Doug R.

I fail to see much difference between the two points of view. Each side is convinced it's right. Each is confident the other is wrong. One side is criticized for calling the other names, while the other side calls the other side names and feels perfectly justified doing so.

The purpose isn't to call names. And I think you miss the mark a little. One side is convinced it has to be right, the other hopes they are right. Entering into the "fray' with the absolute knowledge of being right (whatever your politics) is generally going to end up with name calling. And being closed minded isn't limited to any political persuasion.

Slipping into name calling is far to easy. But there's a fine line between the name calling (a fairly aggressive verbal action) and asserting an uncomplimentary point of view about someone, personal or otherwise. To dredge up a past post, is Mav really a bigot? I don't know. Does he come across as one? A lot of the time, yes. What level of name calling is it to express that opinion? Probably debatable.

Speaking for myself, why would I bother to post if all I was looking for was validation? I live in a fairly liberal college town but with a significant conservative element. It would be easy to find a group that agreed with me and sit around and congratulate ourselves on how right we are. The forum provides a lot of food for thought, all the posturing and name calling aside. Mav can be irritating. And sometimes thought provoking. Will either of us change? No. But maybe we'll think a little harder about our respective beliefs. Do I agree with Little Hawk? Sometimes. Do I expect Little Hawk to agree with me? I hope not. I expect to learn from both.

I think the underlying differences are fairly significant. The "mainstream" disagreement seems to be on whether you believe in a strong democratic value or a weak one. IMO, under a strong democratic value, you judge social, economic, technological and political issues first on how it contributes to fostering a strong democratic society(for want of time, consider "strong democracy" as fostering self actualization and maximizing empowerment at the lowest possible level, with the goal of maximizing same for everyone). A weak democratic value puts other values first, whether they be money, religion, personal power, social justice for all, scores on tests, expert knowledge or whatever. Generally characterized by central controls, with power lodged fairly high up in the hierarchy, cumbersome obstacles to change and values other than a strong democratic one being used to make decisions.

A good example of applying basic values first, are the Amish. The common view is that they resist technology. In fact, what they do is first apply their basic values (religious tenets, extended family, sustain ability, and so on) to the new technology to see if it conflicts with those basic values. If it does, then the basic values wins and the technology is rejected. If not, they adopt it.

Neither the traditional right or left in this country asks the "strong democracy" question when they look at their particular agendas. School vouchers are looked at as a way of improving education. But what to they do to a strong democratic sense? What is the democratic consequence of the Faith Based initiative? What underlies the idea of zoning boards? Certainly not empowering at the lowest possible level. Should community planning and development be left to experts? Their agenda has little to do with fostering democracy? It seems to me that that sort of analysis is never done. And that the mainstream power groups don't won't it done because the implication is that they will loose power and status.

The decision process should begin at the bottom and work its way up. Republican or Democrat, RWE or LSC, are locked into the top down mode.

Little Hawk,

Agreed. There's not a lot of breadth in American Politics. And a sort of tacit agreement to keep it that way. (Witness the refusal of either Gore or Bush to debate with any of the alternate candidates). Having a strong underlying belief that material success somehow relates to moral, social or ethical rightness seems endemic. On the other hand, we do have the biggest bombs and the most toys. Does that mean we win?:-).

Metchosin,

You hit it. Not to compare the two but I wonder what Hitler's popularity rating was in say 1940? The poll results are less an endorsement of Reagan than an indictment of the public's lack of general historical knowledge. To paraphrase: Why attribute to conspiracy what can be so easily explained by stupidity?

Regards

John