07-22-2019, 11:56 AM
In my experience, if you sit down and talk to someone from the other party, you'll find that you agree on a majority of sweeping statements (such as "racism is bad," "Healthcare is a human right," "Illegal immigration is bad," "Debt is a major problem in this country") but it's the details on how to act on those sweeping statements that people disagree on.
For example, Republicans' solution to decreasing illegal immigration is to build a wall to prevent it whereas Democrats' solution is to make legal immigration a less harrowing path. One physically prevents illegal immigration (in some cases), the other makes illegal immigration less necessary to the immigrants who feel like they are in danger/fear they will be rejected in a legal application process (and are now on file, making illegal entry more difficult).
It's a similar case with abortion. Republicans want to ban it, Democrats want to make it less necessary by providing sexual education and more access to birth control, but not forbidding abortion if it comes to that. Both would likely decrease abortion, but one condones it while the other doesn't. (I also recognize that the way I've described these two issues may sound like I personally favor the Democrat's path. It's because I do. It doesn't mean the two parties' end goal isn't similar.)
One of the biggest things coming between the two parties is that our politicians are so happy to demonize and caricaturize the opposing party. Like the article says, Republicans thought half of the left think Police are bad people. Because they oppose the police killing unarmed people of color. Same with Democrats regarding Republicans' beliefs regarding racism. Of course there are radicals on both sides that do believe these things but they are in the minority.
As for Democrats not being exposed to Republicans as much as Republicans are exposed to Democrats, I think that's a matter of the media being, largely, biased towards the left. Fox News is the only mainstream right wing news media, and Democrats mostly avoid them because of people like Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro (although I've found a few of them to be relatively nonpartisan in their reporting, such as Chris Wallace and Shep Smith).
Another factor may be Republicans' tendency to not be willing to share their beliefs in public, especially in democratic areas, such as most medium to large cities. So Democrats may be living and talking to Republicans who just don't share their beliefs publicly. In the age of social media, it is becoming more and more difficult to discuss Republican talking points without offending someone, so it isn't a far leap to assume it's safer just to not say what you believe, in case it offends someone and that affects your personal or professional life (how many people have we seen lose their job because of something they said on twitter that was offensive to a certain minority group?)
I know that I worked with a guy who was a Republican but he was unwilling to admit it even in casual conversation because he feared it would affect his job (I know this because he chose me to confide in. I can't be sure why, as he knew I was very left wing, but I think it was because I would actually debate and refute his points rather than accuse him of things. He definitely said things to me that I think could have gotten him in trouble, at least socially. Notably, after Michael Brown was murdered he whispered to me "He probably deserved it anyway." He was also a stalwart defender of Dinesh D'souza...But he was generally a good person).
Or maybe I'm just one of the many delusional ones that this article is talking about. It's hard to say, really. The Dunning Kruger effect is a phenomenon in which people who are profoundly lacking in some skill or area of knowledge mistakenly think they know much more than the average person, or are perhaps even an expert in it. Sometimes I wonder "if the less you know about something, the more confident you are in your understanding, how can you possibly know when you actually know what you're talking about?"
But maybe that's just too meta even for this discussion...
For example, Republicans' solution to decreasing illegal immigration is to build a wall to prevent it whereas Democrats' solution is to make legal immigration a less harrowing path. One physically prevents illegal immigration (in some cases), the other makes illegal immigration less necessary to the immigrants who feel like they are in danger/fear they will be rejected in a legal application process (and are now on file, making illegal entry more difficult).
It's a similar case with abortion. Republicans want to ban it, Democrats want to make it less necessary by providing sexual education and more access to birth control, but not forbidding abortion if it comes to that. Both would likely decrease abortion, but one condones it while the other doesn't. (I also recognize that the way I've described these two issues may sound like I personally favor the Democrat's path. It's because I do. It doesn't mean the two parties' end goal isn't similar.)
One of the biggest things coming between the two parties is that our politicians are so happy to demonize and caricaturize the opposing party. Like the article says, Republicans thought half of the left think Police are bad people. Because they oppose the police killing unarmed people of color. Same with Democrats regarding Republicans' beliefs regarding racism. Of course there are radicals on both sides that do believe these things but they are in the minority.
As for Democrats not being exposed to Republicans as much as Republicans are exposed to Democrats, I think that's a matter of the media being, largely, biased towards the left. Fox News is the only mainstream right wing news media, and Democrats mostly avoid them because of people like Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro (although I've found a few of them to be relatively nonpartisan in their reporting, such as Chris Wallace and Shep Smith).
Another factor may be Republicans' tendency to not be willing to share their beliefs in public, especially in democratic areas, such as most medium to large cities. So Democrats may be living and talking to Republicans who just don't share their beliefs publicly. In the age of social media, it is becoming more and more difficult to discuss Republican talking points without offending someone, so it isn't a far leap to assume it's safer just to not say what you believe, in case it offends someone and that affects your personal or professional life (how many people have we seen lose their job because of something they said on twitter that was offensive to a certain minority group?)
I know that I worked with a guy who was a Republican but he was unwilling to admit it even in casual conversation because he feared it would affect his job (I know this because he chose me to confide in. I can't be sure why, as he knew I was very left wing, but I think it was because I would actually debate and refute his points rather than accuse him of things. He definitely said things to me that I think could have gotten him in trouble, at least socially. Notably, after Michael Brown was murdered he whispered to me "He probably deserved it anyway." He was also a stalwart defender of Dinesh D'souza...But he was generally a good person).
Or maybe I'm just one of the many delusional ones that this article is talking about. It's hard to say, really. The Dunning Kruger effect is a phenomenon in which people who are profoundly lacking in some skill or area of knowledge mistakenly think they know much more than the average person, or are perhaps even an expert in it. Sometimes I wonder "if the less you know about something, the more confident you are in your understanding, how can you possibly know when you actually know what you're talking about?"
But maybe that's just too meta even for this discussion...
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
