The Real Mitt Romney

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Flint

~Snip what I agree with~

So what is our shared vision of America? I honestly don't think that we disagree on anything of consequence here, although great efforts are taken by both sides to villify the opposition. The state of politics in America is that of defining the opposition as a "bad" person, who actually wants bad things to happen. That is ridiculous, and both sides do it. Don't let yourself fall into that trap. Please don't sink to that level. We all love children and puppies and sunshine, for goodness sake.

Who's shared vision? The people in this thread? The people on the board? Americans?
The people I've talked to who are fairly successful businessmen (including family), complain they could have made much more money, not because of taxes but because of government regulations. They want no regulations in the way of doing things cheap, easy and profitable. Some of the regulations I understand are unintended consequences of one-size-fits-all laws.

But in every example they cited to me, the law was to protect people and the environment. No, you can't run the floor drains from the body shop into the creek. No, you can't fill in the swamp for more parking. No, you can't sell counterfeit drugs from China.

In the age of multinational corporations even the states can't protect the public, only the feds have the clout. The recent case of people dying from tainted steroids was apparently a loophole in the regulations, which is a case for more, not less.

We do disagree on some of the specific methods of obtaining the goals that we all desire. Nobody hates babies, we simply sometimes disagree on the best way to do things.

Here's the problem, we agree on more things than we disagree on.

Why do political parties get so polarized?

Maybe nobody(at least very few), hates babies, but some care little about them or their future if they don't live in the right neighborhood or come from the right stock.

~Snip what I agree with~

So you have a governor with a successful track record employing incredibly similar policies to a sitting president, with who he has to feign disagreement, but after all what do they really disagree on, when so much of their body of work looks basically parallel? Essentially this goes back to that 'leadership' thing. Again, leadership isn't management. Leaders are there to define a vision which informs the culture, and this is where the differentiation between candidates has to be clear. And basically we have had defined for us two opposed school of thought: 1) the "greedy businessman who only cares about himself and his rich buddies, who is oblivious to the experience of poor people, and doesn't recognize the social responsibilities of the government (also he is a patriarchal religious zealot and firearms enthusiast)," and 2) the "big government, tax and spend socialist who thrives on getting greater and greater numbers of people addicted to government handouts--he doesn't have any sense with money because he is spending your money while also planning to take your guns and bibles away, and force you to get a mandatory abortion."

These are cartoon villians. But, in reality, they do have to represent some kind of fundamental difference of that 'vision' thing.

Yes they do, and it's a pre vs post FDR vision. Pre FDR the "middle class" was composed of the managers of the robber barons businesses, bankers, and very successful business men. Post FDR and WWII, the "middle class" expanded exponentially because of a consumer driven manufacturing economy and labor unions. Post Reagan we've sen the decline of both and the pre FDR vision wants to continue that slide.

And this is what frustrates me about how we get so bogged down in the specifics of policies--which after all, are just trying to accomplish the same things that we all want, only in different ways. There are different schools of thought on economics and everything else--there isn't one 'correct' answer. And the person who disagrees with you about the means to achieve a goal doesn't have to be a bad person. And the politician who is basically beholden to a coalition of disparate interests which define the 'vision' he must communicate in order to guide millions of people in a general direction, he isn't a boots-on-the-ground manager who tells people exactly how to do their job. In that respect it is almost absurdist to regard a presidential campaign as a battle of specifics.

While I agree we get bogged down on specifics that nobody wants to reveal, the specifics tell the truth about the vision.

~snip reasoning based on a false premise of agreed goal~

None of the people involved in these dicussions are 'bad' people; and at the same time, none of the politicians discussed here are without the same set of characteristics that allows any man to rise to that level of national politics. It is what it is--can we not just accept that and move on?

We don't have to get so wrapped up in it that we forget our common sense and common decency.

Again, who are "the people involved in these dicussions"? Confined to the Cellar, I'd agree. But on the national scene there are some bad people, people who will lie cheat and steal to subjugate the masses.

But we obviously don't always agree on some pretty major items. Can we not at least pretend momentarilly that the other person might be aware of something that we are not, and try to imagine what the set of variables that would support that scenario would look like, and then try to reconcile that with our observations of reality in order to determine the basic feasbility of what they are proposing?

I mean, that's how you learn things.

No, that's not how you learn things, you learn things by questioning, not pretending/imagining. Questioning the whys/hows, and when the response is based on verifiable lies they've swallowed, rather than experience or reasoning, there's nothing to learn except they are gullible

I've learned, and grown, so much while participating in discussions on the internet, because it allows you the opportunity to observe that people who disagree with you are also intelligent and have well-founded ideas. But you have to be open to that. It isn't a passive thing that happens--you have to force yourself into this mindset, until over time it becomes habit.

It is good to question and examine things.

Absolutely, there's a lot to be learned in the internet discussions if you can pick your way through the static. But this personal growth you speak of is mostly personal understanding of other peoples trials, how you perceive, and possibly treat, them. This may make the world a tiny bit better and surely makes you a lot better person.
That said, politics is a different animal in that the outcome affects how you are treated by the government, and how the government allows other people to treat you. That makes it personal, sometimes imperative to your life, liberty, and pursuit of whatever blows your skirt up.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Flint

...
But we obviously don't always agree on some pretty major items. Can we not at least pretend momentarilly that the other person might be aware of something that we are not, and try to imagine what the set of variables that would support that scenario would look like, and then try to reconcile that with our observations of reality in order to determine the basic feasbility of what they are proposing?

I mean, that's how you learn things.
...

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

...
No, that's not how you learn things, you learn things by questioning, not pretending/imagining. Questioning the whys/hows, and when the response is based on verifiable lies they've swallowed, rather than experience or reasoning, there's nothing to learn except they are gullible
...

Sorry, Bruce, I did a very poor job of explaining this point.

I appreciate your no-nonsense approach, and your detailed reply indicated you had put a lot of thought into weighing my comments. Please allow me to go into slightly more depth on this one point.

This is a theory of conflict resolution that I have been mulling over for a few years...

The scenario that I described above is the direct opposite of what I often observe people doing, i.e. when a conflicting opinion is presented, emphasis is placed on a detail which 'proves' that the opinion is wrong. This reinforces the listener's opinion, deflects the speaker's opinion, and maintains the status quo--conflict. The listener may even be boggled by the seemingly outlandish nature of a supporting detail which is required to support the speaker's opinion. The conflicting opinion may be interpreted in such a way as to be so far from feasibility that the speaker must be characterized as foolish or incompetent. This is the frequent course of 'argumentative' discussions.

Now, for a change of routine, what if we were to imagine that the speaker is not unintelligent? Certainly people have had different experiences, and have access to different knowledge than ourselves. If we reverse the normal pattern of conflict, and attempt not to carefully construct a scenario in which the speaker is certainly wrong, but rather the opposite--conceptualize a scenario where the speaker is correct, we have access, albeit tentative or temporarily, to a different thought pattern--we can break ourselves out of our normal bias and preconceptions. Then, we thoroughly test this new theory, making an honest attempt within the boundaries of our own critical thinking techniques, and if we still cannot observe any soundness to the idea, we can 'agree to disagree' --in a civil fashion, having made our best attempt.

When I stated this is "how you learn" I meant, of course, that it is but one of the methods available. Essentially, this is applying a thought experiment to conflict resolution. I respectfully submit that many heavy thinkers, such as Albert Einstein, would have disagreed that you can't learn things through pretending/imagining.