When people argue over politics, the arguments usually eventually always come down to the same cliché positions that puts you either on the side that “government is necessary” or “government should not intrude.” 

The pro-government people defend their idealistic view that government can efficiently provide services and opportunities to the less fortunate in order to level the playing field.

At the same time, the anti-government people focus on their idealistic vision that self-regulation and personal responsibility is their cure-all for society’s ills.

Pro-government advocates, just like their anti-government counterparts, generally don’t ever acknowledge that any inefficiencies, flaws, or limitations exist within the system they believe in.  

In reality, does either system alone really function ideally? Don’t we probably really need a blend of both?

Absolutes of “all of one” and “none of the other” just doesn’t seem to be the way reality works.  We hear more and more about irrational consumer behavior and the need for practical application of economic theories.  Academic textbook theories just don’t play out that way in real life.

I guess it would be equally idealistic of me to hope that someday we might see each side acknowledging the merits of the other to the degree that we can almost no longer tell which side someone is on. 

But then again, if arguments didn’t have sides or didn’t end with clear winners and losers, wouldn’t that make the news rather uninteresting then?

I’m hoping that news outlets (traditional and/or new media) can work towards finding a way to generate interest in a more productive dialogue than just 30-second sound bites.  Or maybe a grassroots effort is where a solution is more likely to be born? I don’t know. 

Either way, it seems we are at the point of figuring out ”when” and “how” public political debate should change.  I’d say we’re way beyond questioning ”if” they should change.

What about you?  What do you think it will take for some of the current public political discourse to rise above the level of pointless schoolyard squabble?

Election Day is just one day.  One Day that has been a long time coming.  One that will soon be here and will soon be gone.  But is it an end or a beginning?  Either way, many will say that it will be another four years before they get their chance to vote again.  But, that isn’t quite true.

The General Election is no doubt a very important decision day.  Yet it need not be a once-every-four-years event.  This election period has been one of the longest and most polarizing in a long time.  Combine that with the current financial crisis and the recent bailout package, one good thing that has happened is that people have again found their voice.  Current technology is making it so much easier to get information, to organize a collective voice, and to get those voices heard.  Keeping informed on the issues and participating to our government in any way that we can (including writing to our representatives) is something we can and should continue to do, Election Year or not.

Let’s stay informed and involved in government and hold our representatives accountable, not only on the national level but also on the state and local level, too.  The more informed we are along the way, as issues are being discussed and debated, the easier it will be for us to know where we stand, when to get involved, and what the real facts are when those more difficult decisions need to be made. Cramming for the test doesn’t lead to the same level of understanding and learning that comes from being involved and engaged in the pros and cons of an issue along the way.

Regardless of who wins this election, we all must strive to respect all models-of-the-world.  How else will reaching across the aisle be achieved.   Remember that respecting another person’s point-of-view doesn’t mean that we have to agree with them.  Once we can accept that different people have come to their own conclusions based on their life experiences and exposures, only then can we sincerely attempt to communicate with each other in ways that move us towards seeking that common ground from where we can them move forward together rather than driving people away from each other.

So, voting is “making a choice.” Keep in mind that this choice is not limited to just politics.  In a way, we vote every day with the decisions we make, e.g., what we buy; where we go; who we associate with; what behaviors are acceptable to us; what rules we choose to follow and enforce; what standards we set for ourselves and others; and what kind of lifestyles we want to lead.

It might be worthwhile to look at how you make your decisions. Most likely you have different decision-making processess for different situations depending on the complexity and familiarity of the issue at hand. Some questions to ask yourself include:  How quickly do you make your decisions?  How much time do you spend gathering evidence?  Are your decisions impulsive or a result of careful deliberation?  How informed are you before making your decisions?  How committed are you to your decisions, e.g., will you stick to them or change your mind soon?   How much of your “head” versus your “heart” (your emotions) went into your decisions?  What was your decision criteria?  What are the consequences of your decisions for yourself and others?  How do other people make their decisions?  

Decisions do shape our futures.  Choose wisely. And, keep in mind that decisions are learning opportunities, too.  And, decisions and points-of-view should also be reassessed and re-evaluated whenever new evidence or experiences provide us new insights.  

Surely we will have one president for the next four years, and this isn’t something we can change.  But we can change how we interact with our government during this time.  Whether it be in our day-to-day decisions or in direct involvement with our government representatives, let’s be sure to exercise our decision-making responsibilities actively, reasonably and respectfully.

Blogging about politics is always risky. Usually quite early on, a reader will recognize which party you support and will respond accordingly — they’ll either keep reading if they identify with you or they’ll move on if they don’t. Few stick around to hear what someone of an opposing political party wishes to espouse unless they’re looking to judge that opinion and its believer as being ridiculous. I say this because I, too, have been there and done that (and try as I might, I still go there more often than I’d like to admit).  We are all human (if that’s an acceptable excuse, I don’t know; you be the judge on that.)

I could avoid the topic all together, or not. As citizens, I don’t think we can continue to avoid these difficult conversations.  I would agree that fighting for the sake of fighting doesn’t accomplish anything.  So what do we do?  How do we approach these conversations respectfully while still being true to ourselves as bloggers and as citizens with points of view looking for solutions and not as journalists that are obliged to be objective in their reporting of events? 

That reminds me of some of the latest advice out there on how to be successful in social media by joining the conversation.  Do so by being yourself. Don’t pretend to be someone you are not. See some of these references yourself here:

• (from Twitter) garyvee says – “if you’re shy – become the greatest shy guy on earth” 08:43 PM September 19, 2008 from twhirl in reply to garyvee
• (from Twitter) garyvee says – “if you’re not good at monetizing, get a bus partner that can.” do what u do & bring in others who can do the other stuff. 08:39 PM September 19, 2008 from twhirl in reply to garyvee
• Another great proponent of being yourself is Chris Brogan in his latest free e-book on “Personal Branding for the Business Professional“: “Be yourself.  It will become apparent rather quickly if you’re being someone that you’re not.”

So, what’s my point? I guess this is maybe (or not) a bigger lead-up than necessary to a thought I wanted to bring up around a recent YouTube video posted by an Iraq War Veteran. It’s a very well done and a very sincere video. That is why I want to be very careful not to disrespect its intent. Check it out here:

Powerful YouTube clip, don’t you agree? I think so. I say that and I am not even a McCain supporter. And, I’m not here to to take anything away from our military’s sacrifices.  Their sacrifices are immense and can never be repaid. [Update 9/25/08: Here's a link to a YouTube video of a soldier with the opposite point of view.]

Nobody likes war, not even McCain himself. He honestly said so himself in his RNC speech where he spoke of the impact on war on himself and his family. As bad as war is, there is the belief that fighting is a necessary evil. McCain ended his RNC speech with words of “fighting” for what you believe in, as seen here:

Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t like the idea of fighting for peace. I want to believe in diplomacy and other means to the same end.  Whatever you do believe, it is clear that this can be a very difficult discussion to have among people of differing points of view.

That’s why I’m looking forward to the work of the upcoming Transpartisan Alliance which is a group that wants to show people how to have respectful dialogue. Here’s how they describe what they stand for:

Transpartisanship acknowledges the validity of truths across a range of political perspectives and seeks to synthesize them into an inclusive, pragmatic whole beyond typical political dualities. In practice, transpartisan solutions emerge out of a new kind of public conversation that moves beyond polarization by applying proven methods of facilitated dialogue, deliberation and conflict resolution. In this way it is possible to achieve the ideal of a democratic republic by integrating the values of a democracy — freedom, equality, and a regard for the common good, with the values of a republic — order, responsibility and security.

I’m hoping the upcoming Presidential and Vice Presidential debates are civil and at least not more polarizing than necessary, if necessary is even an appropriate word. But, regardless of how they go and who wins the debates and the election in the end, solving today’s problems requires engagement of all parties and understanding of all points of view. I’m looking at Election Day as the beginning of that work, not as the end of a fight.  Am I being naive that progress can be made on this front?  I hope not.