Political Jingoism

[rmcrobertson]

Well, I can certainly see why someone who brought up Australian wild dogs (not spelled the same, doesn't sound the same) in a thread about political jingoism would wantr to object to someone threadsplitting or going off topic.

Uh...Ray? It's not my description of the term. It's somebody else's--and what would YOU say a "jingo," was? Kind of a weird thing to've brought up....

At present, our current President's current alibi for why we're in Iraq (uh...WMDs? No. Direct ties to Al Quaida? uh, well, no....nation building? absolutely not...) boils down to a jingoistic notion: we're there to bring democracy for their own good, and this will lead to democracy throughout the Islamic world, whether they like it or not.

In other words, we went to war and occupied their country to help them. That's jingoism.

 

[Ray]

Well, I can certainly see why someone who brought up Australian wild dogs (not spelled the same, doesn't sound the same) in a thread about political jingoism would wantr to object to someone threadsplitting or going off topic.

Thanks for correcting me. I feel so much better now--a dingo is a dog, a jingo isn't...I gotta remember that.

Uh...Ray? It's not my description of the term. It's somebody else's--and what would YOU say a "jingo," was? Kind of a weird thing to've brought up....

A jingo is one of two things, a warmonger or someone who is shows excessive favoritism towards his/her own country.

...our current President's current alibi for why we're in Iraq....we went to war and occupied their country...

Do you write your own stuff or do you get help from Jane Fonda's speech writer?

 

[Makalakumu]

Do you write your own stuff or do you get help from Jane Fonda's speech writer?

This merits repetition...

jin·go·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jngg-zm)
n.

Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism

Now, who does this sound like? Whoever it is, would be a jingo.

 

[raedyn]

--

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...Ray? Ms. Fonda pretty much gave up the Revolution about 1974---get used to it. And work on better comebacks; try seeing Godard's, "Letter to Jane."

And, dude, a jingo is actually somebody who believes in the moral superiority of their own country, the inferiority of all others, and in some cases really believes that "we," are ordained (and I do mean ordained) to rule over everybody else--for their own good.

You might look at somebody like Kipling--try, "The Man Who Would Be King," (great movie), and "Recessional," and "White Man's Burden," and "Plain Tales From the Hills," because Kipling does not only have the definition straight, he's pretty straight about what being a jingo really implies.

No, you don't have to read just my books. (Like they're, "mine!") There're many others, though Kipling's a wonderful writer. But read something, because you don't know what you're talking about.

Or, try this: why do YOU think we should be in Iraq?

 

[FearlessFreep]

One way I try to keep it all straight is basically to look at a couple of different simple understandings.

First: Nobody wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror, and says "I think I'll be a jerk today".
Second: Nobody wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror, and says "I think I will go out and do wrong today"

In other words, most people in the world think they are doing right, think they are doing a good thing. They may be wrong, they may reach the wrong conclusions from the information available or have differing motivations or whatever, but I think most people at heart really think they are doing the right thing. I find that keeping that in mind goes an awful long way toward getting along with people and at least understanding that someone may be wrong, but not on purpose.

When it comes to 'conservative' versus 'liberal', I really think they mean two different things, there are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, if you will, and the same for liberals. Fiscal liberals and fiscal conservatives I think really want the same things. I mean everyone wants low unemployment and good education, etc..., a better life for themselves and those around them. The difference is really in who is responsible for it. Liberals tend to view that since the government represents the people, it represents the will of the people and is therefore charged with executing the desires of the people. Thus a liberal government is an activist government; it gets involved in trying to make the world a better place. Conservatives tend to distrust consolidated power and the abuse that comes from that, and thus favor a minimalistic government of basic neccessity only; where the people of themselves get invovled in the social issues they care about. The real debate is how much the 'government as the people' versus how much the 'people without the government' should get involved. You know what? I really don't have a problem with either side as far as which is 'correct' or not. In some parts of the world, they tax higher and then the government does more; you see that in the statistics of what governments gave more per capita to disaster relief. Other places in the world, they tax lower, and the people get invovled more directly. A good example is that my church; we are still sending money and workers down to El Salvador to rebuild homes and villages after an earthquake there years ago. Doesn't matter whether the people do it through the government or on their own, it gets done, and I think people want it to get done somehow and want to help...the details of how just depends on what you view the rold of the government to be. I tend to be fiscally conservative, but I don't have a problem with people who are fiscally liberal because I can see their point.

Then there are the social sides. I don't think social ideas are really liberal or conservative. I just think that people who tend to champion certain causes will tend to end up on the liberal side simply because of convenience; an activist government is more likely to get involved; a government more inclined to view itself as the execution of the people's will has more of a tendancy to get involved in social issues if they are the will of the people, A social conservative is more likely to be wary of trying to enforce social changes through government intervention through law. Good liberals and good conservatives will both think 'rascism is bad', but a liberal will think 'racism is bad and it hurts people and to correct the situation, we need to use the law to level the field' and a conservative will think 'racism is bad, but to change the social situation requires changing people minds and hearts and you can't do that with the law' The truth is propbably somewhere in the middle, or a little of both. Anyway, an activist government becomes a vehicle for social change and thus those looking for social change will gravitate toward the 'liberal' view of government involvement.

This is all, I think, how most average people really think, if they bother to think it through. Everyone wants what's good for their community, they really only differ in how it's to be done; or rather, where the split between government responsibility and individual responsibilty lies.

The real problem is that there are people who derive their income, their status, etc..from having, using, and keeping political power. I don't really think Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken or Micheal Savage or Ed Schultz really agree with me that 'Nobody wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror, and says "I think I will go out and do wrong today"' They make a living trying to convince you that 'those other people are out to do bad..are out to destroty "our" way of life' I think they are just the tip of the iceberg, political consultants are in the same mode, as are often politicians. They don't get elected saying "well, me and my opponent want the same thing for all you, we just don't agree on how to get it done, but hey...we can work it out", they get elected by painting themselves as saints and the other guys as demons and hoping it sticks. Fundamentally, 'conservative' and 'liberal' politicians I really don't think are conservative or liberal much at all. They just have carved out the electorate into different constituent groups that they pander to and rely on (unions or businessmen or blacks or christians) and then fight viciously for everyone else in the middle. I don't really think Democrats and Republicans, at least those invovled in the politics of it all, are really 'liberals' or conservatives'; they're just playing a game of 'king of the hill' where the only way to be king is to knock the other guy down. I tend to think that most people you run across on the street are not that nasty about it, though.

That guy on the street, he may be 'conservative', he may be 'liberal'. At the end of the day, he probably wants the same things as you. I try to remember that.

 

[Flatlander]

========================================
Moderator Note.
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
========================================

 

[Ray]

And, dude, a jingo is actually somebody who believes in the moral superiority of their own country, the inferiority of all others, and in some cases really believes that "we," are ordained (and I do mean ordained) to rule over everybody else--for their own good.

I agree with the dictionary definition of jingo as given earlier; it also agrees with merrim-webster. Now gimme the word for the definition of your position, which seems to be that you believe in the moral superiority of rmcrobertson, the inferiority of all others and the belief that you're some sort of authority.

You might look at somebody like Kipling--try, "The Man Who Would Be King," (great movie), and "Recessional," and "White Man's Burden," and "Plain Tales From the Hills," because Kipling does not only have the definition straight, he's pretty straight about what being a jingo really implies.

Okay, I could try reading fiction (I generally don't) but you have to promise to try to come up with some original ideas.

But read something, because you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm sure you don't mean that. Go back to my original post in this thread, you used the contraction " to've " which I don't believe is a valid contraction. Okay, my subsequent post about "jingo / dingo" was an attempt at humor that didn't go over big; other than that: what did I say that was incorrect? My definition of jingo was good enough.

 

[rmcrobertson]

One part of my definition of jingoism includes the idea that a "jingo," is somebody who, whenever his notions of his and his country's inherent superiority are questioned in the slightest way, immediately begins a set of personal attacks upon whomever they feel did the questioning. And oh yes, a "jingo," most definitely refuses to go and actually find out what the world and its history is really like--for example, they refuse to go an look at some excellent writing by the author (Kipling, in this case) who is associated, more than any other, with the concept being discussed. Indeed, a "jingo," protects their armored concepts of themeslves and their country's inherent superiority with all sorts of violences, from verbal all the way through to the real thing.

Not quite original, I suspect--but it does make the point.

Here's the thing about knowledge: it's democratic, as much as anything is in this country. Anybody has access to it; anybody can do the work to gain it; anybody's entitled to struggle and try to figure the world out. Even if there are obstacles (for example, living in a society that tells working class people they can't really learn, and that intellectuals are The Enemy), you can still get around them. It's one of the best things about America.

The only catch is, it's like martial arts--if you don't get on the mat, if you don't put in the work, if you don't sweat to learn, well, then you've got nothing real to offer.

Let me suggest, for example, that you try the chapter on Kipling, the concept of the, "White Man," and its extension to the problem of the West's confrontation with the, "Arab," world in Edward Said, "Orientalism," 226 and following.

It's a big world out there, and learning about it is a great joy. You shouldn't let people take that away from you. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with the Freepster--nice post.

 

[Ray]

One part of my definition of jingoism includes the idea that a "jingo," is somebody who...

That was a pretty darned good post.

 

[raedyn]

Most people in the world think they are doing right, think they are doing a good thing.

I agree with this. Most people don't have evil intentions. Selfish maybe, but not evil. However just because someone believes their actions are justified, doesn't mean they really are.

there are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, if you will, and the same for liberals.

You are correct on this. But conservative and liberal are not the only two options. Ever heard of socialism? communism? (those are not the same although American discourse has long equated the two) totalitarianism? neoconservatism? etc etc

I would suggest going to the Wikkipedia entires for Liberalism and Conservatism as a starting point to anyone who is interested in learning more.

Fiscal liberals and fiscal conservatives I think really want the same things. I mean everyone wants low unemployment and good education, etc..., a better life for themselves and those around them.

I'm not so sure about that. Many people feel this way, yes. But there are people who honest-to-goodness want a good life for themselves and to hell with anyone else. Unfortunate, but true.

That guy on the street, he may be 'conservative', he may be 'liberal'. At the end of the day, he probably wants the same things as you. I try to remember that.

Well, yes and no. I agree that it can be useful to realize we have more in common then we disagree on. But I think you're painting an unrealistically rosy picture of people.

We don't always want the same thing. Like:

1)
- Johnny wants everyone to be able to go to the hospital without having to look in their wallet first. He doesn't want any money to change hands when someone sees the doctor.
- Sally doesn't want to pay the higher income tax that is associated with socialized health care. She doesn't want her hard earned dollars paying for the birth of Johnny's kids, or paying for the treatments that Johnny needs because he smoked all his life

2)
- Cindy thinks all kids should be able to get the same education, free, no matter where they live, or who their parents are. She wants everyone to pay into the system because 'a rising tide raises all boats' and she thinks it's important to educate as many people as possible, so they're employable and add labour capital and tax dollars to the economy instead of resorting to criminal acts or begging to support themselves.
- Jimmy doesn't have kids and doesn't think that it's fair for him to pay to educate someone else's kids. After all, he didn't have kids on purpose. If other people want to do that, then good for them, but the planet overcrowed already, so those people made that choice, and they should pay the price.

3)
- Fanny is suspicious of people with religions other than her own, and believes that anyone who disagrees with her particular sect's beliefs on God/Allah/Yaweh/Gaia/whatever is Doomed and Evil and a bad influence on her children. She would be happier if people who didn't look like her left the country because she's uncomfortable around them, and can't the government just close the damn borders?
- Linda wants a diverse multicultural society where we can learn from other cultures and experiences to broaden our horizons and enrich our lives.

I could go on, but I've been wayyy too long-winded already! And I think it's horribly obvious what my biases are. But I'm comfortable with that. My point is only that there are certain ideas that just can't be reconciled. Sometimes we want different things, not just "have different ideas of how to get the same thing". The people in these examples have fundamentally different views of the world. Each of them feels their position is the obvious one, given their basic assumptions that the bring to the table. Not everyone has those same assumptions.

 

[heretic888]

I've said this before, but....

"Liberalism", very simply, is nothing more than a philosophical orientation whereby you believe that the major cause and solution of human suffering is external. For example, a person is poor not primarily because of any personal deficiencies, but because of lack of opportunity, social oppression, and so forth. This dates back to the 1500's or so, and is most readily seen in figures like Rousseau and Voltaire, and arose more or less simulatenously with both an emerging middle class, industrial technology, and democratic social systems.

"Conservatism", very simply, is nothing more than a philosophical orientation whereby you believe that the major cause and solution of human suffering is internal. For example, a person is poor (or, at least, unsuccessful) not primarily because of lack of opportunity, but because of a bad work ethic, laziness, immorality, and so forth. This dates back to roughly 5,000 years ago, with the rise of the complex city-state and highly rule-and-order religion.

Of course, then there are "law" and "freedom" orientations across both spectrums --- which convolutes things even more.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

I agree with this. Most people don't have evil intentions. Selfish maybe, but not evil. However just because someone believes their actions are justified, doesn't mean they really are.

Correction. Nobody has "evil" intentions.

Everyone, right down to the nuttiest sociopath and serial killer, has some sort of justification or rationalization for doing what they do. They may not necessarily see what they do as "right" or "moral", but they will always feel it was necessary --- or, at the very least, "not as bad as it could be".

The truth is that "evil" is an early belief structure developed to form cohesion and harmony with the sociocentric in-group. "Evil" is always other, it is always chaotic, it is always different, it is always alien.

This is why a belief in "evil" of some kind is almost culturally universal, but what actually constitutes "evil" is most assuredly not.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Actually, no. While superficially correct, to argue that "liberalism," and "conservatism," are simply archetypes that have been around since the formation of the city-state (which, incidentally, also happened in the East), long before the words or the concepts existed, is to commit the error of erasing historical difference in favor of a pseudo-Hegelian notion of history as the mere unfolding of some divine world-spirit within mere temporality.

In point of fact, these concepts appeared in 19th-century England, in part as a response to the development of class society and Victorian colonialism within the general development of industrial capitalism.

Jingoism, in its way, is to be understood as an attempt at providing an intellectual, religious and nationalistic alibi for an expansion of markets abroad and the exploitation of workers at home within those larger historical developments.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Originally Posted by FearlessFreep
Most people in the world think they are doing right, think they are doing a good thing.


I agree with this. Most people don't have evil intentions. Selfish maybe, but not evil. However just because someone believes their actions are justified, doesn't mean they really are.

What I left out for brevity is that most people are motivated by self-interests. Different people have different kinds of self-interest and some are more selfish or altruistic than others, but fundamentally, everyone thinks there self-interests are justified. They *may not be* but that's usually from from ignorance, not malice. I've found that if I start from that presumption, it's quite a lot easier to work with and relate to people around me than if I start with the assumption that "he's just a jerk" or "she's just being selfish"


there are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, if you will, and the same for liberals.

You are correct on this. But conservative and liberal are not the only two options. Ever heard of socialism? communism? (those are not the same although American discourse has long equated the two) totalitarianism? neoconservatism? etc etc

I kept it short because I was mostly replying to you and ginshun had mentioned about conservative and liberal and Republican and Democrat when I was replying. Mostly, though, the way I broke down the distinction between the two can be applied as a scale within any particular mechanism of "how it's carried out" we have a Republic and the distinction between liberal and conservative is along a fairly small band. You could apply it to Communism as well and still I think say that there could be 'liberal communists' and 'conservative communists' being that Communism is the "how" and liberal vs conservative is "how much". Or a Monarchy...Maybe not wholely accurate, politically, but useful to me in trying to understand the motivations of people

Neoconservative is actually a weird one because it seems to be, as applied in the US today, to be a fiscally liberal, if you will, a 'activist government' approach to issues that are socially conservative. Which tends to seem to drive both real liberals and real conservatives daft. Liberals don't like the social conservatives using the government for social change simply because it's change in directions they don't like, and conservatives don't like using the government for social change because they don't believe that's the role of government

We don't always want the same thing. Like:

- Johnny wants everyone to be able to go to the hospital without having to look in their wallet first. He doesn't want any money to change hands when someone sees the doctor.
- Sally doesn't want to pay the higher income tax that is associated with socialized health care. She doesn't want her hard earned dollars paying for the birth of Johnny's kids, or paying for the treatments that Johnny needs because he smoked all his life


Those are just differences in 'how it gets done'. Johnny wants the government to handle it and Sally does not. Does Sally want Johnny or his kids to die? Probably not, I would hope. Sally would probably be perfectly happy with Johnny being able to get to medical care, whether through insurance or out of pocket or what not, she just doesn't want to pay for it. If Sally doesn't want to pay for the higher income tax, that means she wants a lower income tax, leaving more money in Johnny's hands to handle his own medical situation. In the end I suspect both want the same thing, ability to have access to good medical care. The only difference is do you tax high so the government can cover it all (Johnny's implied position) or do you tax low so individuals can do it either privately out-of-pocket or collectively through insurance(Sally's implied position). You haven't really shown that either of them wants medical coverage to not be available to others or themselves, which would be a true difference


- Cindy thinks all kids should be able to get the same education, free, no matter where they live, or who their parents are. She wants everyone to pay into the system because 'a rising tide raises all boats' and she thinks it's important to educate as many people as possible, so they're employable and add labour capital and tax dollars to the economy instead of resorting to criminal acts or begging to support themselves.
- Jimmy doesn't have kids and doesn't think that it's fair for him to pay to educate someone else's kids. After all, he didn't have kids on purpose. If other people want to do that, then good for them, but the planet overcrowed already, so those people made that choice, and they should pay the price.

That, again, is just a difference in who pays, or more properly, how the money moves in it getting paid for. Jimmy doesn't seem to not want quality education available, he just doesn't want the payment for it to come from his taxes. Cindy wants good education, but wants it to be paid for universally through the state, Jimmy does not as he has no vested interest, he feels, in directly contributing. Now, if Jimmy was of the opinion that Cindy should not be able to pay to get a good education for her kids, then they have a real difference of opinion that one wants good eduction available and the other does not. As it is, though, while the implementations of how to spend for education seem irreconcialable, the desire to have good educational opportunities available is probably not

The differences are really not a matter of 'what we want for ourselves and ur neighbors' but 'how do we rerranage the piles of money to make it happen'. Do we pay in one big lump of taxes and let the government do it, or do we do it individually; there are pros and cons to each. A 'what we all want' is 'access to medicine and medical care', 'access to education', etc... whether it's state subsidized or privately paid or somewhere in the middle is really just a disagreement of the fairest and most efficient way to do it (and 'fair' and 'efficient' may be contridictory)

I could simply say "No child in our country should have to go to bed hungry" and there's not a soul alive who would disagree. But there are a thousand ways to try to make that come true from private charities to direct government intervention. Sometimes I think we would be better of if we spent more time talking about what we want to accomplish and keep those goals in sight and less time fighting over the politics of how to do it. It it really matters to you, you'll find ways to compromise over how to get it done to be sure it actually gets done. Unfortunately, if you derive political power from the money from who get's money based on 'how it gets done', that tends to take on inflated importance


- Fanny is suspicious of people with religions other than her own, and believes that anyone who disagrees with her particular sect's beliefs on God/Allah/Yaweh/Gaia/whatever is Doomed and Evil and a bad influence on her children. She would be happier if people who didn't look like her left the country because she's uncomfortable around them, and can't the government just close the damn borders?
- Linda wants a diverse multicultural society where we can learn from other cultures and experiences to broaden our horizons and enrich our lives.


Well, you've switched from fiscal to social issues which is a different ballgame but...interestingly, both of them want the ability to associate with the people they want to associate with, however boad or narrow a group that may be, and either way requires a concious decision of the government involved. A truly 'different' point of view would be someone how simply wakes up and says "I'm just going try to get along with my neighbors, whomever they are"

 

[heretic888]

Actually, no. While superficially correct, to argue that "liberalism," and "conservatism," are simply archetypes that have been around since the formation of the city-state (which, incidentally, also happened in the East), long before the words or the concepts existed, is to commit the error of erasing historical difference in favor of a pseudo-Hegelian notion of history as the mere unfolding of some divine world-spirit within mere temporality.

I didn't say they were "archetypes". I said they were specific philosophical orientations. Archetypes, as understood in both the Jungian and Platonic sense, are devoid or emptied of specific content. Philosophies, on the other hand, are indeed full of content and particular standpoints.

Also, in lieu of Hegel, I'd suggest Sri Aurobindo.

In point of fact, these concepts appeared in 19th-century England, in part as a response to the development of class society and Victorian colonialism within the general development of industrial capitalism.

The terms may have appeared at this point in Western history, but the concepts did not. This would also be like arguing that, say, "panentheism" (the belief that all things are in the Divine and, paradoxically, the Divine is in all things) did not exist until the term was coined in the 1800's. Trying telling that to a Valentinian Christian or an Advaita Vedantist or a Shingon Buddhist.

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, you mean, "pantheism."

Second off, it is grossly inaccurate to claim that archetypes are mere forms--"eidolons," someone like Emerson might say--emptied of specific content. In Plato, archetypes are containers of elements of the Real; in Jung, they stand for the specific contents of the deep human unconscious, an unconscious shared by the entire human race--or, I should say, in Jung's case, shared by the entire white race.

Third off--my point was that you are collapsing historical differences and historical developments into nothing, and arguing for some underlying pattern or structure in human existence that does not change. You might as well claim that there are only two kinds of people, or sing a verse from, "As Time Goes By," ("it's still the same old story, a fight for love and glory/A case of do or die/The fundamental things apply/As time goes by"). I'm afraid that instead, I actually take history seriously--and terms like, "liberal," and, "conservative," meant absolutely nothing in, say, Imperial Rome, where they had neither those words nor the concepts they represent.

The terms only mean something in the cultural mileau in which they actually existed--unless, of course, you wish to ignore historical and material differences, and simply argue what is in the end theology, since the very existence of these binary opposites that supposedly actualize thmeselves via human politics can only be "proven," as a mater of speculation and faith.

Of course, one is perfectly entitled to make such a claim: Jung did, and in a different way Hegel did. But it is not a claim that rests on material proof of any sort.

 

[raedyn]

Does Sally want Johnny or his kids to die? Probably not, I would hope. You haven't really shown that either of them wants medical coverage to not be available to others or themselves, which would be a true difference

There is a true difference. There are people who say "to hell with everyone else". There are people who believe that if say if Johnny can't afford to pay for the medical care his kids need, then he must have been lazy to not get a good job and because he was lazy, now he's gonna pay the price. There are people who believe that if you are poor, that's your problem and I don't want to hear about it and I don't care if you end up dead just don't do it on my front lawn. Do you really truly believe that everyone cares about their neighbours? Most people do care about other people. But to varying degrees. There are also some very cold-hearted people out there.

A 'what we all want' is 'access to medicine and medical care', 'access to education', etc...

For ourselves. We don't all care about the dude down the street. When people complain about beggars and panhandlers, notice that most of them aren't saying "Why are there people so depserate that they feel they have to resport to that? How can we fix it?". Many people just want to not have to see the damn beggars looking ugly, stinking up the sidewalk and getting in their way.

I'm not trying to argue that all people - or even most people - are that selfish and hard-hearted. But if you honestly believe that there is no one that feels this way I think you are very naieve.

 

[raedyn]

Freep -
I hope you don't take the naieve comment as an insult. It isn't meant as an attack. But it's been my experience that not everyone wants the same things for the world. Sometimes it is as simple as a disagreement on what the right way to get to our goal is. But sometimes people really do have different goals.

(Another example: Some people want to find a cure for AIDS. Other people think - incorrectly, mind you - that AIDS is a gay disease and therefore "the gays get what they deserve for their sins" You can't tell me those people want the same things.)

 

[FearlessFreep]

I'm not trying to argue that all people - or even most people - are that selfish and hard-hearted. But if you honestly believe that there is no one that feels this way I think you are very naieve.

It's not really that I don't think there are not people like that. I just find it easier if I start out assuming that a given person is not unless they prove me otherwise.

Think of this scenario: I'm arguing for the benefits of socialized/government pay/tax funded medicine. A person I'm talking to says "I don't want to pay taxes for the medical care of others". I can initially take that one of two ways; either that person is being selfish and only wants to take care of themself and to hell with anyone else, or that person does care about the medical needs of others but doesn't think socializing medicine is the right way to take care of it. Maybe he thinks socialized medicine is going to be wasteful because of government beuracracy? Maybe he thinks we're better off working to keep costs lower so people can afford better medecine, etc.. If I take the first view, that he is just being a selfish jerk, then no dialog and no comprimise can take place. If I assume the second view that we really fundamentally want the same thing, available healthcare, then at least dialog is possible and we can work toward a common goal and maybe he has to bend a bit and maybe I have to bend a bit but at least we can respect each other. Even if I assume the second view and I'm wrong and he really is a selfish jerk well then..I tried. If I assume the first and I'm wrong and he's not being selfish just has different ideas on how to get the job done, well...I've stopped the possibility of dialog before it started and it's my fault. Maybe there was something that could be worked out...but my own assumptions made it impossible.

So, I'd rather start off assuming that if I disagree with someone on what to do that at least both of us share a common goal of "trying to do what's right" and we can dialog on how to get that done. I may end up being wrong with any given person, but...at least I'll try.

I think a lot of times we view 'how' as 'what' and we seem to see impasse with others who disagree with 'how'. For example, to me "healthy citizen's" is a goal. "Socialized medicine" is a way to accomplish that goal, but not the only one. I personally don't think it's the best way to do it, but I'm willing to talk about it and think about it. If someone else sees "Socialized Medicine" is the goal itself, we may have a problem dialoging, but if that person really looks beyond that to see "Healthy Citizens" as the real, foundational goal, then we can work together to try to accomplish that.

I think the problem stems because "socialized medicine" or "privatized social security" or "private charities" or "welfare programs" puts money and power into different sets of people's hands so they have a vested interest in trying to paint the 'how' as 'what'