|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Jul 09, 2009 4:13 pm |
|
re: re: re: re: LA Times Seeks Your "Balance The Budget" Assistance |
| abbeboulah
| |
Stepping back from the immediate problem for a moment -- which appears so untractable in part because of the mutually bemoaned rigid positions -- I would like to raise the question about the way the discourse is carried out: The respective positions seem to be so utterly convincing to each side that they can't describe the opposing side in other than uncompromising terms of ideological rigidity (understood as 'stupidity' and even 'deviousness' by the members of the own tribe and legitimizes them to not even try to understand the other ...) or greed or addiction to power etc. Thus the voters are led to make those questionable decisions that are now recognized as problematic. How were those voters persuaded to vote? Why is it that the oh so rational arguments each side thinks it commands cannot be presented in the political discourse in a more effective, less counterproductive, less divisive way, a way more conducive to learning from mistakes (in time), inventing better strategies, better cooperation for those tasks that we know can only be done cooperatively, leaving the innovation- and efficiency-improving competition to their appropriate areas. In other words: could the problem be with the way the discourse is organized? And perhaps we should look at how that might be improved? Private Reply to abbeboulah (new win) |
|
| |
|
