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

[ambar.livejournal.com]

I have not followed the development of modern Libertarian thought (especially the anarchist wing thereof), but Ayn Rand acknowledged that cops and courts were proper functions of a government.

I think you're more likely to get universal buy-in on libraries than on "every child wanted and welcomed" -- that phrase reads as pro-choice to the fundies.

Ambar, registered Libertarian

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

I'd like to ask some pro-lifers if they would really object to agreeing that every child should be wanted and welcomed. Aside from what they feel about abortion, what can they find in that statement that is objectionable? I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that they could possibly object: do they say no, some children should be unwanted???

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

My parents have some friends who are very active pro-lifers (of the kind that try to get the mother help with the kid, not of the kind that bomb clinics), and I don't think they would disagree with this at all. I think they would probably say that the best way to accomplish it would be for people only to have sex if they would accept a baby resulting (not ruling out birth control, as these folks are not against birth control, but accounting for possible failures in birth control). I think their second choice -- and again, this is just the activists I know -- would be for parents to make up their mind to welcome and nurture kids even if they hadn't intended them. But they certainly would want them wanted and welcomed.

They just would probably count them as children sooner than most pro-choice activists.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

How do they deal with conception via rape?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

That varies. Some of them feel that a woman who has been raped should get a morning-after pill if those are available where she is (since they don't oppose hormonal birth control), and promote making them more widely available. (So do I; so do many people I know on both sides of this issue.) Some feel that it's an extraordinary circumstance and one wherein an abortion is permissible but should be performed as soon as feasible. And some feel that it's entirely natural that a woman in that situation would not want to raise the child herself but that it's still a child and should be dealt with accordingly, and most likely given up for adoption.

One tried to tell me, when I was 12 or 13, that it was extremely unlikely that women would get pregnant from a rape because of some mumbo-jumbo about the biology of arousal and pregnancy. Even at 12-13, I knew to check the facts on that one, and went back to him in high dudgeon that he had dodged the question.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

Wow. That last...yikes.

I would need to write rather a lot to explain my stance, not so much because it can't be sound-bited, but because I would want to give a nuanced accounting. Too weary now to attempt it. Thank you for sharing this.

[ambar.livejournal.com]

On reflection, "that every child should have a loving home" might pass muster with both sides. What do you think?

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think that would definitely work. Good thought.