Trying to find common ground

[pegkerr]

In thinking over today's comment thread, I started to wonder: what do all Americans really agree on, no matter which side they voted yesterday? What can we build from there? I'm groping for utterly non-controversal commonalities, that neither side can reasonably claim that they have "staked" for their side alone, but that all Americans can say, oh, of course, we all believe that, no question.

Um. That every child should be wanted and welcomed. [Some suggest that this is not acceptable to pro-lifers because it's too "coded" for pro-choice. Well, pro-lifers? Do you object to this?] [change to:] That every child would have a loving home. [Thanks ambar]

Clean air and water.

Safe food and medicine.

That old age should be free from the fear of want.

That we are I am secure within our borders and when we I travel abroad.

That there is a value to society in educating the next generation. [Although not all are willing to help pay for it. cakmpls suggests that there are Americans who don't see the importance in placing a priority on anything for the generation after their own. Do you agree?][okay, per comment by cedarlibrarian below, this gets crossed off. *Sigh*]

Fiscal responsibility, a job for everyone who wants one [although some would limit jobs by race or gender][jiggery_pokery points out that full employment is held by some to drive up inflation, so there are some who don't want full employment, alas], food and shelter for everyone [not that we are willing to pay for these things for other people.]

An appreciation for the dignity of every human person regardless of age, sex, race, sexual preference, religious difference, or mental capability. [Sorry, _lindsay_, but too many Americans are not on board with these]

That people would be able to recover from setbacks such as loss of a job etc. [Again, although some of us aren't willing to pay for it]

That Americans can better their lot in life through their own hard work.

I recognize that the parties may differ in how these goals are achieved, but am I right that all agree they are worthwhile priorities? What others can you think of?

(kokopo? amandageist? Bueller?)

Edited to add: amandageist offered a long, thoughtful reply that ran too long to be a comment here, so she posted it in her own journal. I offer the link so that people can check it out and comment if they'd like.

Comments

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

Public fire departments and police forces.
(I think, maybe I'm being too optimistic) Public libraries.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Re: the police: wouldn't the libertarians disagree? Don't they want to privatize everything, including security?

Public libraries, I'm afraid that isn't a common priority, judging from the way our public library budgets have been hacked in this state. I think it should be.

[aome.livejournal.com]

I think 'fiscal responsibility', 'a job for those who want one' and 'food and shelter and freedom from violence' is in there, too. Again, differing on how those are achieved, but shared goals.

It always gets me when these basic shared visions come up in mud-slinging campaigns: "So and so voted against funding abuse shelters" (or voted to cut education funds, or whatever) and draws the conclusion that they are anti-education or anti-whatever - because I honestly can't imagine a single person out there who REALLY doesn't think that these basic shared goals that you've mentioned aren't good and important things. There have been measures on the ballot in the past that I felt represented good ideals, but I didn't like the suggestion of how we were going to pay for them, or I didn't like some other side feature, and so I voted against. Mud-slinging never paints that complete picture, of course, to say that so-and-so voted against X bill, but that was because it was flawed and the candidate felt there was a better way.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

There are plenty of Americans who have no concern for "fiscal responsibility" whatsoever.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Seems to me that the Republithugs consistently believe in only *one* of those ("security within our borders", of course). At least, they consistently adopt policies hostile to them.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_lindsay_/]

I think all of those are goals everyone wants, I would add an appreciation for the dignity of every human person regardless of age, sex, race, sexual preference, religious difference, or mental capability.

[kijjohnson.livejournal.com]

We may want everyone to want this, but I would say that's regrettably but provably not the case.

[silme.livejournal.com]

That we are secure within our borders and when we travel abroad.

The only problem I have with that statement, as an ex-pat, is that not that many Americans travel abroad, which I think does create problems. Only something like 20% or so of Americans even possess passports. From abroad, the United States is viewed as being very insular. :(

Some of that is geography

[amandageist.livejournal.com]

In our defense, unless you're talking Canada or Mexico, it's a lot more expensive to travel to other countries from the U.S. than it is from, say France or even England. And the concept of travel to another *continent* on another side of the world, as opposed to driving someplace or hopping a train for a couple hours, can be hard to get your head around as a "why not?" possibility, even if you *can* afford it. [Which I can't; I couldn't even make it to Canada for Convention Alley this last summer. And Mexico holds no appeal for me.]

I used to possess a passport, but failed to find it earlier this year--we honeymooned in Poland and England. Probably something I hid from small hands and crayons, far too well.

~Amanda

I think....

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

You forgot the "My" and "I" in those statements to apply them to everyone.

Re: I think....

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Oh. Ohhhhhhh. Larry, I think that's exactly right.

*Sigh* Americans, as a lowest common denominator are awfully selfish.

[vass]

Freedom of religion. Sort of.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

No, alas, no. It is enshrined in our bill of rights, but the fundies don't believe in this. They are not willing to extend freedom of religion to, for example, Pagans. And haven't you heard of the politicians who try to claim that this is a "Judeo-Christian nation"? Or all the religious people arguing to put "Under God" into the Pledge of Alligiance, and to hell with the athiests?

*Sigh* This harder and even more discouraging than I thought it would be to come up with a list.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

That there is a value to society in educating the next generation.

There are a fair number of people who don't think that should be done by publicly funded schools. And I've met people who, from their statements and actions, seem not to see any value to society in doing anything for the welfare of the next generation. (I think you read my LJ enough to have read my rants on the short-sightedness of this view, even from the standpoint of self-interest.)

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Yeah, alas, you're right, which is why you'll note I carefully avoided mentioning public education. Do even hardcore libertarians believe in educating their own children, as long as they're paying for it themselves? Do you really think that you've met Americans so selfish that they are unwilling to do anything at all for the young?

I was trying to cheer myself up by doing this, but it making me even more depressed, because as we discuss this, it is becoming more and more clear how really selfish Americans are.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I think most people believe that we should all have a chance to recover from minor setbacks. Losing one family member's job, for example, should not be immediately and irrevocably catastrophic for the family. I think most of us believe in at least some second chances.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

I think that's true. And you make me think of something else: that an American should be able to better his or her station in life through hard work.

Although, I suppose that for some that would only be his. *Sigh*

[mystril.livejournal.com]

Erm...you don't know me, but I lurk at your journal occasionally because I read one of your books (The Wild Swans) and like reading about the progress of Glare.

I wanted to add...safe food and medication. Everyone wants that, right? I know the libertarians want it privatized though.

I'd like to add access to health care for all. But I don't know if everyone is on that train.

I talked too much

[amandageist.livejournal.com]

Peg--My responses to your list exceeded allowed length for a comment. I moved it to my own LJ, here (I hope I did the link right, but I apologize, because this was your question, you have a broader f-list, and any debate on my responses is properly yours in your quest.

If using a cut-tag or something will make it fit over here, tell me how (I am a TechnoSquib), and I'll move it.

~Amanda

Re: I talked too much

[trinker.livejournal.com]

You might try posting it in smaller chunks.

[bobhowe.livejournal.com]

Peg, I hate to say this, because I find your search for common ground admirable, but I think it's a fool's errand. I don't know if you've seen Ron Suskind's piece in the New York Times Magazine, "Without a Doubt," but the gist of it is that the Bush Administration and its supporters are not part of the "reality-based" community: faith matters more than facts; emotion more than critical thinking.

In today's Times, Garry Wills has an excellent Op-Ed piece, The Day the Enlightenment Went Out, that makes essentially the same case.

If we can't, as a country, agree on the most basic facts about the world, how can we possibly agree on the best way to address the issues that arise from them? The Bush administration and its supporters, especially evangelical Christians, cherry pick the evidence that suits their policy desires, whether it's regarding the environment, abortion, or weapons of mass destruction. Not only is dissent ignored: inconvenient facts are ignored or discredited. Of course physical reality bats last: in the end the administration's crazy, faith-based style of government will be discredited, but it's a very long game we're in, and vindication won't help all of the people here and abroad who are harmed by U.S. policies while waiting for the bottom on the ninth.

[amandageist.livejournal.com]

Bush administration and its supporters, especially evangelical Christians, cherry pick the evidence that suits their policy desires, whether it's regarding the environment, abortion, or weapons of mass destruction.

I think all of us do that, administrations or individuals. Especially individuals; we'll have a subjective position and self-select for the external documentation that supports it. I don't think it's anything anyone can help; it takes a good bit of discipline and objectivity to even be aware of it. I catch myself doing it all the time. So I think it's hardly fair to level this against the Bush administration as a unique and specific failure, especially since most of us are in no position to know the degree to which it may be true; we can't know the full spectrum of actual objective fact they work from.

~Amanda

[magentamn.livejournal.com]

One of the problems you face in trying to list common ground is that it has been eroded considerably in the last 20 or so years. Much of this has been done by a group of theologically radical (nuts) people, based on a recent and very non-mainstream view of Christianity called millennial dispensationalism. These people genuinely (or not) believe that "we are in the end times and Christ will return any day" in a very specific and peculiar way. This is based on writings that are only about 100 years old, non-Biblical, and contradictory to most of the teachings of Christianity. I could research it and post more behind a cut tag in my journal (my MA in Religious Studies is showing)

As I recall, more conventional Christianity is in favor of helping the poor, the aged, the infirm, the children; in fact, this is one of the basic tenets. Isn't there something about "As you treat the least among you, so you treat Me?".

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

That there is a value to society in educating the next generation. [Although not all are willing to help pay for it. cakmpls suggests that there are Americans who don't see the importance in placing a priority on anything for the generation after their own. Do you agree?]

There appear to be rather a lot of USAns who expect the End of Days sufficiently imminently that subsequent generations aren't an issue, alas.

[jiggery-pokery.livejournal.com]

Many economists believe that full employment is likely to drive up inflation, or at least wage inflation; the Phillips Curve (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/multimedia/PCurve1.html) model (in-depth discussion here (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PhillipsCurve.html)) still has much (though not total) support.

Some people (though, I hasten to add, I am not one of them) would prefer sustained low inflation at the cost of slightly higher unemployment, so I fear that full employment cannot be taken as universal common ground.

[longstrider.livejournal.com]

I think there is a significant minority that doesn't care about clean air and water. I don't think they want dirty air and water, but they just don't care. Therefore I'd be reluctant to put it in a list of core values.

[jemyl.livejournal.com]

I don't tink that finding common ground is as important as is finding ways to allow diversity to flourish without it impinging on the freedoms or needs of others. I aso think everyone wants to be able to live in a home somewhat of their choosing with clothing, medical care, food and education/entertainment that is within their means, even if they are old and can no longer work.

[cedarlibrarian.livejournal.com]

That there is a value to society in educating the next generation. [Although not all are willing to help pay for it. cakmpls suggests that there are Americans who don't see the importance in placing a priority on anything for the generation after their own. Do you agree?]

As a radical childfree person, yes, I do agree. It's hypocritical of me to say so because I attended public schools growing up, but the thing is, having a child is a choice. It doesn't take a village to raise a child; it takes two parents. The reason I don't necessarily believe in educating the next generation is because I didn't give birth to it. Children should be their parents' responsibility, not mine.

Also strangely radical: I do believe that all children who are born should be wanted. The world is overpopulated and full of too many children who aren't cared for, who are born to parents that don't want them for whatever reason. The childfree get the "but parenting makes you a better person!" argument a lot, and I say that can't be true due to the numbers of abused and neglected children, who weren't wanted.

[(Anonymous)]

So, in other words you could care less about those children who will someday be your doctors, dentists, politicians, personal caregivers in old age, or your library patrons who keep you employed. This seems to be a me-mine-and-ours attitude that does not think or care about more global perspectives of what it means to be part of a democratic society. If you cared to do a slight bit of research you would quickly find out that there is much more involved in raising children. The Search Institute in Minneapolis has created a widely known document about the 40 Assets for successful children. All 40 need to exist in order for children to become successful adults. One of these 40 Assets include important relationships with adults other than their parents. Your attitude seems to be very myopic.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

You really need to read Laskoff's "Moral Politics. What you're trying to do here makes no sense.

B

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've just about come to that conclusion. And I find it really, really depressing.

[mlleelizabeth.livejournal.com]

Hi Pegg,

I don't know if you remember me from way back when on hpfgu, but I've always enjoyed your writing and now I really enjoy your LJ posts.

I think this post was a great idea. I'm compiling a list of my favorite positive, constructive post-election LJ posts to share with my f-list, and I'd like to include this post, if you don't mind.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Hi! Glad you found my LJ, and you're welcome to comment anytime. If you find this helpful then please, by all means, share it with others.

You want my opinion?

[kokopoko.livejournal.com]

I'm surprised.

Well here it is: I think everyone regardless of age, sex, race, sexual preference, religious difference, financial means or mental capability should be allowed to marry, hold jobs, own property, vote, have affordable medical care, health insurance, and a bunch more I am probably forgetting.

We need to help those less fortunate than us. Life is hard. It is hard to all of us. We need to help those less fortunate to get on their feet and bring them up to a level above poverty line. We also need to train them so they can continue to keep themselves above poverty. We need affordable health insurance so an emergency surgery does not bankrupt them. We need to let everyone know of this help so it's not just given to those whom we like.

Everyone deserves the right to life, to live, to experience life.

I think insurance companies should be forced to cover birth control and sterilizations, gay partners, preventative medicine and alternative medicine.

Gays should have the right to marriage and civil unions. Gay should have the right to adopt children.

The poor should be studied for a day or more to see what help they need, not just financial. They may need education, they may qualify for resources they don't know about, they may be taking advantage of by a landlord or relatives.

Instead of shunning, hatred we need to tolerate and help. Life is hard and we are all in this together.

Least common denominator....

[fredcritter.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm overly cynical of late, but it seems to me the only thing you could ever get each and every American to agree on is that he/she should have his/her own personal needs and desires met.

Which is not to say that I think we Americans are a bad lot—I don't think all the citizens of any nation would agree on anything beyond that.

Nor is it to say that there aren't a whole lot of people who have much higher ideals than that—just that there are at least some who don't....