can respect another person's "right" to be human until the cows come home but if one of those people are living a life that is contrary to being human (dog eat dog), asking the other person (who may very possibly be the "dog" being eaten) to respect the "eater's" humanity is a very bourgeois liberal way of defining respect and humanity. Not even Dr. King would advocate that. After all, even though it was non-violent, the Civil Rights Movement was a big act of DISrespect.

Siah,
Your comment is, perhaps, one of the best I've seen and I very much appreciate the thought you've put into it. Let me see if I can hold up my end.

First of all let me make clear that I am a dedicated capitalist. That being said, I DO NOT share with the lib/left their definition of capitalism as a "dog-eat-dog" economic system. What you/they describe is what Americans call capitalism. It is actually a hybrid of capitalism grafted onto a feudalistic pyramid of power. I usually refer to it as "greed capitalism".

For many years the Marxian concept of things included the term "political-economics". Greed capitalists have shown us the true meaning of that term. My position is that we must very carefully make a clear distinction between our "political" (or social) system and our economic system.

In our present set-up we've allowed the rules by which capitalist economics works to dominate our social system, and our present mess is the result of that. We forgot that our economic system is only a tool; and a very dangerous one at that. It can produce excellent results when used properly and when kept under strict control and regulation by the social system.

The social system is king of systems. A social system comes into being when people gather together for mutual comfort, protection, aid, and all those things that are too numerous to mention. In order to effect the orderly and useful "state of survival/comfort" an economic system is a necessary tool.

Because we, in a North American dominated world, have forgotten the reason we have societies, we have let the economic system provide one for us - sheer, raw profit. To make things worse, we have subjugated much of our social system to the goals and methods of our economic system. We've also allowed ourselves to "believe" that social democracy can only occur as part of economic democracy. And that is just not true. That is like saying that we can only use fire to warm our homes if we allow fire to take control and burn the house down.

We can, right now, see what the results of doing that are! Not too pretty, is it? Y'see, my friend, capitalism has no brain. Not even a rudimentary one that would tell it that if it exists in an unregulated and uncontrolled state, then it will devour itself in the end; and us right along with it!

Our present society has two broad attitudes to this state of affairs. One side sees the dangers of an unregulated, uncontrolled, economic system dominating our society and the other seems to want more control of our society by the economic system and for our system to concern itself with only economic rules and aims.

Unfortunately, while the economic system gets the blame for many of our troubles, it is actually our lack of control of it that is to blame. Heck, you can't blame a fire for burning all it can reach that is burnable. That's what fire does. That's its reason for being. Capitalism too tries to engulf all it can reach. It, like fire, can be a wonderful tool - as a master it sucks. big time!

This essay certainly derives from my socio/economic philosophy. As I see things at present, we are trying to determine what direction will best carry us on into the future we want to leave to our children and their children for many generations to come.

Both the pro-greed capitalists and the anti-capitalists are shouting as loudly as they can. Neither side is listening to the other at all. And the shouting match is heating up. We are no longer giving to "them others" the usual, normal human respect that they deserve. We're demonizing them. This is usually a preparation for bloodshed. It is hard to murder fellow human beings - it is easy as pie to kill off a bunch of dastardly demons.

It makes me very sad to see how easily so many people have turned to socialism, without ever knowing what it is, on the assumption that it will be better than what we now have, since it is not thought to be dominated by an economic system. Have you ever asked a socialist just what economic system he proposes we adopt? The only answer to that question that I've ever gotten from a socialist is "not this one"!!

The socialist crowd, by and large, want a revolution. If that means violence, they'll accept that. I don't. I'm convinced, by history, that violent revolution just means starting all over again from scratch. That is not a step up. It is time for us to work out a means of determining our social goals. Then creating a plan to implement those goals. Whatever those goals may be, we will need an organized society and we'll need the tools of an organized society. One of those tools will be an economic system. I think that capitalism, properly controlled and regulated, is the Rolls Royce of economic systems. It can do the job expected of an economic system better than any other that I know of.

But we cannot even get started at this until we learn to give each other the respect that is due to each and every one of us as human beings. As long as this shouting match is going on, we're fucked.

Your point that the civil rights movement was "an act of disrespect" is only partly true. I'm 71 years old; I was involved up to my eyeballs in that movement. What we "disrespected" was the philosophy of disrespect for other human beings by the establishment. So.... was "our" disrespect for disrespect any better than "their" disrespect? I like to think that it was. We disrespected a philosophy of disrespect - they disrespected fellow human beings.

The whole point of this blog was to indicate that it is perfectly OK to disrespect, argue against, revile and attack IDEAS if you think them in error; but it is NOT alright to disrespect fellow human beings just because we think them wrong.

Hope that makes things a bit clearer....Sky

Hi Sky,

Thanks for clarifying what you are expressing. I am not at all sure about the ability/willingness/openness to regulate capitalism and keep it in check. It seems to me that in order for that economic system to operate on the level of humanity (as opposed to the current level of inhumanity), it would end up regulated into another kind of existence . If that turns out to be socialism that wouldn't be a bad thing from my perspective.

However, much to my surprise and yes, discomfort, I am finding that the violence that currently dominates the world is slowly and with a certain amount of hemming and hawing, transforming me into a "peacenik". In other words, to be violent (read disrespectful) is to be like "them" and not only do I not want to be like "them", I don't want my eight year old son to grow up and become a sacrifice to/for "their" ideals of greed, greed and more greed. I don't want that for my son and I don't want that for some other mother's son regardless of where that "other" mother lives: in her own private Idaho, Occupied Palestine, Fallujah, Anaheim, etc. If I really believe that, then I have to start somewhere and as much as I find it a struggle to express respect to someone whose life/economics/politics, etc manifests the essence of disrespect and inhumanity, change has to start somewhere and it's not with thinking inside the box. Thanks and Respect.