Posted on 04/25/2015 5:34:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
Dana Perino, former White House press secretary for President George W. Bush and co-host of the Fox News Channels "The Five," makes a plea for civility in her book "And the Good News Is ..."
Shes worried that "Weve gone from being the confident leader of the free world to bickering about every living thing under the sun."
Perino is not against arguing, mind you. "(B)eing civil means that we can argue vehemently and then either find some compromise, call it a tie or move onto something else," she writes.
She has some solutions for the partisan rancor that is paralyzing our government and poisoning our discourse.
"If you dont start off thinking the opposition is evil," she writes, "but that they want to get to the same place you do, then youre already on your way to having a more civil and productive conversation."
The last presidential campaign cycle felt at times like a disaster for those who argued for religious liberty. Rational arguments about our countrys rich history of protecting conscience rights were drowned out by name-calling and shrill, hectoring attacks.
This year, some Republicans appear to be heading off such tactics.
In a recent phone conversation, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told me of his desire to "figure out a way that gets beyond being pushed into a position where you sound like youre intolerant of people who may not agree (with you)," while still standing up for your own beliefs.
One front on which Bush sees room for a more nuanced conversation is abortion. Specifically, he sees the wisdom in emphasizing the need for accountability, safety and respect for life. He brings up several discussion topics: "Do you think a 13-year-old should (be able to) have an abortion without a parents consent?" he asks. "Do you think there should be (many) more resources for adoption?" "Should there be counseling for women who are in a precarious position of having to make a decision like (abortion) that is life-changing?" On "all these things," Bush says, "there is more consensus" than is acknowledged in partisan politics. "The challenge is how do you get to that -- we have to get to that."
Democrats should welcome this approach. That is, if they want to make some headway on the issue and give teeth to the "safe, legal, and rare" rhetoric of Bill Clinton. Specifically, in the case of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she should be kept to her own words. In her 2003 book, "Living History," she writes about an encounter with Mother Teresa: "While we never agreed about abortion and birth control, Mother Teresa and I found much common ground in many other areas including the importance of adoption. We shared the conviction adoption was a vastly better choice than abortion for unplanned or unwanted babies."
Now that is certainly a place to start: education and support for adoption, a focus on working together for the good of women, children and families. Uniting, not dividing, is good politics and good leadership. Since 2009, Gallup has seen more Americans identify as pro-life than pro-choice. In a 2015 Marist poll, 84 percent of Americans want restrictions on abortion -- including seven in 10 who identify as pro-choice.
"We dont need to move the two polarized halves of the American population toward a compromise position on abortion," Carl Anderson wrote in "Beyond a House Divided." "We need to start our conversation in the place where the overwhelming majority of Americans already stand."
"Science has changed a lot of minds about late-term abortion," Perino recently said. "And faith and morals have changed a lot of hearts." Who is going to forsake rhetorical weapons and move us forward? This should be a bipartisan, civil effort, for the sake of our very civilization. Would a President Hillary Clinton honor Mother Teresa with her leadership?
This is why Republicans lose to Democrats. They have people like Hillary, while the GOP has Dana Perino. They are street fighters, and Republicans are pacifists.
” that they want to get to the same place you do, “
obama and his thugs do not want to get to the same place conservatives/Constitutionalists want to get to.
Dana Perino is a lovely woman.
She thinks the Democrats will play nice with us if we just reach out in friendship to them?
Hahahahahahaha!!!
What world is she living in?
She should try kissing a cottonmouth like that kid did. It damn near killed him.
You can be as friendly as you want to be to the snake Democrats and they are still going to bite you.
How can anyone be so out of touch with reality.
After fifty years of that, look where we are. We need lot less "Agreement" and a lot more "No."
Exactly.
Bipartisan loosely translated means “bend over.”
“If you dont start off thinking the opposition is evil,”
She lost me right there. The rat party is evil.
She’s nothing but a stealth liberal. Closet RINO with a capital R. On the surface she agrees with conservative viewpoints but there ALWAYS is a followup starting with “But”. She then goes on to show herself to be the true concern troll she really is. Watch her closely for this, you’ll see it lots of times.
I wouldn’t say Republicans are pacifists so much as compromisers. The Democrats ALWAYS push the country further left. Example: Democrats want to nationalize all health care. Republicans, not wanting to seem uncaring, meet Democrats half way. Result: we move ever closer to nationalized health care.
Now, if Republicans actually pushed for smaller government like they claim, they would propose dismantling the Department of Education. That’s something conservatives could compromise on. Maybe we could keep some of the department in an advisory role, sort of like a facilitator of interstate discussions on education. Regardless, compromise on moving the goalposts to the right is enough, so long as we are, indeed, moving right.
Dana is attractive, pleasant, well educated, intelligent and as naive as the day she was born.
The kind of person who thinks others are as well intentioned, fair and open minded as she is.
The kind of person democrats rely on to play by the rules while they lie, cheat rob and steal until they drive the nation into the ground.
How can two or more walk together, unless they be agreed?
They can’t, and the time for a split from the useless GOP and communist dem DC congress critters is now here.
[Dana is attractive, pleasant, well educated, intelligent and as naive as the day she was born.]
Naïve is the key word. Good mommy maybe, lousy journalist.
Most Republicans (IMO) do not look forward to the upcoming civil war, while most Democrats (again IMO) are anxious to provoke it (in the event the Republicans don’t surrender).
I think the Republican establishment is quite right that, if they press the agenda of the “base”, that there will be a bloody war which will consume or destroy most of that which makes their pleasant lives pleasant. Most of the GOP middle and upper-middle class live in unsecure areas the existence of which would be seriously jeopardized by civil war.
I don’t know if the “base” believes this. I think the fraction of the “base” that subscribes to “bring it on” is small. The fraction of the RAT base that’s anxious to “bring it on” is pretty substantial.
We’re living in a powder keg and giving off sparks. If you think electing the right Republican will prevent what’s coming, I think you’re dreaming.
Um, no.
There is no compromising principles & the Constitution.
The Demopublican party and all its ilk can rot in Hades.
See my #15.
They are quite in touch with reality. Reality is mobs sacking gated communities and putting women and children to the sword.
The Dana Perinos of the world don't want that, are unwilling to fight the upcoming civil war to win (or to prevent it by repression before it's too late), and so they see what they're doing as their only choice.
They're not entirely wrong. We're headed for a bloody, bloody mess, and wishing it wasn't so seems quite typical of our species.
Well, you're going to get your chance to send them there, fairly soon if I don't miss my guess.
Magic thinking...assumes the RATs have not adopted conflict as a tactic. Nullifies the entire chain of logic. One might as well threaten to punish a suicide bomber.
In fact, both seek anarchy, to blow up the established order.
They're wrong enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.