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

[bobhowe.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link. I'm unconvinced by the argument from personal experience. Just because wayfairer loves her conservative mother and her conservative friends doesn't make their point of view any less bigoted, anti-intellectual, and corrosive to democratic principles. I get it, I do, that conservative Christians really, really, believe that they're engaged in spiritual warfare. That's part of what scares me: if you believe you're at war, you can justify any excess.

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

I wasn't intending it as a defense, just as a partial explanation. The better you understands a problem, the better you'll be able to line up weapons to use against it. Many of us have tried to use logic and facts as arguments for why Bush's reelection was a bad, bad idea; this fails because the people we're arguing against aren't interested in logic or facts, but faith. So we need a new way to tackle the problem, and understanding where they're coming from will help us figure out a more effective way of doing it.

And yes, that's what scares me too. The neocons are every bit as fundamentalist and committed as the terrorists, and they don't recognize the comparison as valid.

[bobhowe.livejournal.com]

So we need a new way to tackle the problem, and understanding where they're coming from will help us figure out a more effective way of doing it.

I don't want to clutter up Peg's topic, so I'll make this my last word in this thread and keep it brief: I think you're right that we need to understand why Americans voted the way they did, but I don't think that wayfairer has a better grasp of the issue than, say, the Democratic Party. To a large extent I don't think it's about tactics: the Republicans and Democrats really do stand for different things. Bans against gay marriage passed in all eleven states they were on the ballot. What would it mean for Democrats to get on the winning side of that issue? If we win the election by pandering to religious prejudices, have we really won?

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

Bob, I am in such incredible pain over this, that I feel the very foundations of my Christian faith tottering. How can people who call themselves Christian vote this way? And if this is "Christian" then what does that make me, when I reject this point of view with visceral revulsion?

I'm Lutheran, but I think I am going to have to call the pastor of the local United Church of Christ (which is the church that was formed in 1957 to give especially gay Christians a welcoming home) and ask them, what the hell do we do now? And where do I find other Christians who believe that being Christian means we are to do unto others as we would have them do unto us and to feed the poor and bind up the broken, rather than to discriminate against others, rape the environment, and go to war and blow up innocent people? Are there any of us left?

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Yes, thanks for the link, ashfae, I hadn't gotten to it yet on my friends page. I did find the post very illuminating. I also found it to be horrifying. I have to agree with Bob. Despite wayfairer's protests, just because conservatives don't feel that they are bigoted doesn't mean that they aren't bigoted.