After the Thumpin'

NY Times ^ | November 9, 2006 | WILLIAM SAFIRE

[Sunsong]

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one with this viewpoint. The bitter divisiveness that's consumed politics is absolutely what pushed voters, and our best hope as a nation is to learn how to work with the other side without simply calling them traitors.

Thanks for your post. Yes, hopefully we can now rise to the challenge and look to our *better angels* as our guide. These are consequential times and we are all called on to grow and become better people because of them. Being courteous, respectful and polite never hurt anyone - and, of course, those qualities and attitude have helped to bring about many, many positive results.

There is no benefit to be gained from hatred, bitterness and more personal attacks. We cannot control what the democrats do or whether they rise to the oocasion - but we can be adults ourselves and demonstrate what maturity is all about.

[proseandcons]

He's been genuinely olive branching the crap out of the Democrats the whole time he's been in office.

I'm not sure that's really a defensible statement. In fact, it was Bush's eagerness to depict his opposition as being "with the terrorists" - or any other number of nasty charges that amounted to calling them treasonous - that first seemed to fuel the growing view of him a a divider, rather than a uniter.

[CheyennePress]

I watched it, and I disagree.

[raybbr]

Bush handled himself really well at this press conference. He seemed to take this in stride, presidentially, and with class.

If you call surrendering handling himself well.

"Shows what I know!"

My favorite quote.

[ModelBreaker]

No, I disagree. It is the hatred, the arrogance, the rigidity, the bitter partisanship and polarization that turned off the electorate. The American people are basically good and decent, optimistic people. They don't want their leaders to be bitter, angry partisans. And they want an end to the bloodshed in Iraq. We have serious problems that need to be addressed. The voters want the two parties to work together. President Bush understands that.

"Working together" always translates to bigger government and higher taxes. The dems are not willing to compromise on that issue as the minority or as the majority. How do you work with that if you are a small government conservative? If you do, you become part of the problem--for example, CFR, No Child Left Behind, and Prescription Drug Benefits are great examples of R's and D's joining hands and singing Kumbayah and also great examples of REALLY bad laws. Not only did we endorse a fundamentally wrong vision of what government is in these (and many other) measures, we got no political credit for working with the Dems.

Both parties will play the "working with the others" game while they try to advance their vision. I would like to beat the dems at that game, at least. But it's very difficult as the Old Media plays it for the Dems but not the R's.

It is in the best interest of the GOP to be courteous and polite, respectful of those they disagree with and willing to listen as well.

Couldn't agree with you more on this; but as a matter of personal preference. Won't do us a lick of good politically.

By and large, W and most of the R's have been courteous and polite for six years, whilst the target of the nastiest combined media and political assaults ever mounted in my lifetime (even nastier than what Reagan and Nixon endured). Yet the R's have come out of that the meanies.The Old Media only shows R's when they are angry and D's when they mouth meaningless platitudes about working with the President.

In other words, "working together" is not a principled political position nor is it a political battle we can win--we can't. One can only work together if you share common goals and a generally common notion of what sorts of things will get you there. Differences in details of how to get there can be worked out in those circumstances.

Conservatives and liberals share fundamentally opposing views on a long list of goals and, where they agree on goals, disagree profoundly on how to get there. So we can't work with them--if we do, we just help them build a slightly less onerous socialism and help them work-out a slightly less onerous surrender to islam. If we do that, we share the blame, morally and in the view of the public.

I think our best stance, after 2008, is as a loyal and respectful opposition. Dems always crash the car when they get the keys--1964-8 and 1976-80 for example. I think the voters are going to give them the keys in 2008 and the voters are just going to have to learn again how dangerous the left really is. Each generation apparently has to relearn that lesson. It is a pity this one has to learn it in the middle of an existential war that the left does not even acknowledge is happening.

We best help the voters relearn that lesson by NOT joining with the dems in their hijinx but by standing aside and letting the voters know where the responsibility lies for the coming disasters.