The Right, Ronald Reagan and the Rest of Us
Cutting a deal with the Evil Empire? Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev from Wikipedia.
Way back in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was in the White House and Moscow still led a vast Evil Empire, a particular and apparently intractable problem began to emerge in international diplomacy.
Reagan, a staunch anti-communist from his early days as an actor and governor of California, began to let on that he thought negotiating with the Russians was more or less a non-starter. He just didn’t trust them.
He started describing the Soviet Union as “an evil empire” and portrayed the Cold War as “the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.” Not a whole lot of room there for middle grounds or deal-making.
He also started cracking jokes like this one, in 1984: “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”
That’s a tough opening for a dialogue, right?
The dilemma here is that when you reach the point that you no longer trust your opponent — no longer have any respect or sense of comity — it is very difficult indeed to talk, to listen, and to reach some kind of workable accord.
I recount this story because it seems that a very similar problem has emerged with America’s far right, particularly with those on the far right who have real political power in Washington.
It’s not necessarily that their ideas are bad ones. Some of their policies may be exactly what the country needs.
No, the problem is that many on the right have clearly reached the conclusion that the rest of us — moderates, liberals, independent journalists, anyone who isn’t on “their” ideological team — simply can’t be trusted or reasoned with.
The distrust is so high that even ideas that conservatives invented and once embraced — background checks for gun purchasers, cap-and-trade policies to curb pollution, an individual insurance mandate, and so on — are discredited if anyone else endorses them.
I was reminded of this dilemma after the background check bill failed in Congress earlier this month. Local conservative activist Ray Scollin from Saranac Lake wrote a thoughtful op-ed for the Adirondack Daily Enterprise.
He acknowledged that 90% of Americans supported the basic idea in the bill, and acknowledged that the bill was co-sponsored by a Republican, and drew support from four out of the 45 GOP Senators.
But then he came to the real issue at hand: lack of trust. “In the end, this bill failed because we lack trust and we are unable to reach meaningful compromise,” Scollin argued.
“There cannot be hidden clauses or a lack of understanding on the subject you are attempting to legislate. In this situation, leadership could not provide the trust or the meaningful compromise.”
I think Scollin has it mostly wrong on the second part of his claim. I think by any reasonable measure the background check bill represented “compromise.”
It certainly didn’t go as far as most gun control advocates would have preferred; nor was it exactly what the pro-gun lobby would have written if they controlled Congress. That’s what middle grounds usually look like.
But Scollin is spot on when he talks about the lack of trust. A similar sentiment was expressed by conservatives posting on this blog, who said they support the idea of background checks but lacked faith in the people pushing the legislation.
“I have no problem with the concept of background checks – it’s already the law in many states,” wrote Original Larry.
“That said, I absolutely do not trust anti-gun activists. Their actions, especially in NY, make me deeply suspicious of their motives. Why would I trust people who do not keep their word and who deliberately spread misinformation in pursuit of their agenda? I’ll continue to oppose additional gun control legislation until I see signs that I can trust those who propose it.”
It’s understandable why conservatives feel that moderates and liberals aren’t credible negotiating partners.
From Alex Jones to Glen Beck to Orson Scott Card to Rush Limbaugh, there is a wide and growing call on the right for a kind of moratorium on any dealings with the “other” or the “false” America.
There is an increasingly “mainstream” argument the US government itself is a rogue entity, preparing to confiscate all guns, and operating “false flag” terrorist actions in order to rationalize gun control.
This isn’t merely the stuff of AM talk radio rants. Republicans recently held a House subcommittee hearing to air worries that the Department of Homeland Security is “hoarding” ammunition.
“What are they doing with it?” asked subcommittee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah, echoing concerns on the right that our government might be actively preparing for some kind of military confrontation against its own citizens.
The problem posed by these arguments, of course, is pretty simple.
What do you do when a sizable percentage of the population — and the political base of the Republican Party — doesn’t think the rest of the country is trustworthy enough to have a conversation with?
How do you run a democracy when one significant faction won’t even sign off on deals that they agree with because they feel that the “other side” must be doing something nefarious behind the scenes?
What kind of compromise is possible if Republican lawmakers are automatically discredited — Marco Rubio on immigration, John McCain on gun rights, Rob Portman on gay rights — if they express any willingness to compromise or talk?
During the 2012 political campaign, Newt Gingrich was excoriated by conservatives for cutting a PR video with Nancy Pelosi urging the development of cleaner energy.
How do you come back from a political place where expressing any kind of shared interest with the opposition is political suicide — even when you agree with their ideas? I think the answer lies with Ronald Reagan.
After years of militant, aggressive and confrontational rhetoric, Reagan saw an opening with Mikhail Gorbachev and he was nimble enough to change course.
After 1985, Reagan held four summits with the Soviet Union, signing wide-reaching arms agreements, and ushering in the peaceful end of the Cold War. He won big concessions during those talks, but also gave ground and showed flexibility.
When he made his final trip to Moscow as president, Reagan was asked if he still viewed the Soviet Union as an Evil Empire. “No,” he replied. “I was talking about another time, another era.”
It’s time for the right to make a similar pivot in their thinking about the rest of us. Time for conservative leaders to demand that their community — often described as the “real” America — accept some kind of detente with everybody else.
Let me be clear about one thing. I think the idea that moderates or the left in America ever warranted the level of distrust and hostility felt by many on the right is ludicrous.
There is no credible evidence that Barack Obama or the Democrats ever indulged in secret agendas of the kind that now enjoy widespread play from talk radio to Fox News.
Which should make it even easier for Republican leaders to talk to their membership, their base, about the need to rebuild some level of trust and dialogue and, yes, even deal-making.
Clearly, the left and the right in America disagree profoundly and deeply on important issues — that’s healthy and normal. But the idea that one side in this debate is made up of evil, conspiratorial black-hat villains has to stop.
If Reagan could talk to the Russians about nuclear bombs and the Berlin wall, surely the modern conservative movement can find a way to talk to Democrats about background checks and immigration.
“There is no credible evidence that Barack Obama or the Democrats ever indulged in secret agendas of the kind that now enjoy widespread play from talk radio to Fox News.”
That’s a pretty opinionated statement.
From another perspective there is plenty of evidence.
It’s clear from your dissertation that you side with one group, and view the other as invalid.
Hardly an impartial viewer of facts.
JDM –
I don’t side with one group on policies or ideas. I DO think it is demonstrably factually clear that Democrats, moderates and liberals are not villains conspiring to do nefarious things.
Those facts aren’t a matter of perspective. They’re a matter of, well, facts…
–Brian, NCPR
The problem with “not trusting the other side” is it creates a situation where the other side might then have no reason to trust you.
Trust is always a two way street.
jdm, if you’re going to object to brian saying “[t]here is no credible evidence…,” then for heaven’s sake, show us some evidence!
Brian,
You have no opinion on policy or ideas? Really?
“credible evidence” is another problem. Where the right is now, if evidence doesnt support their convictions, it isnt credible.
In my Op Ed that Brian mentions in his article, I also stated that “No one ever really wants the whole truth. They want “their” truth.” That belief can be applied to my opinion piece, as it certainly can be applied to Brian’s article here. Often we view ourselves and others in certain camps. Brian reports me as a “conservative activist” and I see myself as a right-leaning moderate. I see Brian as a liberal journalist, and he feels he does not side with one group. In my opinion, Brian’s article was a worthy read, but actually demonstrates my point.
Brian lays the responsibility at the feet of the Republicans. Several times in his article he groups moderates with liberals and Democrats. Of course, the inference he makes is that moderates cannot possibly be grouped with conservatives or Republicans. He cites that four Republicans voted for the bill, but ignores that five Democrats voted against it. My point was; it was never truly a bipartisan bill.
Compromise must be more than a word. Compromise should be a solution, not the goal. To reach compromise, we must respect and trust each other. Something both sides fail to do. That’s the point.
On the gun control question specifically…
I can’t tell you how many times I have heard during that debate that these measures were “only a start” to what some hoped to accomplish as far as gun control measures.
Now I personally have no problem with universal BG checks but at the same time I can totally appreciate peoples concern.
One side of the issues has said flat out that there is much more to come. Until they can tell the other side what they have in mind as far as what the end game looks like their concern is warranted. It isn’t even a question of trust until they say that they have no interest in additional gun control measures. But the fact is they have said the opposite. I don’t think it is really that complicated.
“Government is like fire – a good servant, but a dangerous master.” – G. Washington
“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” – G. Washington
As I’ve posted previously, I work with people struggling with mental illnesses. Many of them make me uncomfortable if they have a sharp pencil, much less a gun (a collegue of mine was vey recently stabbed in the face with a pen). I support universal background checks, and I also support legislation that would make straw purchases of any kind illegal. Approximately 85% of gun crimes in NYC are committed with guns purchased out of state. As long as this can continue to happen, it doesn’t matter how tough individual state regulations are.
I am not, however, “anti-gun”.
As Pete says, trust works both ways and frankly when you come out against any gun control at all, in favor of anyone being able to purchase and own any weapon whatsoever with no way to trace how it was acquired or from whom. I wonder what you are planning. Why do you want the capacity to kill dozens of your fellow citizens a t a swat and not have anyone know about it?
Any reasonable person reads all of the 2nd amendment including the beginning phrase “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” and understands that this is the condition upon which the latter part is founded. When you deliberately ignore that part and insist that it is irrelevant to the individual right to bear arms, I wonder if you are a person I can trust.
Hi guys –
Great comments. Thanks for engaging the conversation.
First, Kathy’s implied argument that the US government has usurped power to the point where it has become a “master” or as dangerous as fire, is clearly part of the narrative on the right.
Factual evidence for this is scant. We have a far more participatory democracy now than at any time in our history – with functioning checks and balances.
The US Supreme Court is the most conservative in modern history — certainly since the New Deal era.
Yet it has ruled many of the issues that the right views as Constitutional violations (Obamacare, gun regulation, etc.) as constitutional.
This doesn’t mean that those ideas are the right ones for the country. Maybe Obamacare should be abolished or changed.
But the idea that Democratic policies are “unconstitutional” or “unAmerican” or that there aren’t processes in place to safeguard against overreach. That’s a very tough sell indeed.
To Paul’s point: Yes, clearly, many people who want background checks want MORE gun control. That’s what compromise looks like, when people settle for less than what they want.
And yes, it’s absolutely certain that some pro-gun control people will keep coming back wanting more gun control — just as pro-gun rights people will keep coming back demanding liberalization of gun laws.
That doesn’t mean that either side is nefarious or evil or conspiratorial. There’s just doing what people in a democracy do – advocating for their ideas and arguments.
If you say that you can’t compromise with someone because in the future they’re likely to keep disagreeing with you, then compromise is literally impossible.
Will – of course I have opinions and in many contexts I lay them out. But I really do think conservatives — and yes, far right conservatives — have interesting, important things to say.
I agree with them on many points, disagree on many others.
Finally, Ray – thanks for chiming in.
Of course moderates do sometimes side with conservatives. So do liberals. America has always been a place where well-meaning people partner with others to get things done.
Unfortunately, the right has worked very hard indeed in the last twenty years to discredit and defeat anyone who displays this kind of flexibility.
So yes, I think this is one of the messages that the far right needs to re-embrace. We can disagree on things, even fundamental things, and still share a fundamental sense of community and trust.
–Brian, NCPR
Meanwhile, here’s the headline on today’s right-leaning Drudge website.
“‘HOMELAND’ USING 1,000 MORE ROUNDS PER PERSON — THAN ARMY?” Adding, “Denies Ammunition Purchases Aimed at Civilians…”
–Brian, NCPR
Well said Jim. I think that each and every one of us, on either side of this discussion, knows someone, who owns a gun, that we’re not quite comfortable with. Gun ownership is not the problem…ignorance, anger, and irrationality are the real problems.
Thomas Jefferson said,”The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself.”
TTMike –
The cool thing is that America has actually bettered Thomas Jefferson by embracing the idea that we need better and better self-government.
So, for example, since his time we’ve extended freedom and the right to vote to blacks, Native Americans, women, to people who don’t own property, and to younger people.
We’ve extended voting rights protections to make sure that Jim Crow style laws don’t remove the right to self-government for large swaths of our population.
We’ve worked diligently to make organizations like the US Senate more responsive through direct elections.
All of which are reasons, I contend, that the right’s general argument that America has become a rogue nation intent on bullying its own people, or a nation populated in large measure by people who don’t care about democracy, isn’t born out by the facts.
–Brian, NCPR
I took the G. Washington quote as a caution for all of us. Not because I believe in conspiracy theories. I believe the Founders were given some real wisdom about human nature as they laid the foundation of our country.
We all have the potential to be misled and misinformed. So where do we go to find balance? The beginning. It’s always of value for us to consider our roots. Yes, change is necessary and inevitable. But there are processes. And the knee-jerk reactions we see make some of us shudder as to where this may be going.
I think the tone of the article, Brian, makes my next point: when we stop pointing fingers at what’s wrong with the other guy, we’ll get somewhere. We each have to own up to our own faults first. I think true compromise will come when the pride goes.
Self-government requires conscience.
“Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire – conscience.”
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
-G. Washington
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
-Patrick Henry
“Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms.”
-James Madison
“To Paul’s point: Yes, clearly, many people who want background checks want MORE gun control. That’s what compromise looks like, when people settle for less than what they want.”
Or you can argue that without defining what the “end” is this is just not compromise but simply classic progressive tactics.
The hole BG check thing has some serious problems as well. It is clear that the courts have said that a person convicted of a felony (even after “paying their debt to society”) can be restricted from owning a gun. But the idea that a person with a “serious” mental illness can be restricted from owning a gun is very complicated. First of all the whole definition of what constitutes a mental illness is a big problem. But even beyond that why should a mentally ill person not be allowed the same rights as a non-mentally ill citizen. You can probably easily argue that it is far more likely that you will be shot by a non-mentally ill person with a gun. My guess is that statistics bear this out. Are most people convicted of gun crimes deemed mentally ill in some way? I seriously doubt it they are just jerks. It is like I said in an earlier post why should I have to have a home in Washington DC to protect myself with a gun (not that I would do it but in principle)? The law there (as addressed by the court) said that you could have a gun there as long as it is in your house. Why can I only protect myself in my house? What about my car? If I don’t own a car why not on my bike? If I can’t afford a bike and have to walk, or I live in that “hut” that Nora has in her post today on the street…. Why don’t those folks have the same rights as me?
Here is a good one I learned from a book I am reading. Ever hear the term “ship of fools” and wonder where it came from? Turns out to be from Italy around Venice many years ago where they took the “mentally ill” (Fools) and put them on a boat an left them out in the harbor. If you are on the ship of fools “no gun for you”!.
Right, but be fair, Paul – you say this is “classic progressive tactics” but isn’t it really just “classic tactics” for everybody, liberal, conservative, whatever?
Conservatives who want a tax cut this year aren’t saying ‘That’s it, that’s the last tax cut we’ll ever need.’ Right?
Conservatives who want a couple of regulations eliminated, or a tighter restriction on abortion rules aren’t saying, ‘This is the end, this is all we’ll ever want.’
They’re doing incrementally what they think should be done for the country. And yet there’s not an argument leveled at them that that they are liars or unAmerican or untrustworthy.
Let me say clearly: Conservatives should rarely (if ever) agree to something that violates their core principles.
But if they’re walking away from deals that they actually like, or can live pretty easily with, or just don’t care that much about simply because they think the other Americans in the room are invalid or deceitful or evil?
Then we have a big problem.
–Brian, NCPR
“‘HOMELAND’ USING 1,000 MORE ROUNDS PER PERSON — THAN ARMY?” Adding, “Denies Ammunition Purchases Aimed at Civilians…””
Maybe DHS is worried that when gun control legislation fails the next course of action might be to try and restrict things at the ammo level and it might become more difficult for them to get bullets!!
You can’t lose with gun or ammo stocks with the stuff we have going on these days! By the time this debate ends we will be so well armed and stocked up that this won’t be an issue for another thousand years!
Brian, by “progressive” this would only be liberal on this particular issue. Absolutely these progressive tactics work on any issue. And they do work so like I said I can understand the concern. I don’t think I said these was only a “liberal” phenomena, but thanks for the clarification.
Brian, I would say on abortion (and I hate to ever even mention it in this blog since it always explodes) that conservatives have been very much declared untrustworthy and rightfully so. They want to use the same progressive tactics on that issue. I find it despicable.
On regulations there are always going to be more no matter what you roll back. It is like public land issues in the Adirondacks where you live. There will never be less public land in the Adirondacks there may be a limit someday but that is another one where some people (many who make their living arguing the issues) will never ever say what the end game is.
Some would probably be comfortable saying that they would be satisfied with NO taxes or NO regulations and NO abortion. It is more difficult to articulate the end game in the other direction!
Many, and not just liberals, saw background checks as a compromise in and of itself.
Compared to what you might ask. Compared to banning all automatics and semi-automatics. Compared to limiting magazines to 10 rounds. Compared to banning guns period.
I think it is certainly possible. Not negotiating at all or even having a conversation is the problem.
I think inside the US it is becoming about culture, which is personal and emotional; so our politics are being hurt by our cultural divisions. If you feel that other people have a personal disdain for you, don’t value you as a person with inherent dignity and have nothing in common with you; it is hard to negotiate in good faith. Frankly I think the internet, entertainment and all of the “noise” surrounding politics has made this all much worse. Another factor is the decline in our national institutions. Churches formed at one time a thread which would pull people together, the Lutheran in Georgia had things in common with the Lutheran in NYC. The Elks in Boston had commonality with the Elk’s in Texas. All of these national institutions are in decline, the Armed services were once a unifying national institution that most men had to join through the draft, this is not true anymore, so in some ways we are loosing these threads that hold us together.
So if you have politicians that are sent to Washington not to make deals but to represent this isolated view, it will be a problem.
“And yes, it’s absolutely certain that some pro-gun control people will keep coming back wanting more gun control — just as pro-gun rights people will keep coming back demanding liberalization of gun laws.”
Come on, Brian. This mis-characterizes the position of the “pro-gun rights people”.
We don’t want liberalization of gun laws. We want the 2nd amendment to be followed.
Your perspective is from the left. You correctly state their position from their perspective.
If you were truly impartial, you would correctly state the conservative position from the conservative prospective.
JDM does make a good point here. There is a law that defines legal gun use in America.
JDM –
Gun rights groups have steadily expanded their definition of gun freedom, to include concealed carry rights and the right to carry weapons even on private premises where property owners don’t want guns.
Remember that just a few years ago the NRA embraced the idea of background checks passionately and vigorously – yet now those are viewed as a violation of 2nd amendment rights.
–Brian, NCPR
“We don’t want liberalization of gun laws. We want the 2nd amendment to be followed.” JDM and Paul – if that were strictly true, (just want 2nd amendment followed) you would let the strict gun control laws be passed and assume that the very conservative supreme court would protect any 2nd amendment issues. But thats not what conservatives are doing. Conservatives are pushing for more relaxed gun laws – carry anywhere anytime laws out in the open laws. Conservatives push for laws that prevent regulatory agencies from all sorts of stuff that would be useful for tracking criminal gun activities.
Brian,
First of all, please don’t associate me with clowns like Limbaugh, Card, et al., particularly in the midst of a serious discussion. Conservatism is no more a monolith than Liberalism, even if some ideas (on each side) have broad appeal across the entire spectrum of belief.
“I think the idea that moderates or the left in America ever warranted the level of distrust and hostility felt by many on the right is ludicrous.”
Even if we confine the debate to guns, there is ample evidence to the contrary. The NY SAFE Act is a study in bad government, bad law and ulterior motivation. Even those who support the law are disturbed by it. Don’t you think there’s ample room for “distrust and hostility” there? Many of us do.
The US Supreme Court has upheld Second Amendment rights (District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago) but liberals continue their nullification campaign. At the heart of McDonald v. Chicago is the question of whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to states. That’s a crazy and dangerous concept, but it wasn’t conservatives who pushed it. Additionally, Chicago required all firearms to be registered, which does not seem like an unreasonable requirement, until one understands that ALLhandgun registrations have been denied since 1982. How can that not be seen as dishonest and an attempt to restrict constitutionl rights under the guise of “reasonable safeguards”? Again, this comes from the left, not the right.
Before the “conservatives have done as much and more” chorus begins, let me point out that Brian made the statement above and I’m responding to it. Liberals have earned the distrust and hostility they face from the center and the right.
“No, the problem is that many on the right have clearly reached the conclusion that the rest of us — moderates, liberals, independent journalists, anyone who isn’t on “their” ideological team — simply can’t be trusted or reasoned with.”
Brian presents no evidence for this statement. It is therefore, just his opinion.
Let’s remember that Reagan changed his tune on the Soviet Union only when it became apparent that we had won the Cold War. It’s called being magnanimous in victory.
psst, jdm? try reading brian’s column again. it’s full of examples.
“Gun rights groups have steadily expanded their definition of gun freedom, to include concealed carry rights and the right to carry weapons even on private premises where property owners don’t want guns.”
President Obama has signed two gun related laws in his tenure (I think?). One to allow people to carry guns in national parks and one for Amtrak employees to carry guns on trains. He isn’t what I would define as a “gun rights group”guy? Brian, what are you talking about this seems to be a bi-partisan thing, no?
“JDM and Paul – if that were strictly true, (just want 2nd amendment followed) you would let the strict gun control laws be passed”
Peter I thought that I have said numerous times that I support relatively strict gun control laws, what are you talking about? In fact I think I have tried to explain here how I think that second amendment rights may raise issues with these laws specifically? I simply said in my comment that there is a law that covers guns and it is specifically in the constitution.
In fact I think that our representatives did support the BG check legislation so even JDM didn’t prevent the allowance of anything?
Once Republicans realize that Jesus was a member of a nomadic tribe that did’t recognize borders, who never owned a gun, who never cast a stone at a woman who had an abortion, and who wasn’t a Republican they are finished.
Paul – all I am saying and I have said it before is that all this talk about the 2nd amendment is misplaced since it is the responsibility of the supreme court, not anybody else, and this supreme court is about as conservative and pro-gun version of the second amendment as you could reasonably hope for.
But knuckle your comment is kind of the problem I was talking about. No negotiations can start wit that.
Mervel don’t be ridiculous. I have offered reasonable centrist positions on any number of subjects that we discuss here but those on the extreme right are completely un willing to join in a meaningful discussion.
Gun rights? Do a bill with meaningful background checks and enforce the laws that are on the books – both of those positions come from the NRA – I’m good with that. Personally I think the Right is crazy not to take that offer because if it was done the chances are that it would be a decade or more before anyone attempted to revisit the discussion, but since the Right wants to keep fighting it out they will keep losing support over time – just as happened with the gay marriage debate – and in the long term they will lose more ground than if they just took the deal.
“So, for example, since his time we’ve extended freedom and the right to vote to blacks, Native Americans, women, to people who don’t own property, and to younger people.
We’ve extended voting rights protections to make sure that Jim Crow style laws don’t remove the right to self-government for large swaths of our population.
We’ve worked diligently to make organizations like the US Senate more responsive through direct elections.
All of which are reasons, I contend, that the right’s general argument that America has become a rogue nation intent on bullying its own people, or a nation populated in large measure by people who don’t care about democracy, isn’t born out by the facts.”
Brian, I agree almost all these measures and others are things where we have looked at the constitution and said that the answer is the document says there is more freedom. The same goes for the nineteeth amedmment and abortion. Not that there should be laws that curtail our freedom? So it puts us in a tight spot regarding the second amendment.
Knuck, I agree. With gay marriage it is the same deal. Expand freedom don’t curtail it.
Trust?
Suggesting that the feds are hoarding ammunition in preparation for a military confrontation against its citizens? Obama is going to take all of your guns? False flag attacks? Mythical registries? Dictatorships?
Those are not the thoughts of people with trust issues. Those are the thoughts of people with sanity issues.
This stuff is straight up tin foil hat, conspiracy non-sense. And it is high time the rest of us stop treating it with friendly, kid gloves and start calling it what it is. Bat guano crazy.
Good luck trying to get conspiracy theorists to trust anything.
hermit thrush: “psst, jdm? try reading brian’s column again. it’s full of examples.”
Really!!??
I see none.
I see an example of one person, Ronald Reagan, but nothing about “many people”.
I see Scollin admitting he doesn’t have trust. Nothing there to extrapolate to “many people”.
In Scollin’s article, he says, “In this situation, leadership could not provide the trust or the meaningful compromise.”
Unless Congress is led by conservatives, I don’t see how “leadership” could mean “conservatives”.
Hmmm.
Maybe hermit can point out these examples that the article is “full of”
Or maybe he cannot.
“I see none.”
In addition to Scollin, and the conservative media personalities he mentioned, he included a direct quote from a comment by Larry, and also talked about Chairman Jason Chaffetz.
But regardless, what are you suggesting here? You seem to disagree with Brian’s post. Are you suggesting that far right conservatives do trust moderates and liberals?
that’s a good start, jdm — you’ve already mentioned reagan and scolin.
but i guess you missed
and also
and also
but the best part is when brian quotes our own original larry! it’s hard to top the quote in the original post as an illustration of the point that you’re misguidedly objecting to. but in fact it is topped by larry’s 5:28 comment (which quite apart from all this, i think is a very good comment), which ends with the line
good grief jdm, that’s the very last sentence before your comment! it’s quite the juxtaposition.
(sorry, dave, started writing my comment before yours appeared.)
The question is though why were Newt Gingrich and Bill Cltinton able to make deals for legislation? Why were Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan able to cut deals that moved some things forward? For that matter on this very issue why was Clinton able to get a total assault weapons ban?
I think things have become more hardened but I also think our expectations are different. Look who Brian is quoting and talking about “From Alex Jones to Glen Beck to Orson Scott Card to Rush Limbaugh, there is a wide and growing call on the right for a kind of moratorium on any dealings with the “other” or the “false” America.: Who are these guys? They are not elected politicians, they are media freaks who hold too much perceived influence and too much of our time, the same holds for Madaw and Matthews etc on the Left, they are all the same and have one thing in common, they don’t represent anybody politically.
Part of the issue is that we need better skilled elected officials in both parties.
This gun bill is very doable, you don’t need these idiots from Oklahoma to get a gun bill, you need to turn about 4 or 5 senators and I think it could be done. But you are going to have to give some things up in other areas.
It is interesting that even while Reagan was making jabs at the USSR, Gorbachev was working on plans to change the Soviet system form within. Gorbachev put his life on the line to move toward perestroika, glasnost, and detente.
Reagan only met with Gorbachev after Thatcher, and Kohl, and others convinced Reagan that his own positions weren’t helpful in working toward the end of Soviet communism.
Reagan was cracking his silly and inaccurate joke – after all, he really meant the Soviet Union, not Russia – within just short weeks of Thatcher declaring that Gorbachev was a man that she and the West could work with.
In Box comments were down, so…
RED MEAT! YAY! Let’s write about too much polarization so that we can… POLARIZE!
Also, doesn’t a lot of this go away when you eliminate the abuse of the filibuster? Lots of things pass if the requirement is a Senate majority and not 60 votes to break a filibuster threat. So all this TipNRonnie NewtNBill stuff is irrelevant, because the filibuster wasn’t abused back then. Harry Reid could change the rule if he liked but he doesn’t because …. bipartisanship. Or something.
Also… “today’s right-leaning Drudge website.”
Right leaning? Bit of an understatement, doncha think? Leaning is pretty gentle. Has Matt Drudge ever NOT rubbed raw eggs all over anything that had any connection whatsoever with teh left? Ever?
Definitions matter. Words are supposed to mean things.