A Question for BG's Political Folk

[Marootsoobutsu]

So I've been thinking a lot lately about how divided America's become politically. There's not a lot of dialogue that seems to happen, and there's a lot of misunderstandings about what's really important about what's important.

So, I have a couple of questions.

First, what is the absolute single <b>most</b> important political question for you? And, which political question(s) would you concede, even temporarily, if the other side of the aisle would grant it?

Second, what do you think most people on the other side of the aisle find the single most important issue, and what political questions would they have to concede before you would consider the compromise fairly won for your side?

And while I know the initial impulse for many is to say, "We can't give up anything! It's human rights! It's too important" Consider that the other side of the aisle legitimately believes the same (however valid or invalid you find their perspectives, they are equally convicted), an an insistence on absolute victory or nothing isn't politics, it's incredibly divisive, and it's contrary to negotiation. The idea is to feel like you gained more than you gave up, while at the same time finding out what is MOST important to the "other side"-- it's amazing what kind of revelations you can have about your fellow humans when you're more interested in understanding than persuading. It's also amazing how often you can be fighting over things that you don't need to be fighting about, because you want different parts of the same thing, neither of which is exclusive... it's just that the habit of fighting is so strongly ingrained, and the belief that "I want X policy for Y reason, they must want Not X for Y reason."

There are some things that can be parceled up-- the economy, education, and other issues are so multi-faceted, that we're really talking about a whole variety of issues. But others tend to be pretty all-or-nothing for folks. And so, I want to know: What are your all or nothings? What would you be willing to concede to get them? What do you think the other side values most, and what would you demand in return? What could you live without, what must be won fastest and first?

[Byrthnoth]

First) I typically vote Democrat, but I don't have a particular issue that I care about (healthy, well educated white male who would have to really seriously fuck up to not end up at least middle class). What I care about is that decisions are made after looking at the available evidence and interpreting it in a logically sound manner, ideally gathering more data if the results are ambiguous. I'm willing to concede on any point I support that is not supported by a reasonable interpretation of all available data.

Second) I think that the Republican base is filled with fervent single issue voters. The party may be on the right side of some issues (some economic issues?), but ultimately it feels that they just are pick their stances to attract single issue voters. If they were willing to collect and examine data without obvious bias, I would consider the issue won.

[synistar]

I'm a registered American Independent, which means absolutely nothing. I place myself in the middle-left in the political spectrum and voted Libertarian as to hope that a 3rd party could gain access to federal election funding.

Biggest question that impacts me in the near-term is affordable housing. Seeing as how real estate is constantly in a boom-bust cycle, what can the government do to stabilize and reduce the risk of any new homeowner and entice millennials to buy property? I know it's a complex question with many different cogs to the machine. I don't even know of any solutions to help this problem with the exception of helping college grads trim down debt and prop up stagnant wages. I would concede as compromise either the XL Pipeline issue or fracking regulations (or to some extent, reduction in some environmental regulations). I don't like it, but if it means getting more jobs and more money in the pockets of workers and improving the economy, it's kinda win/win for both businesses and the working class.

It's hard for me to pinpoint a single issue the right identifies so strongly with. I'll settle with immigration reform. I understand as a Californian how much illegal immigration strains infrastructure and services. On the converse side, these people are willing to work and contribute to society and willing to be law abiding citizens (most of the time.) Amnesty is such a taboo word in immigration reform because I know first hand how unfair it is to immigrate legally. My mom petitioned her brother for a green card in 1985. We didn't get a response from the INS until 2009. I would concede more funding to lock off our borders to illegal immigration if it means meaningful reform in processing legal petitions to immigrate. 24 years for a relative to have an interview for a green card is ridiculous. Fix that problem and maybe we would have more legal law-abiding residents that are willing to help the US grow.

[Rooney]

Single biggest issue for me would be civil rights. I'd be willing to concede somewhat on economic policy to get to the point that we're not systematically discriminating against people "because" (Bible, different, eww, etc).

I'd say the right is full of single issue voters as well, but probably the biggest sticking points are "Christian" ideals being put into law and cutting the budget. I'd absolutely be willing to work on decreasing the overall size of the budget, but not doing so purely by budget cuts. Some areas need more spending (infrastructure, research, education) while others could be cut a lot (military). Religion in laws, well, I'm not really willing to compromise on that, so I wouldn't be much help in that regard. I'd be cool with it as long as all groups are provided for (Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc), but I'm pretty sure that would make any bill dead on arrival to the right.

I'm like Byrth in that I will readily concede a point if you can show me good evidence and reasoning as to why I am mistaken. Starting an explanation of your position with "the Bible says so" or "that's the way it's always been" are good ways to make me go NOPE and pull back from compromising.

[Olo401]

For me right now it's a single issue with multiple fronts - voting and elections. The individual right to vote has been eroded all over the place by Voter ID laws, state assembly & congressional districts have been gerrymandered beyond reason, and there is FAR too much money in the campaigns and too little oversight in how that money is raised and used. I've also believed for a long time that the number of members of Congress is insufficient for our population AND very unbalanced (some Reps have ~1 million constituents, some have 400k) and that number needs to be at least doubled (900-1200 members) and re-balanced in order to represent the citizens more effectively.

[Marootsoobutsu]

First) I typically vote Democrat, but I don't have a particular issue that I care about (healthy, well educated white male who would have to really seriously fuck up to not end up at least middle class). What I care about is that decisions are made after looking at the available evidence and interpreting it in a logically sound manner, ideally gathering more data if the results are ambiguous. I'm willing to concede on any point I support that is not supported by a reasonable interpretation of all available data.

Second) I think that the Republican base is filled with fervent single issue voters. The party may be on the right side of some issues (some economic issues?), but ultimately it feels that they just are pick their stances to attract single issue voters. If they were willing to collect and examine data without obvious bias, I would consider the issue won.

If I am reading you correctly, your primary concern is less about /what/ is decided, than on /how/ it is decided: a scientific approach that is openly considered, maleable (ie-- changes as the evidence changes), with as much (all?) bias removed as possible. To /me/, this sounds like a combination of education, removal of money from politics, and potentially removal of religious language from political discourse-- those may not be your issues, but those seem to be at least (perceived or actual) stepping stones to more closely arrive at your core issue, which is the methodology of legislation and political discourse. Is that conclusion fair?


Synistar--
Interesting! It's funny, because my wife and I are in the process of buying our first home at the moment, but affordable housing wasn't one of the things I considered for this discussion; it should have been-- it's an issue I've been playing with philosophically for a while, replacing banks with barons in a "how are things different from the middle ages?" mental game.

So, for your point, affordable housing seems to be less about affordable housing per se, than that affordable housing is a symptom of unlivable wages, brought about either by too low wages, too much debt, unreasonable/unreliable housing prices, or some combination of the three (plus possibly other rising costs of living?). Is that a fair reading of your perspective?

For your concession, you looked at environmental issues that intersect business, particularly Big Oil (pipeline, fracking).



As for the "Single Issue Voter" front... the left has its share of those, too-- Women's Rights (including abortion), gay rights, unions, welfare, race-relations... all of those have more than a few folks who identify HARD with one of those, and nothing else matters. Don't get me wrong-- the Republicans definitely have their fair share of single-issue voters, but I think folks do a very strong disservice to their fellow man if it gets reductionist like that. Most Republicans I know would submit that their "decisions are made after looking at the available evidence and interpreting it in a logically sound manner, ideally gathering more data if the results are ambiguous."

As food for thought, consider this: far more people become Republicans as they age than become Democrats. Republicans (at least as of 2008; the gap is closing and has essentially already closed among women), had higher rages of high school graduation, higher rates of bachelors degrees, and even higher rates of post-grad degrees-- though it is true that many of these Republicans were Democrats, or at least liberals, at the time of receiving these degrees. If we labor under the assumption that people do not lightly change their beliefs, we're led to assume they have seen /something/ to persuade them they were wrong, and to change their positions (and I will be the first to admit that it is usually economics rather than social issues that provides this catalyst). It's not just 'BIBLE SAYS!', though the Bible may inform their starting perspective; citing myself, I came to the Bible after (and in part because of) political persuasion-- a decision that has largely cost me my family on both sides (my mother's, hyper-liberals who detest all forms of religion and the religious as bigoted extremists, my father's, half because "If you aren't a Democrat you're unAmerican, and half because I do crazy things like discourage Obama-bashing, research (to at least *any* degree), positions, and try to understand those who disagree with me).

There are some folks who I just accept I will never understand-- Maz was one, Hey was another-- while there are others I understand, even if I disagree with. And then there are those who I think I understand, and in reality don't. And I see, on BG in particular but on the internet broadly, a great many people who absolutely misrepresent what I believe or simply do not understand it. For now, I would much rather understand perspectives, and break them down to components for clarity-- Bryth, others, if I'm completely misreading you, or if my break-downs do not explain you, definitely let me know. Part of the reason for my asking on compromise is to find out not only what you value most, but also what you value least or at least what you value /differently/-- and to get an idea of what folk on the left think folk on the right value (and, for the rare BG conservative, vice versa).

[BaneTheBrawler]

My biggest specific issue is campaign financing. I loathe how this country has become a mockery of democracy, and I attribute much of that to campaign financing. I feel like it's the linchpin that holds this farce together.

[Melena]

Single biggest thing for me is housing. Where I live, housing costs have been driven up significantly due to a lack of affordable homes (talking homes that are in a decent area near jobs that would be below 500k) is causing rents to skyrocket. Everything I read in the local paper is houses that go up for sale are pretty much being swallowed up in cash only purchases, primarily as investment opportunities, especially with china, especially if they are sending kids over here to go to college. I'm currently right now paying about 1850 a month for a small 2 bedroom since I have absolutely no chance at a mortgage right now due to a lack of down payment and people who are selling are taking the cash up front options predominantly.

[Byrthnoth]

If I am reading you correctly, your primary concern is less about /what/ is decided, than on /how/ it is decided: a scientific approach that is openly considered, maleable (ie-- changes as the evidence changes), with as much (all?) bias removed as possible. To /me/, this sounds like a combination of education, removal of money from politics, and potentially removal of religious language from political discourse-- those may not be your issues, but those seem to be at least (perceived or actual) stepping stones to more closely arrive at your core issue, which is the methodology of legislation and political discourse. Is that conclusion fair?

The things you named would be nice and I'd like them to happen because I believe they'd be socially beneficial, but none of them are an absolute necessary.

* I'd like a better education system, because many Americans can't logic their way out of a wet paper bag.
* I'd like less money in politics, but my proposed request wouldn't really address that. Lobbyists would just pay for biased studies instead of directly buying votes via campaign contributions.
* I don't really care about religious language. We occasionally even need legislation about religion in order to prevent discrimination. However, religious beliefs are not facts and shouldn't be legislated for/against.

The support of education and general fact-friendly demeanor are the main reasons the DNC platform appeals to me. Their candidates also seem more likely to take evidence-based approaches. GOP reps are regularly on TV spouting obvious bullshit and whenever you hear about someone trying to stifle the flow of information (for instance, forbidding the EPA from seeking expert advice or evaluating gun violence) it's inevitably the GOP.

I'm not sure what "women's rights" is, but I have to imagine it's a lot of issues from abortion to guaranteed maternity leave to generally assuming women are capable of working as hard as men. I've been hanging out in liberal circles (academia) for a long time and have yet to meet someone who votes democrat because of abortion. Roe vs. Wade is done and there's no real reason to keep single issue voting for it. However, I have met some people who vote Democrat because Republicans slip up and say sexist bullshit way too regularly. "Gay rights" is a similar umbrella term. Unions and welfare probably do attract some single issue voters on the Democrat side. Honestly, I don't deal with union members very often and don't have any real way to estimate the clout that issue might have.

The issue with a lot of the disputed single issue voting examples you gave is that they're really only single issues if you have the contrary opinion. For instance, I'm sure some people vote Republican because they're anti-abortion crusaders. Some people probably vote republican because they're anti-gay crusaders. Some people probably vote republican because they don't feel women should be equal to men. Some people vote republican because they're anti-"anything other than white." Some people vote republican because they're anti-government. Some people vote republican because it's the party of God (or so said my pastor). Those are the things I mean when I say "single issue voter." People who don't mind the status quo except for one issue and vote according to it.

[thetruepandagod]

First, what is the absolute single <b>most</b> important political question for you? And, which political question(s) would you concede, even temporarily, if the other side of the aisle would grant it?

Personal autonomy. There would be no need for any concessions.

[synistar]

Synistar--
Interesting! It's funny, because my wife and I are in the process of buying our first home at the moment, but affordable housing wasn't one of the things I considered for this discussion; it should have been-- it's an issue I've been playing with philosophically for a while, replacing banks with barons in a "how are things different from the middle ages?" mental game.

So, for your point, affordable housing seems to be less about affordable housing per se, than that affordable housing is a symptom of unlivable wages, brought about either by too low wages, too much debt, unreasonable/unreliable housing prices, or some combination of the three (plus possibly other rising costs of living?). Is that a fair reading of your perspective?

For your concession, you looked at environmental issues that intersect business, particularly Big Oil (pipeline, fracking).

It is such a complex problem. Those are some symptoms to this growing problem for individuals ages 18-40. I have the fortune of not being crippled with debt (graduated before tuition rose by 250% in a 5 year period ) and a stable job that I sometimes wish I could move on from (I hate being risk adverse, I enjoy stability). I would have moved on sooner if the job market didn't take a dive back in 2008-2010. What I ended up observing though is that millennials who graduated after me had 2 choices: suck it up and keep working that debt off or go back to school and get more debt. In the end, banks and businesses profited off the misery of new grads.

What millennials do not have is the chance to climb out of debt to make meaningful use of their degrees. Underemployment makes me fear that we're on the verge of another housing bubble. Unfair hiring practices compounds the issue as well. I can undoubtedly say I am part of the economic problem. I'm not spending enough to help nurse the economy to health. I'm saving a bunch of money because I have no damn clue when the next economic downturn is going to happen. I also wouldn't mind actually getting a house/property when the prices are sane. It's simple economics: a growing economy is one where money moves.

As socialist as it sounds, it would be good for the government to help the younger adults get on track to a career that gets them to pay taxes. Aid the housing market so the younger people can start spending hard earned money on things other than rent/leases. It would help establish a wide tax base and help solve other economic problems. Course it all comes down to "who will pay for this." The environment is probably the only marginal thing I could concede ground on without thinking of even more things. Energy independence is a good thing. It has helped depress oil prices. Course oil crashing hurt the industry as it got over saturated. But that's a whole other can of worms.

As a topic I would have ranked 2nd on my list: Domestic spending for infrastructure. Always the question of "who will pay for it?"

[Quicklet]

My biggest specific issue is campaign financing. I loathe how this country has become a mockery of democracy, and I attribute much of that to campaign financing. I feel like it's the linchpin that holds this farce together.

I think things are so broken with government that there's more than just one issue we need to address to fix things. Campaign financing (and income inequality by association) is at the top because it corrodes everything else when 90% of Americans have no influence on policy because they can't singlehandedly finance a politician's campaign. Numbers two and three would be lack of government accountability and science/infrastructure investment. Fixing those three systemic problems would make tackling a lot of the other important issues a lot easier. It's much easier to demagogue things like immigration and civil rights when a large portion of the population is still struggling economically.

Frankly, there's a significant portion of the conservative base that can't really be reasoned with right now. I think a lot of the moderates have either become Independent or Democrat, and the remaining coalition consists of a lot of the social and religious radicals that flat out don't want compromise. It's demographically unsustainable but I don't know when the breaking point will be. Losing in 2016 and having a third Democratic term in a row would speed things up but I think it's too early to tell how things are going to shake out.

[Ghost_Wheel22]

Reduction in political spending. I don't enjoy Koch and Bloomberg dollars sent from the other side of the country deciding how my county and state operates and not my vote.

[Andalusian girls]

i know it's the antithesis of what you desired but there are unconditional political positions where there is victory and there is defeat but there is no middle ground. there can be no compromise on issues like universal suffrage, segregation, miscegenation, the legality of abortion, marriage equality, etc; positions where discrimination is codified by law and enforced with the aggregated powers of the state, used to disenfranchise a subsection of society.

thankfully these issues are rare, particularly in today's society, and on everything else i am open to cooperation. indeed most issues have multiple rational solutions to them, often ideologically opposed but both viable and improvements on the status quo. administrative competency and being an adept enough political player to realize your ambitions are often more important than the particular positions being articulated.

for example, dependence on foreign oil could be resolved by increasing domestic oil production, or building a broad nuclear energy grid, or reducing domestic consumption + nurturing green energy production, or some combination of the above. i certainly have a rankings, but all will affect some good, and the candidate which can actually realize the least preferred will receive my support more readily than the incompetent or the dreamer who says the things i most desire to hear.