To that end, I wanted to say a few words about constructive discussion and destructive arguing. Unfortunately, I think this blog has seen some of both. When it comes to politics, I think we're all much too familiar with the consequences of destructive arguing. For many of us this is the very reason why we can't stand politics or politicians and why we choose not to engage in the process at all. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, our political opinions quickly become very personal to us and so I think we tend to defend them and argue against others' in emotional and destructive ways. The problem with this is that not only is it unhelpful and may even discourage people from participating, it focuses on who is right and who is wrong rather than what is right and what is wrong for us and our country.
Here's what I mean. In Matt's recent post regarding abortion, one line stuck out to me, "Sen Obama voted against every piece of legislation that would restrict abortion and . . . voted for legislation aimed at increasing education, including abstinence education, and access to pregnancy prevention. Sen McCain voted for every restriction on abortion and against education and prevention." I take this to mean that both Obama and McCain agree that abortion is wrong and is a problem that needs fixing, where they disagree is on their proposed solution to that problem. When viewed in this light, the differences between the candidates can be discussed in the same way we discuss differences in their policies on Iraq, the economy, foreign policy, energy or the many other important issues at stake in this election. Some of these issues are, and should be, more important to us personally, but that should be the driving force behind our voting decision, not behind how we discuss the issues that make up that voting decision.
Unfortunately, on this and other issues, instead of focusing on the policy differences and engaging in constructive debate, we argued--truly unfortunate and for which neither side of the arguments have been completely blameless. The arguments were destructive and provided no means for common understanding or further education.
Fortunately, we've also seen comments focusing not on the differences between us, but the differences between the candidates' positions. These contributors commented with respect for other's opinions and in return were given respect for theirs. It's important to note that these people disagreed--I'm not suggesting we all agree, quite the opposite--but they also came to respect each others' decisions as a result of their awareness of the factors that make up those decisions. Such understanding and education is exactly why I started this blog.
When we discuss constructively we (hopefully) allow ourselves to look at the decisions we are making and think about why it is that we disagree. This then allows us to either reconfirm our opinions or decide they need a shift, making us that much more informed and confident in our decision. When we argue destructively, we not only deepen the divide between us but deny ourselves the opportunity of continued education.
Now, my point is not to discourage further contributions by any who wish to do so--all are welcome at The Citizen Post, regardless of their opinion. What I am suggesting is that as we voice those opinions we do so with respect for those with whom we disagree and with a focus on the issues, and not on each other.
Thank you again for your contributions.
6 comments:
Wow! Thank you.
You got it right on. I think that's what happens with most campaigns. They stop focusing on the issues and focus on personalities, instead. We see that now. Good discussions always move us further along than name calling.
Thanks, Jed. And let me once again apologize for temporarily losing focus on what we should be about.
I served on a city council a long time ago, along with my friend Max Hall. We fought like tigers on the council floor, but never let it get personal. I've never been able to do that with anyone else. Pity.
Who ever put that politifact.com up, let's make sure we know it's clearly a DEMOCRATIC website. You should also add a republican or more conservative website as well. I think drudgereport.com is the best. Just a suggestion.
Amber! Welcome to The Citizen Post! Glad to have you, sit, stay awhile.
So I've never heard that politifact is left-leaning. I've found it to be fairly objective. For example, I used politifact to look up the stuff in your other comment about Obama receiving money from Fannie and Freddie people and McCain speaking out about the financial crisis. It pretty much supported what you said and ranked McCain's statements as "mostly true." It also keeps "truth-o-meter" files on both candidates and their VP's. It says Obama has made 30 "half true" statements, 16 "barely true," 22 "false" and 1 "pants on fire" and that McCain has made 24 "half true" statements, 27 "barely true," 28 "false" and 7 "pants on fire." You can also click on each category and see the actual statements made by each candidate. I think the fact that it calls both candidates out for lying and uses specific examples suggests it's balanced and unbiased.
However, I fully understand that I could be mistaken and so if you'd like to point out some of the content on the site that is misleading or untrue then I'd be happy to take the link down or put up a conservative link as well.
Thanks for chiming in!
I don't ever know what to trust, I obviously read a lot of right-wing blogs and websites. A lot of them have stuff that wouldn't be "included" on politifact.com for varies reasons. Politics sucks...there's just so much deceit. You don't have to add or remove anything because my stuff would probably cause an uproar. Thanks for your educated, unbiased opinions.
Post a Comment