What will you give?

I intend not to weigh in on this year’s elections on this blog.  At least not in a  partisan way.

In this particular way, I may weigh in several times before and after the election.

I would like to join the call for civility.

I heard this the other night on some television show or another.  It was a drama, so, yes, “any similarity between this show and actual events is purely coincidental.”  Whatever.  You know as well as I do that  truth comes as well from fiction as non-fiction.

Anyway, I share this brief bit of dialog:

“You just did what you thought was right.”

“So did Josef Stalin.”

Most all of us (I think) would agree that much of what Stalin did was NOT right.

Can we all agree that in Stalin’s mind, though, it was right?

I ask this because it really seems to be that today, in American Politics, there is a lot of unwillingness to give the other side, whichever side that may be, the benefit of the doubt about motivation.

Such as anything that follows the statement “what [insert political opponents name here] really wants is to (pick one): a.destroy our country; b. ruin the economy; c. hurt [insert an interest group] by heaping favor upon [insert other interest group]; or d. [other malicious threats].”

I am not going to refuse to vote for anyone who makes such claims as there would be no one left for whom to vote.

Can we at least give those with whom we disagree the benefit of the doubt?

I will, though, invite everyone to join me in this:  I will do my best not to question the motivation of those with whom I disagree.  I do, in fact, believe, that each American politician really believes that his/her intent is, by his/her own understanding, in the best interest of the nation.

Are you with me?

2 thoughts on “What will you give?

  1. Steve, I’m not sure everyone does have good intentions. When people change what they say, appease a party base in primaries and then “shift to the middle” in the general to pander to independents, I think their main intention is to get elected. Now I’m sure that they think if they get elected, they will do good, whatever it is they think good is. But then they have to keep on pandering to stay in office.

  2. Yes, I would like to join you. However, I believe that your paragraph:

    “Such as anything that follows the statement “what [insert political opponents name here] really wants is to (pick one): a.destroy our country; b. ruin the economy; c. hurt [insert an interest group] by heaping favor upon [insert other interest group]; or d. [other malicious threats].”

    Is unfortunately true of BOTH parties. This occurs, at least, in part, by the current divergence of worldview that parties, and peoples have. What is the mooring of our society? Of our morals? Of our law? Of our economy? Of our country? Of our ???? You get the point. Civility is of course something always worth promoting. The question comes when you are dealing with unreasonable people. How do you reason with unreasonable people? Simple logic and cogent argumentation is simply not understood by the vast majority of our nation. Free hand outs, simple solutions, sound bites, and reality TV. That is what the people want.
    We are in a situation where our societal moorings are shifting (of course they have been since the 1960s, but even more so with the rise of post-modernity in the 1990s). We have, two parties who have spent more than we have, or more than they have legality to spend, all the while spending more to pander. Welfare, Social services, Military, etc.. Where does the spending by either party end?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s