Understand a Viewpoint Without Listening?
December 3, 2012 8:21am CST
Is there any way to understand a different opinion without actually listening to it? Politics in the USA seems to be getting more and more divisive. Do you think the everyday people of the political parties should talk and try to understand one another's viewpoint? Ideally, couldn't the parties cooperate on issues each party sees as crucial? If the democrats believe global warming will cripple the planet, and be dire, shouldn't the prow of the boat be shifted more toward ecologically better ways of doing all things? But without doing a 180! Which is what concerns Republicans as they figure that will be dire, causing collapse. ...And then wouldn't government have to become everything in order to fix things? Whether republican or democrat, it wouldn't matter. As a matter of fact, by then the democratic party and the republican party would work together just fine, seeing as there'd be no more depending on votes and sheople to influence in order to stay in power. There'd also be no checks to power! (The ultimate Libertarian nightmare and most crucial concern.) ...Do you think the people of the parties, conservatives and liberals just listen to what their own party says about the other one? Can someone understand a different opinion without actually listening to it? (Perhaps this, is the reaL choice/crossroads/two roads in front of the U.S.!)
• United States
4 Dec 12
Of course they can understand the other side, but that doesn't mean they will agree with it. You mentioned global warming. It's hard to believe the world is so concerned with global warming when many countries are allowed to puff out smoke to equal a volcano eruption, so why should the United States continue to be the country responsible for cleaning up the environment? We have done our part. Look to someone else if you're so concerned. If you don't, it's not global warming that concerns you but US dominance in certain areas of industry. I like the idea of having different opinions. I also like the idea of have no party affiliation. That way, it would be the opinion and not the party that sways the voter. I dare say it's too late for that since party opinions have been established.
• Karawaci, Indonesia
3 Dec 12
Sure. I mostly everyday in the morning watch "editorial" from television where other peoples give their opinions to the topic broadcasted through free phone call. Is is usually get much comments from listener so that difficult to me to participate
• United States
7 Dec 12
I read an interesting book over the last few days while babysitting my grandson. http://www.amazon.com/Hostile-Takeover-Centralized-Governments-Stranglehold/dp/0062196014 Hostile Takeover by Matt Kibbe [i]A rebellious challenge to the "upper management" of government, who are choking American prosperity and liberty The American enterprise grew exceptional based on the founding principles of individual freedom, decentralized knowledge, and accountable, constitutionally limited government. But our "leaders" from Washington, D.C., have systematically replaced the dispersed genius of America with top-down dictates and expensive schemes designed to expand the power of insiders and protect the privileged positions of politicians, bureaucrats, and their cronies. Freedom, not centralization "Decentralized freedom" has become the strategy that will return America to its founding values, breaking up centralized government's monopoly on power and returning it to where it belongs: with We the People. Senior management has failed us. It's time to clean house. In Hostile Takeover, bestselling author Matt Kibbe exposes the privileged collusion of Washington insiders—and maps out a proven plan for how to return power from the self-appointed "experts" back to the people. Dubbed "one of the Tea Party's masterminds" by Newsweek, Kibbe reveals how grassroots citizens can and will check the federal behemoth and restore the American enterprise to its founding principles. [/i] In it he says that bipartisan is just a buzz word for collsion against the people and the Constitution. After this last election, and all the 'talk' about the fiscal cliff, I tend to agree with him.
• United States
5 Dec 12
I think as we move toward a more socialist government that the party lines will disappear because of the divisive nature of politics. I see a civic war between the haves and the havenots. As government moves more to the left to a redistribution of wealth, I think eventually those who have not will decide that they can take by combat means that which those who possess will not voluntarily give. It's not like taxes are necessarily voluntary, but you get the drift! From socialism I think we evolve into tyranny and its all downhill from there.
• United States
4 Dec 12
Very good Flowerchilde, People do not listen. Sometimes I think that they do not even listen to themselves...lol People today, and not just people here in the US, do not pay attention to what others need, want, or say unless it is the same as their desires. Opposing politicians do not even notice when they are actually saying similar things, they just continue attacking and whining. They just listen enough to glean fodder to attack over. The lack of ability to listen goes much further than just politics. It is deeply embeded in religion and education as well. Good post Flower.
• United States
13 Dec 12
While I agree with you that neither side listens to the other, and this has been the case for a very long time, it is more than that....both sides will say they want compromise but what they really want is their way all the time...and it does not matter which party they both seem to think that way. The media plays into this as well as they tend to try to take sides and brainwash the American people to their chosen side. On the other hand when you say that party lines will vanish, while on the one hand this might be a good thing, on the other you also say that the politicians would no longer have to depend on votes, which would imply a government that is neither by the people or for the people any longer. I fail to see how this would be an improvement. You also said that then their would be no checks and balances any longer either. So that would imply more or less what we already have.....only on a larger scale...a run a way government that takes what they want with no regard to the consequences. And since to a certain extent we already have that, we can see where that will get us. I agree that each does need to listen and try to understand the other side's opinion and learn to work together for the greater good of the country, but our politicians have learned to make a career out of politics and are too power hungry for this to ever really happen. Perhaps they should all be required to go through a refresher course on the creation and meaning of our nation's constitution and then look at what they are trying to do to our nation under that perspective. Maybe then things would improve, but I doubt it.