What would it take to unite the U.S. citizenry?

Limbaugh's philosophy was to denigrate moderate Republicans who compromised, like McCain, and build an aggrieved white base against perceived 'elite' politicians. His philosophy worked to bring more power and control, but it also divided the party between moderates who see compromise as important in a democracy to govern, and hardliners that believe any compromise is to be labeled a liberal. The outcome is the current House, unable to govern and moderates looking for the exits. Trump knew how to exploit this base to perfection with his authoritarianism and claimed victimhood, providing cover for propaganda, crimes and fomenting violence, like J6. This is probably why he honored Limbaugh with a Congressional Medal of Honor.

Biden is not perfect by any stretch, but he's gotten important legislation passed that helps the country as a whole, like infrastructure and CHIPS, and represents the choice for Democracy at home and abroad.

 

How should hardliners have compromised on the recent bill funding foreign wars and spying on citizens ?

 

Ordinarily, I would just skip this as a differing opinion, but wow, that's hardly how I recall history.

Unity was gone long before Obama took office. Not sure we've been unified since the Nixon years except the brief period after 911. . It probably got worse under Obama simply because some could not accept his presidency. As for flaunting his majority, that's funny. Every Prez has done that. Even those that didn't have much of one including GWB.

The Iranians released the hostages because they hated Carter lecturing them on human rights not because of anything Reagan did. As for good guy Reagan, he was a good cheerleader, but he also lied about the Iran Contra scandal and it was swept under the rug thanks to bill Barr and company.
Bush lying about WMD was another contributing factor in distrust of government. Not to mention the epic economic collapse.
The political assignment of ken starr to investigate the Clintons and the resulting impeachment proceedings weren't exactly unifying events either. Clinton's Lewinsky affair certainly energized the Family Values/Limbaugh crowd

If things got ugly when Obama took office it had nothing to do with compromise. In fact Obama stopped trying to compromise because there was no one to compromise with. The Rs stated goal was to oppose every bit of legislation he offered.

All that said, no President has been more divisive than trump, not even close.

 

War

 

unity is not needed. it may not even be healthy. we need decency. that's all.

 

Corruption can take many forms, but Id suggest the first barrier to getting a third party is the voters. I frequently bring up voting third party on here, and 90% of posters tell me how idiotic that would be because it would mean throwing away their votes.

If we did get somehow get over this hurdle to establish a legitimate third party threat, we’d then have to deal with corruption of that party itself. People really want a tribe that is engaged against other tribes, and it would take a most celestial effort to keep out hypothetical party from falling into that black hole.

 

I think journalist Jonathan Rauch put it nicely when he wrote that we don’t need everyone to agree on the same facts, just a critical mass to agree on the process to determine the facts. I don’t think we all need to have the same favorite team, but we do need to agree on the rules of the game.

And I also think doc is right that part of this includes showing respect for opposing players.

 

If there is a process to determine the facts, that would mean that facts are contestable. I suppose what liberals and centrists cant agree on is that politics should determine facts, which is probably why they are having such a hard time with an opposition that does think that. From what I can tell, the people that don't like politics want politics to be some kind of dispassionate administrative task refereed by supposedly neutral bodies like courts or various government institutions (like the BLS, GAO, etc), but its not, so they should probably wise up in that regard and start contesting facts rather than complaining about "disinformation." Ultimately I think its kind of a mistake to believe that there is some kind of objective reality that you can just point to that will just instantly resolve debates. But that's what some very smart people seem to long for, hopelessly.

 

And so it was that the DHS created a sister organization to the TSA known as the Recreation Safety Authority, or RSA, and if we wanted to go to a ball game, we had to line up to be groped, X-rayed, and take our shoes off. And just as planes were landed for unruly passengers, so it was that college and professional sporting events were called for two drunk rednecks fighting in the stands.

As terrible as such an attack would be, count on the response to suck even worse in the long run.

As tired as people get of the divisiveness, there is freedom in the chaos. It isn't all bad. As much as they claim to hate them and vow to hunt them down and bring them to justice, whatever that means, terrorists certainly are a handy plot device for power-mad politicians and enforcement agencies.

 

I agree with you that the search for a criterion for truth is hopeless, and as a result I think that it must be politics that determines facts. That said, just because he process is political doesn’t mean it must be arbitrary or worse relative. Elections are political, and at least until recently most of us accepted their results as legitimate. I know you don’t like the court system, which is understandable given its flaws. The challenge is that any alternative system would likely offer similar flaws, and of course we somehow have to determine a system for determining what system we will adopt. Still we need to select some common system because we can’t be running around with 5 presidents and 3 militaries.

 

I believe that a successful third party would need to focus on grass roots appeals, and local elections. Basically follow much the same path the Republicans have followed, just without the gross gerrymandering. We would be looking at a 10-15 year build of momentum with the first national goals being to grab a not-insignificant number of seats in the House of Representatives. A number large enough to remind other house reps that they are not in the house to vote along party lines, or even to "vote their conscience", but to vote the will of their electorate.

 

Well, to get an alternative system, you still have to do politics ... build support and legitimacy.

 

Fusion voting is the new buzzword. I've read a little about it and it seems like a good idea, and I had no idea that it was pretty common place in American until after the Civil War (when many Republican states banned it). A few states still have it though. I dont think its a panacea, but its an interesting way for people to support third parties and negating the "throwing your vote away" argument.

 

Interesting post 833.
This little factoid will upset folks but..........

Ah, WHO were the terrorists in 1492?
Ah, WHO were the terrorists in the Colonies prior to the revolution?
Ah, WHO were the terrorists pushing N American Westward Expansion, post 1781?
Ah, WHO were the terrorists invading - China, India, Australia, Canada, and almost the Entire World? Limey Gator may be able to answer this one.
Ah, WHO were the terrorists in what is now Israel, pre 1948?

It's always interesting to bring up historical timelines and gauge persons reactions, especially when it comes to politics, nations, political bounderies, etc.

 

Thanks. I have never heard the term before. I will look into it now that you have introduced it here.

 

I tried to post a link earlier, but my computer was flaking. Here's an overview.

Fusion voting, explained

 

Short answer - for the oppressed to accept their fate without complaint or demand for equality

 

From what I've been hearing, when one allows themself to watch/read the other sides news and at the same time, reads/watches news sources that are NOT an echo chamber, they soften their stance and realize they have to do more investigating on the "facts".