Could a President Clinton heal a divided nation?

[r9etb]

Yeah, I don't understand this apparently urge that we all "unite".  Our Constitution was specifically designed so that a dissenting minority with sufficient support could impede the will of a temporary majority.  Control either the House, Senate, or Presidency, and you can stonewall whomever controls the other two branches.  That's a feature, not a bug.

If "uniting" is done on the basis of the broad common ground; basic decency; a firm respect for liberty, responsibility, and civil discourse; and a common desire to seek and do the right thing ... then I'm all for it.  I think there is a vast, if powerless, majority who would support a president who governed on that basis.

And is Hillary Clinton the person to establish such a foundation? 

Of course she's not.  Her record reveals her as an incompetent, dishonest, grasping, corrupt, vindictive, power-hungry harridan whose only real interest in people is in what she can gain from them.

It will only get worse.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

If "uniting" is done on the basis of the broad common ground; basic decency; a firm respect for liberty, responsibility, and civil discourse; and a common desire to seek and do the right thing ... then I'm all for it.  I think there is a vast, if powerless, majority who would support a president who governed on that basis.

I think in the abstract, you could get 95% of the population to agree to that.  But with all due respect, those all basically meaningless bromides.  As soon as you start to attach specifics to those terms, you'd find that people have vastly different -- in some cases diametrically opposed -- opinions about what those terms actually mean in practice.  I honestly think we're deluding ourselves to the extent we believe that there is some clear majority that agrees on the similar interpretations of those terms.

Just to give you an example of what I mean, take "responsibility".  To conservatives, that generally means personal responsibility.  But to the left, that means the responsibility of the government/wealthy/etc. to take care of everyone else.  And the environment, etc.  And for some, even a responsibility to take care of those who aren't even Americans, and don't even "yet" live here.  Those views are fundamentally irreconcilable.  There's some overlap at the margins, but not enough to matter.  It's Angela Merkel's view of "responsibility" versus that of the hard-working German concerned about his/her country.  They'd agree on the slogans, but that's about it.

[LateForLunch]

If "uniting" is done on the basis of the broad common ground; basic decency; a firm respect for liberty, responsibility, and civil discourse; and a common desire to seek and do the right thing ... then I'm all for it.  I think there is a vast, if powerless, majority who would support a president who governed on that basis.

And is Hillary Clinton the person to establish such a foundation? 

Of course she's not.  Her record reveals her as an incompetent, dishonest, grasping, corrupt, vindictive, power-hungry harridan whose only real interest in people is in what she can gain from them.

It will only get worse.

Thanks to thee, I have learned a new word today, "harridan" (1) a strict, bossy, or belligerent old woman. Excellent!! That described her perfectly by most reliable accounts (even of many allies). Former Slick Willie Chief-of-Staff Dick Morris wrote a book or two about it. He said that Slick Willie would pretend to listen to her insane, naïve proposals for things, then when she was out of the room tell Morris to forget about doing any thing about it because she would surely get distracted with something else and they'd never hear about it again. 

To me Hill-O-Lies is the epitome of a cacogen (1) i.e., "inferior breeding stock" from Latin, cac "lowly, filthy" and gen "species/type". When two cacogens breed, the gene pool is degraded by bad, recessive, pathogenic traits, not enhanced with positive alpha characteristics.

Hill-O-Lies is also a perfect example of someone who is not part of the meritocracy, having no capability whatsoever for excellence in anything worthwhile, who yet assumes the mantle of one who does. 

Esoteric Christian mystic G.I. Gurdjieff had a word for them "hasnamussen" i.e., "those who most fervently seek power over others who are the least-worthy of having it."

[r9etb]

I think in the abstract, you could get 95% of the population to agree to that.  But with all due respect, those all basically meaningless bromides.  As soon as you start to attach specifics to those terms, you'd find that people have vastly different -- in some cases diametrically opposed -- opinions about what those terms actually mean in practice.  I honestly think we're deluding ourselves to the extent we believe that there is some clear majority that agrees on the similar interpretations of those terms.

Just to give you an example of what I mean, take "responsibility".  To conservatives, that generally means personal responsibility.  But to the left, that means the responsibility of the government/wealthy/etc. to take care of everyone else.  And the environment, etc.  And for some, even a responsibility to take care of those who aren't even Americans, and don't even "yet" live here.  Those views are fundamentally irreconcilable.  There's some overlap at the margins, but not enough to matter.  It's Angela Merkel's view of "responsibility" versus that of the hard-working German concerned about his/her country.  They'd agree on the slogans, but that's about it.

You could be right -- or you could be wrong.  The gamut of "bromides" certainly couldn't be established in its entirety.  But it can be built up over time.  Why?  Because most people want to do the right thing, even if they don't agree on what it is.  If even that basic precondition is not met, we're screwed no matter what.

Consider the possibilities if you a) proceed on the good assumption that most people want to do the right thing, and b) you're committed to civil discourse.  Just those two things. 

What a vast change from how things are now: politics assumes that people cannot be trusted to know the right thing; and civil discourse is for chumps.

We surely agree that Hillary Clinton is not the person to set even so basic a standard.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Consider the possibilities if you a) proceed on the good assumption that most people want to do the right thing, and b) you're committed to civil discourse.  Just those two things.

Okay, just start with the first, because that's where I think the problems are.

If you're talking about how each of us should behave as individuals in our personal lives, how we interact with each other, etc., you are right.  Most people would want to do the right thing.  That's why I have some good friends, including my best friend, who is very liberal.  Because at a human level of personal action, we have much in common.  But that really has nothing to do with government/politics at all.

As soon as you get to the political, which involves having a government with the power to force others to do what you feel is right/necessary, and to set up rules for government society as a whole, that "agreement" kind of all falls apart.  Sure, under b), we can still be committed to civil discourse.  But that civil discourse will still involve us trying to pull things in exactly the opposite direction on some very big issues.  At that point, I'm not sure politeness alone is really enough to count as "bringing together a divided nation".

Although I'd agree that Hillary makes even b) impossible.  And b) is something that should be possible/achievable even among those who disagree.  To often, though, it just isn't.  Which is pretty sad.

[LateForLunch]

I think in the abstract, you could get 95% of the population to agree to that.  But with all due respect, those all basically meaningless bromides.  As soon as you start to attach specifics to those terms, you'd find that people have vastly different -- in some cases diametrically opposed -- opinions about what those terms actually mean in practice.  I honestly think we're deluding ourselves to the extent we believe that there is some clear majority that agrees on the similar interpretations of those terms.

Just to give you an example of what I mean, take "responsibility".  To conservatives, that generally means personal responsibility.  But to the left, that means the responsibility of the government/wealthy/etc. to take care of everyone else.  And the environment, etc.  And for some, even a responsibility to take care of those who aren't even Americans, and don't even "yet" live here.  Those views are fundamentally irreconcilable.  There's some overlap at the margins, but not enough to matter.  It's Angela Merkel's view of "responsibility" versus that of the hard-working German concerned about his/her country.  They'd agree on the slogans, but that's about it.

The Major has hit on a significant problem of the age - CG Jung classified human personalities as either thinking-type or feeling type. They are, psychologically speaking, almost entirely different species of human beings.

For thinking-type personalities, there must be substantive strong rational information for them to hold a strong opinion. With feeling/intuition-type personalities, all they need to hold a strong opinion is a strong feeling or hunch - with rational information (logic, facts, figures, reason) subordinate to that.

Ask a thinking-type person if something makes sense, he/she will ask, "can it be supported by rational information (facts, figures, logic)?"

Ask a feeling/intuition type person if something makes sense, they will ask, "Does it FEEL like it makes sense?"

One way to tell which you are dealing with is to observe how they answer questions. Feeling-type personalities will often answer substantive questions by starting with factual matters, but swiftly switching (degenerating) to talking about feelings, hunches, peripheral digressions that have nothing to do with substantive, central points of discussion. When feeling-types have their tangential digressions/evasions pointed out to them, generally they react by falling back on vituperation (the fixing of cause or blame outside the self), insults (minimizing, marginalizing, excluding) and enraged tantrums (which often include intimidation, persecution, oppression as SOP).   
 

[r9etb]

Okay, just start with the first, because that's where I think the problems are.

If you're talking about how each of us should behave as individuals in our personal lives, how we interact with each other, etc., you are right.  Most people would want to do the right thing.  That's why I have some good friends, including my best friend, who is very liberal.  Because at a human level of personal action, we have much in common.  But that really has nothing to do with government/politics at all.

As soon as you get to the political, which involves having a government with the power to force others to do what you feel is right/necessary, and to set up rules for government society as a whole, that "agreement" kind of all falls apart. 

Hate to say it, Bill, but you sound like a man who's given up.

[GtHawk]

October 23, 2016, 06:00 am
Could a President Clinton heal a divided nation?

By Niall Stanage

If she wins the White House, Hillary Clinton will face the daunting task of healing the national divisions exposed by a vicious campaign season.

Whether Clinton could knit the nation back together is an open question. Her supporters say she will do what she can, but that the GOP will have to play its part. Opponents argue that she is uniquely ill equipped for the task.

The former secretary of State has been a polarizing figure for decades. She is the most unpopular nominee of modern times, with the sole exception of her Republican counterpart, Donald Trump. To many conservatives, she represents everything that is wrong with liberal politics.

Yet Clinton has sought to make overt appeals to Republican voters. Invited to deliver a closing statement at the third and final presidential debate last week, she said that she was “reaching out to all Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and independents — because we need everybody to help make our country what it should be.”

more
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/302307-could-president-hillary-heal-a-divided-nation

Meh, they spelled heel wrong, what a president clinton would do is the same as a president trump, grind their heels into their perceived enemies.

[r9etb]

For thinking-type personalities, there must be substantive strong rational information for them to hold a strong opinion. With feeling/intuition-type personalities, all they need to hold a strong opinion is a strong feeling or hunch - with rational information (logic, facts, figures, reason) subordinate to that.

Ask a thinking-type person if something makes sense, he/she will ask, "can it be supported by rational information (facts, figures, logic)?"

Ask a feeling/intuition type person if something makes sense, they will ask, "Does it FEEL like it makes sense?"

One way to tell which you are dealing with is to observe how they answer questions. Feeling-type personalities will often answer substantive questions by starting with factual matters, but swiftly switching (degenerating) to talking about feelings, hunches, peripheral digressions that have nothing to do with substantive, central points of discussion. When feeling-types have their tangential digressions/evasions pointed out to them, generally they react by falling back on vituperation (the fixing of cause or blame outside the self), insults (minimizing, marginalizing, excluding) and enraged tantrums (which often include intimidation, persecution, oppression as SOP).

The problem is, you need both kinds of people.  And you're saying that one of them doesn't matter, or is actually a problem.

Thinking types too often forget that people are .... people -- who have ideas, needs, concerns, and knowledge that the thinking type cannot be troubled to consider.  This is the type of person who creates command economies, or espouses a moral philosophy based on "if everybody would just."  A thinking type can assess the hell out of a problem, but the solution is too often inhuman.

Feeling-types recognize what thinking types do not: that people are people; but they're so concerned about "people's problems" that their emotions get in the way of rational consideration of causes and solutions.  To recognize a problem is a good thing, as is the ability to make others understand that something is a problem.  The downside of the feelings-type is that their assessments and solutions tend to be superficial, and the underlying problems go unaddressed and often get worse.

In my experience, the population is made up of people who fall along a spectrum from thinking to feeling; and those who tend one way or the other tend to group themselves together -- thinkers gravitate to thinkers, and feelers to feelers. 

If and when those groups can engage in civil discourse, good things can happen. 

If -- as usually happens -- these groups attack each other, then you get what we have today.

[r9etb]

Meh, they spelled heel wrong, what a president clinton would do is the same as a president trump, grind their heels into their perceived enemies.

Yes.  Nicely done.

[GtHawk]

...say the haters of all things Trump. 

Says the hater of all things not in obeisance  to their Lord Orange Julius

[dfwgator]

The nutjobs didn't take over the party.   They seem to be occupying their time ranting about those who did. 


And racialists?   What the h3ll are you talking about?   


http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2016/03/medgar_ever_s_brother_endorses_donald_trump_for_president/

Because today anyone who says that everyone should be treated the same regardless of race is racist, don'cha know?

[r9etb]

Because today anyone who says that everyone should be treated the same regardless of race is racist, don'cha know?

Um.... you've seen how, over at TOS, there's a rather sophisticated code for talking about race.  And yet I'd say that most of those nice people would claim to believe that "everyone should be treated the same regardless of race."

So there's a bit more to it than you suggest.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Hate to say it, Bill, but you sound like a man who's given up.

Heh, well....

Not with respect to this particular conversation.  All I'm saying in this exchange with you is that I think we are in a battle -- a very important battle regarding the direction in which this country should go, which impacts incredibly important issues.  I don't believe those differences can or should be glossed over or ignored in the way of "unity".  It's a battle that needs to be fought, so I don't think we should be uniting behind a Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, even if they talked politely.  We should oppose what they want to do with/to the country.  So it's not that I've given up -- It's actually the opposite -- I'm spoiling for a fight on those issues and principles because my vision for the country does not come anywhere close to matching theirs.  That's not to say that I think the argument from our side needs to be uncivil - it does not.  It just has to be made and won to the voters.  And just to emphasize that last point, there is a huge difference between making the argument, and actually winning it in the eyes of enough voters.  I think there are some who think that making the argument should be enough  -- "I'm right -- what else do I need?"  But the truth is being right in politics isn't enough if you can't win, and that sometimes requires more strategic thinking/pragmatism.

But to be honest, I am becoming more and more convinced that we are losing that battle, and a good bit of it has to do with your point b), about civility.  It appears that here, and more generally among those who do agree that Hillary Clinton and leftism are "bad things", we have lost the ability to disagree civilly with one another.  It has largely devolved into relatively juvenile name-calling on both sides, nastiness, condescension, etc..  I believe these are things that will "leave a mark" after this election is over, and I fear they will prevent the assembling of any sort of coalition that might have a chance on toppling the left moving forward.

So in that respect, I'm losing hope.  Even if I'm not quite at the point of "giving up".

[r9etb]

I don't believe those differences can or should be glossed over or ignored in the way of "unity". 

Fair enough: unity for its own sake is not a recipe for happiness.  Many horrific crimes have been committed in its name. 

If we want to talk about "unity" in any sense of it being a good thing, we have to recognize that it must necessarily be a goal whose scope is (and must be) strictly limited if it is not to descend into tyranny. 

But to be honest, I am becoming more and more convinced that we are losing that battle, and a good bit of it has to do with your point b), about civility.  It appears that here, and more generally among those who do agree that Hillary Clinton and leftism are "bad things", we have lost the ability to disagree civilly with one another.  It has largely devolved into relatively juvenile name-calling on both sides, nastiness, condescension, etc..  I believe these are things that will "leave a mark" after this election is over, and I fear they will prevent the assembling of any sort of coalition that might have a chance on toppling the left moving forward.

I agree with you about this.  And if we cannot be civil among ourselves, who broadly agree on things, there is no hope of carrying our ideas into the wider world.

Civility starts with a basic adherence to good manners; and yet the internet makes it so very easy to behave badly.  We're anonymous, and well beyond the physical reach of those we insult.

[dfwgator]

Um.... you've seen how, over at TOS, there's a rather sophisticated code for talking about race.  And yet I'd say that most of those nice people would claim to believe that "everyone should be treated the same regardless of race."

So there's a bit more to it than you suggest.

Don't confuse race with culture, two completely different things.

[r9etb]

Don't confuse race with culture, two completely different things.

To you and me, perhaps.  I'm not so sure about those guys over at TOS. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

To you and me, perhaps.  I'm not so sure about those guys over at TOS.

I've noticed that as well.  That are times when the criticisms really are cultural, then there are other times when they really do veer off into something uglier.  It's usually not stated baldly, but it's there.  And that's not to taint everyone there with that brush, but it isn't exactly unheard of.

[goatprairie]

"Could a President Clinton heal a divided nation?"


 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

"Could a President Clinton heal a divided nation?"


 

I guess is actually is pretty laughable.  What do they expect?  Opponents and supporters of the ACA will come to some magic agreement that satisfies both?  Gun control and gun-rights people will magically move towards the position of the other?  Pro-life groups will "see the light" and start donating to Planned Parenthood?  Suddenly unanimity on putting illegals on a path to citizenship?

Nobody can "heal a divided nation".  It is "divided" for good and sufficient reasons.

[goatprairie]

Let me take the contrarian view here:


I don't view her as liberal as Obama. I watched some of the Dem debates, she was a lot more reasonable than Bernie Sanders (BS) was.


So... maybe? 


I think the emails scandal has left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths though.

Although Hillary's roots are far left, she would probably be slightly more reasonable than King Barack who as they say believes his own bulls*it. Hillary most likely knows she's lying to the faithful, but anything for power.
Not that she wouldn't be awful, but maybe not quite as awful as Obama. Remember, she's got the King of Opportunistic Presidents, Slick Willy, as an advisor. He could probably tell her when she's gone too far.  Not that she'd listen, but she might.

[LateForLunch]

Civility starts with a basic adherence to good manners; and yet the internet makes it so very easy to behave badly.  We're anonymous, and well beyond the physical reach of those we insult.

To understand the far leftist viewpoint and mindset, one must be familiar to some extent with Nietzsche, who is a sort of patron saint to leftist Statism. Nietzsche has been widely quoted by every tyrannical Statist pig from Hitler to Stalin to Castro to Saddam Hussein to Hugo Chavez. In one of his essays, Nietzsche exhorts the "ubbermensches"  (the great benevolent elitists whom he imagined would save the world from itself) to live and operate "beyond morality".

The far left has grossly misinterpreted what Nietzsche meant by that and taken it to mean that people who are "saving the world" or "creating a perfect world" are entitled to exempt themselves from having to conform to morality. He never advocated for that at all, but that does not stop millions of deeply ignorant leftists hungry to validate and legitimize their licentious, amoral nature, to lay claim to this bastardized, idiotic ideal.

[goatprairie]

I guess is actually is pretty laughable.  What do they expect?  Opponents and supporters of the ACA will come to some magic agreement that satisfies both?  Gun control and gun-rights people will magically move towards the position of the other?  Pro-life groups will "see the light" and start donating to Planned Parenthood?  Suddenly unanimity on putting illegals on a path to citizenship?

Nobody can "heal a divided nation".  It is "divided" for good and sufficient reasons.

I've read comments even on conservative websites where posters will wonder when conservatives "will come to their senses" and support lib social programs and positions.
I usually ask those people why they think there are different parties?  We have different parties with different stances on the issues for the obvious reason that Americans disagree on many things.
That is not a bad thing....if we believe that the great majority of Americans believe in the concept of free citizens not chained by gov. I'm afraid I'm losing my belief in that.
Fifty years ago when I was coming of age even most Dems (like my parents) distrusted gov. and were socially conservative.
Now, I think too many Americans have veered leftwards towards seeing Big Government as the cure for everything. I don't see good things coming down the road.

[r9etb]

The far left has grossly misinterpreted what Nietzsche meant by that and taken it to mean that people who are "saving the world" or "creating a perfect world" are entitled to exempt themselves from having to conform to morality. He never advocated for that at all, but that does not stop millions of deeply ignorant leftists hungry to validate and legitimize their licentious, amoral nature, to lay claim to this bastardized, idiotic ideal.

To the extent that the left have used Nietzsche's diagnosis as a model for life, I suppose that's correct.  Alinski and similar cynics may well have done so.

More generally, I think it's just a modern manifestation of the rise of an aristocracy -- something Americans have really never had to deal with, and therefore don't recognize.  The left is increasingly a self-isolating, self-affirming, self-promoting group whose concerns are limited to what and who they know on a daily basis, and they've got control of the machinery by which influence is wielded.

[libertybele]

Could a President Clinton heal a divided nation?