• About
  • Archive
  • Privacy & Policy
  • Contact
Dana Blankenhorn
  • Home
  • About Dana
  • Posts
  • Contact Dana
  • Archive
  • A-clue.com
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Dana
  • Posts
  • Contact Dana
  • Archive
  • A-clue.com
No Result
View All Result
Dana Blankenhorn
No Result
View All Result
Home A-Clue

The Enemy Within

by Dana Blankenhorn
February 16, 2010
in A-Clue, Crisis of 2008, Current Affairs, journalism, Personal, political philosophy, politics, The Age of Obama
10
0
SHARES
5
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Think of this as Volume 14, Number 8 of A-Clue.com, the online newsletter I've written since 1997. Enjoy.


John_sad_at_marta We tend to think of politics in two dimensions — left and right.

The Nixon Thesis of Conflict has accustomed us to this. Democrats accommodated themselves to it first through triangulation, the Clinton "Third Way," and later through confrontation, the Dean Netroots.

The President's Thesis is different. I have called it the Obama Thesis of Consensus. What I have learned recently is this thesis adds a third dimension to our politics, one that most have as much trouble seeing as all of us do the dimension of time.

Agreeability.

Taiwan-parliament-fight-002 Rather than looking at where a candidate stands on the issues, the President wants us to look also at how willing they are to negotiate in good faith, and come to agreement.

What is most clear about this Congress is most Americans fail that test. Not just those in Congress, but those outside. I do, myself, quite often.

It's an internal battle. In order to compromise, you have to accept the humanity and good faith of the other side. Most of us don't do this.

Take FrankyD, a recent commenter here. His response to everything I write isn't just to disagree, but to claim my premises are flawed, that my intentions are dishonest, that all liberals are dishonest, that answers must lie solely within him, no one else.

Joe lieberman But this is true across the board. Democrats threaten to torpedo bills they find too compromising. Even those in the middle, like President Joe Lieberman, refuse to negotiate with an eye toward agreement. Instead they demand personal concessions designed to be unacceptable to others.

On some things I can't compromise. Science is one. The scientific method has created this world, and it's the only force powerful enough to save it. We can't put that genie back in the bottle, we can't close Pandora's Box. Medievalism is not an option. I don't want to live in Afghanistan — do you? Really?

But on most questions the need for compromise is clear. And the real issue before us, the issue that has led 10% of the Congress to suddenly up and walk, is whether compromise is possible.

Being in Congress is no fun anymore. Even those Congresscritters who are staying say that. The other side won't acknowledge their basic humanity, their goodwill, they are constantly engaged in dehumanization.

And the press is worse.

The press is trained by the environment it lives in. The political environment of the last 40 years has grown increasingly poisonous. The media, as a result, has become a den of spiders, caring only for the short term, unable to see policy at all, capable of only reporting on the political moment.

It's time to take a deep breath.

Here is something you won't read anywhere else. It doesn't matter who "wins" the midterms. Left or right doesn't matter. What matters is the attitude shown by the winners once they have won. And how they act upon that attitude. Toward agreement.

Efforts over the last few Congresses to find common human ground between Democrats and Republicans, between liberals and conservatives, have been unavailing. These people don't eat together, they don't play together, they don't socialize with one another at all. They barely acknowledge the others' humanity. They have become so short-term oriented that the idea of doing the peoples' business is foreign.

This is most true among Republicans, from the top on down. Republicans will not negotiate in good faith, they will not come to any agreement on anything, they filibuster even routine business on the flimsiest grounds, but more important they have absolute support in this from their grassroots.

The Tea Party only wants to throw tea into the harbor, to wear makeup and destroy "the other." It's not willing to do something as simple as sitting down to tea. It's misnamed. It's really trafficking in the political equivalent of crack cocaine, not tea at all.

It's time to understand what's really going on. These people are frightened. They see the country changing, they see the pace of change accelerating everywhere, and they're scared. It has nothing to do with the President's skin color. It's a Pavlovian response against any Democrat to which most have been conditioned all their lives.

But it's that response that's the problem. And it's that response — not the issues of the day — that the President is really fighting. You can't have a functioning democracy if the citizens don't acknowledge the inherent honesty, humanity and goodwill of the other. It is democracy that is under threat here from all sides — not Democracy but democracy.

Fact is compromises have been available on all the major issues for years:

  • On health care, everyone goes into the pool and the pool is rated, not its members. Everyone gets preventive care, and wellness services, but cures remain on the open market. Meaning people compete on price, transparently. As well as all the other values that make up a market. 
  • On climate, we equalize treatment of all energy. Eliminate subsidies and start paying all externalities. Give new technology an even break in the tax laws.
  • On the budget we can talk about the big issues — Social Security, Medicare, and the military. All have to be cut. Everything else takes too little of our money for it to be any other way. And everyone pays a fair share — if your income doubled but your tax burden rises just 50% you're getting too good a deal, when we're all in debt up to our eyeballs.

Teaparty12 It's time for all Americans to stop thinking of ourselves as the sum of our interests, as issues, causes, and corporations — and to start thinking of the country as a whole. Regardless of your position on anything, refuse support to anyone who isn't willing to deal with the other side. And start dealing with the other side yourself.

Maybe over some tea. Tea's a good drink, you know. It's relaxing, mellowing, something you can take time over and speak civilly around.

How about a tea party?

Tags: climate changecompromiseCongressEvan Bayhhealth careObamaObama Administrationpolitical ideaspolitical media
Previous Post

The right’s Achilles Heel

Next Post

Short Attention Span Theater

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn began his career as a financial journalist in 1978, began covering technology in 1982, and the Internet in 1985. He started one of the first Internet daily newsletters, the Interactive Age Daily, in 1994. He recently retired from InvestorPlace and lives in Atlanta, GA, preparing for his next great adventure. He's a graduate of Rice University (1977) and Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism (MSJ 1978). He's a native of Massapequa, NY.

Next Post
Short Attention Span Theater

Short Attention Span Theater

Comments 10

  1. FrankyD says:
    16 years ago

    Good article. But unfortunately don’t live up to your own advice: you label republicans as [etc.]. Republicans simply disagree with a lot of the President’s Marxists wet-dream policies. Then it’s part of the democracy to simply vote against. If that stalls the policy making process – then you can only say one thing of it: it’s the will of the people. If it was the will of the people to have socialist policies, there would be more democrats in Congress and Senate. As it is, the numbers simply mean that there is enough opposition by the people to stall things. Perfectly ok. That’s democracy.
    I understand it must be irritating for Mustafa Mohammed Islama Obama and his faithful followers. But that’s democracy. We’re not living in Afghanistan (yet).
    But yes, some compromising would be nice. If people would only start to associate a bit more with each other – they would see that the ‘other’ is not at all that scary. A beer (or an Islamic-approved beverage in the case of the Obama crowd) does wonders.

    Reply
  2. FrankyD says:
    16 years ago

    Good article. But unfortunately don’t live up to your own advice: you label republicans as [etc.]. Republicans simply disagree with a lot of the President’s Marxists wet-dream policies. Then it’s part of the democracy to simply vote against. If that stalls the policy making process – then you can only say one thing of it: it’s the will of the people. If it was the will of the people to have socialist policies, there would be more democrats in Congress and Senate. As it is, the numbers simply mean that there is enough opposition by the people to stall things. Perfectly ok. That’s democracy.
    I understand it must be irritating for Mustafa Mohammed Islama Obama and his faithful followers. But that’s democracy. We’re not living in Afghanistan (yet).
    But yes, some compromising would be nice. If people would only start to associate a bit more with each other – they would see that the ‘other’ is not at all that scary. A beer (or an Islamic-approved beverage in the case of the Obama crowd) does wonders.

    Reply
  3. Dana Blankenhorn says:
    16 years ago

    Your note is filled with hate, abuse, and ignorance.
    "the President's Marxists wet-dream policies." " Mustafa Mohammed Islama Obama and his faithful followers."
    How does that further discussion?
    As to the filibuster, it is a Senate rule. But rules can be changed. Rules that are abused usually are, in time. That's democracy, too.
    Thanks for proving my point.
    Dana

    Reply
  4. Dana Blankenhorn says:
    16 years ago

    Your note is filled with hate, abuse, and ignorance.
    "the President's Marxists wet-dream policies." " Mustafa Mohammed Islama Obama and his faithful followers."
    How does that further discussion?
    As to the filibuster, it is a Senate rule. But rules can be changed. Rules that are abused usually are, in time. That's democracy, too.
    Thanks for proving my point.
    Dana

    Reply
  5. FrankyD says:
    16 years ago

    Actually Dana, you should learn some humor. The world is not as black and white as you want it to be.
    And as for hate – here’s my advice. Take your agenda, block of an afternoon someday, and read your own blogs. Seriously – it’s been quite a while since I’ve seen such ADHD-rage filled writings.
    Cheer up!

    Reply
  6. FrankyD says:
    16 years ago

    Actually Dana, you should learn some humor. The world is not as black and white as you want it to be.
    And as for hate – here’s my advice. Take your agenda, block of an afternoon someday, and read your own blogs. Seriously – it’s been quite a while since I’ve seen such ADHD-rage filled writings.
    Cheer up!

    Reply
  7. Dana Blankenhorn says:
    16 years ago

    You're an O'Reilly nonsense. When you get called on something you know you can't defend, you call it a joke, and then attack me for having no sense of humor.
    You're playing a game. You're not interested in seeing the country's problems solved. You only see things black-white, you must win and I must lose or no deal.
    That's the problem on all sides. That's the Nixon Thesis in action.
    Dana

    Reply
  8. Dana Blankenhorn says:
    16 years ago

    You're an O'Reilly nonsense. When you get called on something you know you can't defend, you call it a joke, and then attack me for having no sense of humor.
    You're playing a game. You're not interested in seeing the country's problems solved. You only see things black-white, you must win and I must lose or no deal.
    That's the problem on all sides. That's the Nixon Thesis in action.
    Dana

    Reply
  9. FrankyD says:
    16 years ago

    No Dana, I’m not playing a game. Just accept for once that there are people on this planet who hold opinions that differ from yours, without feeling the need or feel the justification to call them all kinds of bad things. Really, that’s a recurring theme in your writings. That’s why I said you should cheer up.
    Here, have a beer!

    Reply
  10. FrankyD says:
    16 years ago

    No Dana, I’m not playing a game. Just accept for once that there are people on this planet who hold opinions that differ from yours, without feeling the need or feel the justification to call them all kinds of bad things. Really, that’s a recurring theme in your writings. That’s why I said you should cheer up.
    Here, have a beer!

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Post

Lessons from New Jersey

Lessons from New Jersey

January 20, 2026
TechBro GroupThink

Three Strikes Yet Zuck Isn’t Out?

January 20, 2026

Hard Times Reveal Our Character

January 19, 2026
Marketing Matters in AI

Marketing Matters in AI

January 16, 2026
Subscribe to our mailing list to receives daily updates direct to your inbox!


Archives

Categories

Recent Comments

  • Dana Blankenhorn on The Death of Video
  • danablank on The Problem of the Moment (Is Not the Problem of the Moment)
  • cipit88 on The Problem of the Moment (Is Not the Problem of the Moment)
  • danablank on What I Learned on my European Vacation
  • danablank on Boomer Roomers

I'm Dana Blankenhorn. I have covered the Internet as a reporter since 1983. I've been a professional business reporter since 1978, and a writer all my life.

  • Italian Trulli

Browse by Category

Newsletter


Powered by FeedBlitz
  • About
  • Archive
  • Privacy & Policy
  • Contact

© 2023 Dana Blankenhorn - All Rights Reserved

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Dana
  • Posts
  • Contact Dana
  • Archive
  • A-clue.com

© 2023 Dana Blankenhorn - All Rights Reserved