Bipartisan...how do we get there?

[mom31257]

I am not trying to raise an ugly debate, but I would like some simple solutions. I don't know if this meets the guidelines for a discussion that will be allowed, but I hope so.

 

How can we, as a country, arrive at a state of being bipartisan? I see so much that appears to me as each side considering the other the enemy. I don't see how anything can every truly be accomplished. I am more conservative, although I really find pros and cons on BOTH sides.

 

I realize that some of the differences are huge gulfs that seem uncrossable, but I really, really want comprise and a coming together for our country. I want a great future here for my kids and future generations.

 

I do think that power corrupts, even the best of people. I, therefore, believe that term limits could help prevent some of that. I do not see how a vote by the people it would actually put out of office eventually could ever come about.

[Moxie]

I don't think we can get there. We can have respectful debates but there will always be people strongly on both sides of an argument.

 

And I agree. TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS!!!!!

[jld]

I think wars like the Civil War and the Revolutionary War were fought because there just wasn't any way to compromise. Are we allowing slavery or are we not? Are we an independent country or are we not?

 

For today . . . Are gay people allowed to marry or are they not? Are women allowed to have abortions or are they not? Do parents ultimately have schooling authority over their children or do they not? Are wealthy people obliged to contribute more to the greater good or are they not? Is there global warming or is there not? Where is the compromise on these issues?

[Hockey Mom]

I happen to think that having two opposing sides is a good thing.

[JenneinCA]

I think the first step would be to recognize that the other side has looked at the situation and made a different choice. The other side is not stupid or morally corrupt or evil just because they didn't reach the same conclusion that you did.

 

So far, I haven't seen this happen.

[TXMomof4]

I don't know that it's possible. The view of what America is and should be is radically different and while there are areas that could be compromised on, the basis for agreement has to be what is best for the country and what direction the country should be heading.

 

It's like two people deciding to go on a trip. One wants the north pole, one wants the south - how do you come to an agreement other than to sit still and go nowhere? Somehow that's not a satisfying answer either, is it?

[Ellie]

The reason there are [at least] two different "sides" is that each side has a different point of view. Of course they aren't going to agree on everything, or even agree on most things. They *need* to debate things and work out the compromises, and sometimes there isn't even a good compromise so one or the other has to take a stand. I would expect them to do that.

 

Which is, of course, one reason that we should vote out the incumbents so there will be new points of view. I don't think people should stay in office for 50 years, for goodness' sake.

[LibraryLover]

I think people need to realize that times have been worse, times have been better. I think folks like Glenn Beck contribute to the problem. And Bill Maher for that matter. They work people into a frenzy of partisan. Glen more than Bill. ;)

 

I survivied Bush, Glenn will survive Obama.

[FairProspects]

I don't know that it's possible. The view of what America is and should be is radically different and while there are areas that could be compromised on, the basis for agreement has to be what is best for the country and what direction the country should be heading.

 

It's like two people deciding to go on a trip. One wants the north pole, one wants the south - how do you come to an agreement other than to sit still and go nowhere? Somehow that's not a satisfying answer either, is it?

 

:iagree:In addition, people in different areas deal with radically different problems. I think it would be very hard to find a compromise that most people can appreciate.

[Dana]

I think the first step would be to recognize that the other side has looked at the situation and made a different choice. The other side is not stupid or morally corrupt or evil just because they didn't reach the same conclusion that you did.

 

So far, I haven't seen this happen.

 

:iagree:

[momzilla333]

I don't know that it's possible. The view of what America is and should be is radically different and while there are areas that could be compromised on, the basis for agreement has to be what is best for the country and what direction the country should be heading.

 

It's like two people deciding to go on a trip. One wants the north pole, one wants the south - how do you come to an agreement other than to sit still and go nowhere? Somehow that's not a satisfying answer either, is it?

 

Well, they could just go where each chose to go and meet back up at the equator afterward. But then there's an argument over whether anyone is even allowed to go to the north pole? And the south pole advocate is absolutely adamant that the north pole is immoral and NOBODY should be allowed to go there at all. Then what...:confused:

[QueenCat]

I wish more parties had a real say in things in the Congress, and our political world. The Republican party today represents the far right, the Democratic party represent the far left, and no one truly represents the middle. Most people I know are in the middle. Which should never be confused as being indifferent, but often is....

[TXMary2]

I don't think it is possible. Until the people regain control over the corrupt government, nothing substantial will change. There should be Term Limits, even for the Supreme Court.

[Margaret in GA]

I don't think term limits are the answer, I think money is the answer. If you force politicians for Congress or President or Governor- whatever- to accept public funds and keep those funds capped... well then, problem solved. No more corporate interest dollars. No more special interest dollars. Just people. Informed citizens making a choice. That's your answer. The problem with term limits in my opinion is that you will just get well-funded machines (Republican Party/ Democratic Party) that are hand picking candidates to use as puppets. It's already happening to a large degree-- they groom state congressmen to be secretary of state then governor then congressmen, on and on.

[Laurie4b]

For me the issue is not so much bipartisanship, but being more focused on the good of the country than the good of the party or the ambition of the individual. I've grown quite cynical and think there are very few principled people in power. I've seen both sides sell out principle for political power. I've seen both sides say their principle is X (when it favors them), then when the situation is different, they say with a straight face that their principle is Y. Or a party says they believe morally Z, then one of their own does something anti-Z and "crickets", but let someone from the other party do a similar thing and they are calling for resignation.

 

I would like our Congress to be less like two rival football teams with sleezy coaches taking advantage of the rules for their gain, then protesting the rules when they will benefit the other team. I don't care that the two parties have different positions; I care that they don't actually have principles and that power appears to trump all.

[TXMary2]

I don't think term limits are the answer, I think money is the answer. If you force politicians for Congress or President or Governor- whatever- to accept public funds and keep those funds capped... well then, problem solved. No more corporate interest dollars. No more special interest dollars. Just people. Informed citizens making a choice. That's your answer. The problem with term limits in my opinion is that you will just get well-funded machines (Republican Party/ Democratic Party) that are hand picking candidates to use as puppets. It's already happening to a large degree-- they groom state congressmen to be secretary of state then governor then congressmen, on and on.

 

I think the public funds is a good idea but it also isn't the lone answer - put that and term limits along with some other strict rules. Prosecute politicians that are dirty- that needs to be done too.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I'm not sure I'm exactly articulating what I feel, or that I even have a well-formed opinion, but here goes: ;)

 

If the federal gov't had less control then every single issue wouldn't have to be so polarizing. People could choose to live in states where their beliefs were most reflected. It seems that no matter what states choose to do, the feds come in and make whatever decision they feel is best. There are times when that is appropriate, but if the federal gov't were less intrusive then we wouldn't have to worry about finding middle ground on everything (which is impossible anyway.)

 

Does that make sense to anyone besides me?

[Perry]

No more corporate interest dollars. No more special interest dollars. Just people. Informed citizens making a choice. That's your answer.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[momzilla333]

I don't think term limits are the answer, I think money is the answer. If you force politicians for Congress or President or Governor- whatever- to accept public funds and keep those funds capped... well then, problem solved. No more corporate interest dollars. No more special interest dollars. Just people. Informed citizens making a choice. That's your answer. The problem with term limits in my opinion is that you will just get well-funded machines (Republican Party/ Democratic Party) that are hand picking candidates to use as puppets. It's already happening to a large degree-- they groom state congressmen to be secretary of state then governor then congressmen, on and on.

 

Yes, my biggest concern is big money and lobbyists having way too much control over policy. Time after time, good policy is abandoned because of money invested by special interests. It's so frustrating.

[Mommy to monkeys]

I'm not sure I'm exactly articulating what I feel, or that I even have a well-formed opinion, but here goes: ;)

 

If the federal gov't had less control then every single issue wouldn't have to be so polarizing. People could choose to live in states where their beliefs were most reflected. It seems that no matter what states choose to do, the feds come in and make whatever decision they feel is best. There are times when that is appropriate, but if the federal gov't were less intrusive then we wouldn't have to worry about finding middle ground on everything (which is impossible anyway.)

 

Does that make sense to anyone besides me?

 

:iagree:I completely agree. With the federal government having SO much control OVER everything, it can leave one with a feeling of nowhere to go. . . My husband and I have joked that we should move to Texas simply because the right to secede is in their state constitution.;)

[Scuff]

I don't necessarily think we should. We all do have very different opinions. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think it's good for our country to debate and hash things out, even if it takes longer to accomplish things.

[ma23peas]

:iagree:I completely agree. With the federal government having SO much control OVER everything, it can leave one with a feeling of nowhere to go. . . My husband and I have joked that we should move to Texas simply because the right to secede is in their state constitution.;)

 

I agree with both of you...thanks for reminding me about Texas...dh and I have semi-seriously considered moving to New Zealand, then they stopped the flood gates for immigrating and now it's on a lottery/needs basis which we'd likely never win...Australia is a close second, but they have their issues as well..I would be HAPPY to have states decide for themselves...no problem with changing to The States of America...and the only thing uniting us be the interstates. Because we are so far from united right now....

[Scuff]

I don't think term limits are the answer, I think money is the answer. If you force politicians for Congress or President or Governor- whatever- to accept public funds and keep those funds capped... well then, problem solved. No more corporate interest dollars. No more special interest dollars. Just people. Informed citizens making a choice. That's your answer. The problem with term limits in my opinion is that you will just get well-funded machines (Republican Party/ Democratic Party) that are hand picking candidates to use as puppets. It's already happening to a large degree-- they groom state congressmen to be secretary of state then governor then congressmen, on and on.

 

That sounds dangerous to me. Caps sounds good, but not public funds. I don't want the government having it's hand in politicians any more than I want corperations.

[mcconnellboys]

I agree with strict term limits at all levels of government. I am with you, though, in thinking that it might be too late to achieve that. I feel that our political class has set itself up as the new feudal aristrocracy of our time, with the rest of us slowly (or maybe not so slowly soon enough) slipping into serfdom....

[PineFarmMom]

I agree with strict term limits at all levels of government. I am with you, though, in thinking that it might be too late to achieve that. I feel that our political class has set itself up as the new feudal aristrocracy of our time, with the rest of us slowly (or maybe not so slowly soon enough) slipping into serfdom....

 

:iagree: I read an article about this recently. The slowly part is maybe why it hasn't been seen for what it is.

 

I also agree with what Georgianna said. That is pretty much how dh and I feel.

 

Living in TX, people do seem to have those bumper stickers everywhere: "Secede" While I feel it sounds like such a great idea sometimes, I don't think people have fully thought out what that could mean. It wouldn't happen without opposition and it could be long, drawn out and ugly.

[katemary63]

 

And I agree. TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS!!!!!

 

:iagree: Eliminate career politicians and we will eliminate at least some of the motive for being so ugly with each other.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I wish more parties had a real say in things in the Congress, and our political world. The Republican party today represents the far right, the Democratic party represent the far left, and no one truly represents the middle. Most people I know are in the middle. Which should never be confused as being indifferent, but often is....

 

If you follow the politics of a country that has lots of parties, what often happens is that you still have a far left and right. But neither of them get the majority needed to form a government outright. So they end up having to form a coalition with other, even smaller parties, who often represent not the middle ground, but rather viewpoints that are even farther to the extreme. And the party has to govern with this coalition in mind. So they end up catering to the extreme viewpoints so that the coalition doesn't fall apart.

 

Having more parties doesn't mean moderation in governing.