Bipartisan Dialogue

I think it is time to rehash my beliefs about bipartisanship.

After last night’s presidential debate, or rather, after my experiences watching it, I see more necessity to do this than I had hoped.

I believe bipartisanship is one of the most important things the United States needs. I think cross-belief-system engagement is one of the most important activities to the world.

I don’t think most liberals believe that. Nor most Americans in general. Or perhaps they might believe in the second statement – theoretically – but watch how many Columbia (or replace with name of any prestigious liberal university) students will advocate for – and practice – the former.

I am a liberal.

“The idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks,” Obama said, drawing cheers from the crowd I was watching the debate with, a group of journalism students convened around a television.

But how can people cheer Barack Obama’s entreaties for America to sit down with the president of Iran, a country he himself calls an “enemy,” when they will jeer at, and not listen to anything of what John McCain says?

How can we support talks with Iran when we will not even talk to the people of a different party in our own country?

There was not one person in the room who was a McCain supporter.

On one point I might be mistaken, as I think this through some more, and here I have some hope. I guess it is perfectly possible that people were jeering at McCain tonight and – what’s more significant than jeering to me – not listening to what he was saying, because they simply thought what he said was stupid, and they don’t believe McCain was presenting anything worth listening to. Or, perhaps it was just that a presidential candidates debate is not set up as a forum for listening or engaging in true dialogue about people’s beliefs and issues of importance.

I suppose it is possible that these scenarios were true but liberals here are still truly open to engaging in dialogue with conservatives. True dialogue.

I have not seen evidence of it so far, but I suppose I could keep on looking.

Now I am back to those days (like of my former lives) when I don’t know one single conservative person at the institution where I go to school. They may well exist here, but all I am saying is, so far this year, I have not met one.
_______________________________________

Why bipartisanship?

Some of you may wonder, why am I so obsessed with America bipartisanship?

It’s because in addition to the world that so many liberals are a part of, there IS another half of the country, and they matter.

They matter because the country needs, and has, federal legislation on so many matters that affect all of us, and it appears that for so many issues, people’s beliefs are split into two camps.

It’s because we are trying to elect a president, and the people are divided into two camps. (Yes, I know there are not clearly two camps, but I do believe in the U.S., even if there has been a move towards more libertarianism and non-affiliation, the two main parties still vastly dominate the political sphere.)

And if we want to have any hope of enacting good climate change legislation, energy policy, fiscal policy, and anything, without having whether it is possible hinging on the November 4 vote, if we want to have an America that has as good of ideas as possible, no matter what, we must have bipartisan dialogue. If we want to be able to pass any legislation without alienating half the country, we must have bipartisan dialogue.

If we want to have an America where what happens to the country and the people is entirely determined by which party wins the campaign, and if we want a country where when one half is happy with a law, the other side is necessarily unhappy, we can proceed as we have been doing. Shun those conservatives would be my advice to liberals then.

I am very much a believer in the enlightenment view that if people lay their ideas of the table, out of discussion the truth will manifest itself.

Well, here we are not necessarily looking for “truth.” We are looking for good ways to run the country. And how would talking with other of different beliefs, harm this goal?

It won’t. But it might harm your own beliefs.
_______________________________________

What scares me the most is:
How can so many journalists be so stalwart advocacy-ish, promote a point of view without being interested in others? The types who do not like to hear the devil’s advocate?

I don’t understand how journalists, at least any good journalists, can be so closed to challenging their own beliefs?

Perhaps I am baffled because I hold an idealized view of a journalist-person. Why should journalists not have opinions?
But I don’t mean people cannot have opinions. I mean people should not be ideological.
_______________________________________

Previous posts I’ve written about my beliefs about bipartisan dialogue
Experiments with conservatism July 9, 2007
Thinking about Conservatism 1 August 9, 2007
(the rest to be added)
_______________________________________

I am glad to know that, despite having moved back to the Northeast, I have not lost this vision.

Thank you, William Cronon. Thank you, Wisconsin.