Are America’s differences “irreconcilable”?

Next post is the sign-off.  This post is to ask you a question:

Are the political differences between progressives and Tea Partyers reconcilable?

Seriously.   Think about how far one side will give.  Then the other.

Will they meet?  Can they meet?

The Biden post took people aback.  Tone and substance way different from what they’ve seen here so far.

I’m exhausted from the past week-and-a-half, but that’s not the reason for the blow-up.  I’d have done it fresh-as-a-daisy.  Because when reading Biden’s b.s., here’s what I saw:

The Vice-President of the United States just compared his political opponents to rapists

…and got away with it.

What?  That’s it?  You don’t draw a line here?!  Do you have a breaking point?  Is your plan to keep bending the knee until “Master Joe” clasps his band around your neck? 

Not me.

Here’s a serious proposal.  Joe and Co. really do hate us that much.  So why should they have to put up with us?  Wouldn’t we all be less miserable apart?

Let’s seek a divorce.  Why don’t we go our separate ways?

About wormme

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Are America’s differences “irreconcilable”?

  1. crosspatch says:

    I think there is a fundamental ideological difference that prevents “coming together”. The “progressive” believes that government is the answer to every problem. They see the role of government as being to “take care of” the people, to right every injustice, to make life “fair”.

    The other side of the coin, and I don’t want to call them the “Tea Party” type, are people who see it as their own responsibility to take care of themselves, that life is inherently not fair, that some will always succeed and some will always fail and many others will fall somewhere in between. They see 50 states with 50 different sets of challenges and 50 different arrays of resources from which to draw applying 50 different approaches to solve their problem. And if one makes a horrible mistake, the damage is limited to that state and other states can learn from that mistake.

    The progressive wants a blanket policy out of Washington DC applied equally everywhere. One horrible mistake and it marches the entire country over a cliff.

    It is a fundamental difference in the role of government that separates them.

    • wormme says:

      I find your analysis impeccable, of course.

      That’s why the offer of “go our separate ways” would be so powerful, if marshalled. It divides the dependents from the adults…

    • DefendUSA says:

      I am conservative and a tea party thinker. I once put up something that was meant to be funny and my liberal thinking friends scourged me! Never mind that I listened to them get nasty about Bush and called him a Nazi, stupid. And the jokes, too.
      It was essentially that if we did go separate ways, who would succeed? I am of the mindset that if we took the left and right thinkers and split the Country in half, it would take no time at all to prove to the left minded thinkers that their Utopia would die.
      It is just that some pigs are more equal than others! Those who do not think as I do, cannot understand that potential cannot be legislated. We all do not have the same means, brain power, but it also doesn’t mean we cannot find ways to be productive, self-reliant individuals! (Stepping off soap box)

    • Mountainbear says:

      The problem I have with the American “progressives” is this: they’re horrible ignorant and arrogant.


      Well, if all this big government and big spending is working… why are we in the EU where we are? Hey! Look over here! Here you can see the results of “progressivism”. It’s not working! Our countries are all bankrupt! We all have growing national debts, while we tax our citizens more and more!

  2. oldHP says:

    I read in a mainstream source about a study that determined that Liberals give much, much less to charity than Conservatives. The Libs figure its up to Gummint to control “welfare.”

    Multiculturism is dangerous bunk.

    • DefendUSA says:

      Multiculturalism is bunk if you look at just how well Japan has fared in the face of disaster. They are honor bound to do the right thing and it appears, thus far, they have. Doing their level best to take care of themselves and those around them without the mentality that someone owes them. It’s one of those things that makes you go…”hmmm.”

    • Mountainbear says:

      I like that Japan isn’t “multicultural” like Europe. In Europe, you have no-go areas for “natives” this days, thanks to multiculturalism. Malmö in Sweden has an area, that is so bad, that police doesn’t dare to enter anymore without a massive force. Germany, Netherlands, UK, France, Belgium, they all have similar issues. Jews have been fleeing Malmö and Amsterdam. Gays get assaulted in those places. And so on. The list is endless.

      Why do you think Geert Wilders has become so popular, not only in the Netherlands? He’s pointing the finger at the problems and is naming names and has been doing so for years.

      Yes, I know, Merkel, Sarkozy, etc, they’ve all spoken against multiculturalism as well. But why? Let’s take Germany. Merkel has recently also gone somewhat “green” with nuclear power. Why? There are elections coming up. That’s why. She likes her comfy chair in Berlin and doesn’t want to lose it. Sarkozy always talks big. He plays the big leader with Libya, but he’s been doing very little to protect France or even the EU.

      The thing with Japan is, they have this, as I tend to put it, “adapt or piss off” attitude. You either adapt to their ways (“in Japan there are only Japanese ways” Mariko says in Clavell’s “Shogun”) or you’ll hate it and sod off. So far, every disgruntled foreigner I’ve met there refused to adapt.

      And then you have people like this Debito guy. I don’t like him. I agree that human rights are important. But entering an inn is now a human right? Seriously? How’s about talking with the owner first before dragging him into court? Debito’s approach is really annoying. He talks about human rights but in the end he’s just the stereo-typical arrogant American who thinks he’s entitled to everything. I don’t like him at all. And from what I’ve gathered, he’s not too popular among the foreigners in Japan either.

      I know that, as a foreigner, I can get away with a lot over there. I abuse it, at times, but generally I tend to surprise normal Japanese people with knowing more about stuff than they do. I adapt. And I speak a mean Tokyo-ben.

      There is no false tolerance in Japan. There is no “culture of collective guilt”. Over here, politicians tell us that we are all responsible for the Holocaust and thus we need to be extra tolerant towards everything. I know that in former colonial countries like the UK and the Netherlands, politicians use the colonial past for the same. They don’t have that in Japan and I like that. Sure, some may say that there is no public discussion about the crimes Japan did in WW2. And I say: so what? The normal people don’t care about this stuff. They have other problems. Over here we’re being bombarded with documentaries over how bad the Nazis and Hitler were almost weekly (it goes out of hand at important dates, like beginning and end of WW2.) I used to watch this stuff, because I love history, but these days I don’t watch it anymore. Because, you know… “Hey, we get it! Hitler and the Nazis were evil! We get it! We got it years ago! Now sod off!”

      They don’t have this in Japan and I like it.

  3. Steve Duane says:

    There’s a definite break in philosophy between the left and right on the role of government. The left generally prefers a government that ensures equality of outcome while the right generally prefers a government that ensures equality of opportunity. This may be an irreconcilable difference but I wouldn’t throw out 200+ years of marriage over it. To borrow from Sir Winston Churchill and mangle his famous quote: the US has the worst government in the world, except for all the other countries. We’ve had some set backs in recent years and we are heading for a financial nightmare (shared equally by our political class regardless of party affiliation) but I think it’s worth trying to fix those problems by convincing the swing voters and purple dems that the right has the better solution. If we can’t do that, you may get your divorce anyway when the US gets downgraded to junk bond status.

    • abUWS says:

      Winston Churchill also said: “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

  4. Bigol says:

    They will never come together in the media as they live/thrive on conflict.

    If more people would drop the stereotypes and talk they would find that many progressive and conservative share the same concerns. Rights, freedom, environment, jobs, etc. The differences is in how you attempt to address the issues. The real problem is most of America is uninformed, and frankly don’t care enough to study the issues. They simply follow what their peer group/social network/general public perception suggest. If they grew up in a democratic/union family then nothing you say about the real issues with progressive solutions will make a dent.

    It’s my hope that as more of the middle see the effects of government “solutions” and the impact of excessive spending/debt they will understand the TEA party central appeal.

    Nice to see the WORM notice Little Joe calling half of Americans rapist. I thought you were a bit kind to him in your response.

  5. midwest bill says:

    There is no way to so simply divide people, of course. People may claim to be conservative or progressive, and our media tends to hyperbolize and emotionalize that to such an extreme that people choose sides and it becomes like a Red Sox Yankees rivalry.

    But my progressive friend sounds very conservative to me on many issues … like on her anger that her responsible savings are punished to fund irresponsible investment bankers or home buyers. If you strip off the “uniforms” of the unwashed masses, you’ll find more common ground.

    But then there are the poor and ignorant that think “the man” owes them something, or that just wants to take as much as they can, or are just needy and are used as political pawns.

    But the real trouble groups are those in the political machine (and their chain of subordinates, right down to your local power player) … our government might be divided into actual organized crime mobs, and organized crime lite. Chicago style thugs are merging with Goldman Sachs back room dealers. Republicans seem “cleaner”, but are still slimy and out of touch.

    But Obama’s inner circle is another level entirely, with dreams of remaking the whole system, and connections with Trumka, Soros, and others that seems to border on sedition. Do we really think this “superstar” slept through Rev. Wright’s sermons for twenty years? They conspire to frame the tea party as far right, violent, ignorant racists on the fringe, instead of the center mass working class that they really are. Big media is as one sided and mostly wrong on this as they have been on Fukushima’s nuclear plant.

    We need to unite as citizens against the criminals that have taken over, not divide in support of the different crime gang leaders. There’s a better chance of taking the House … but we often have our choices picked for us for the Senate and Executive office. Too many millionaires have become billionaires, and are able to buy our government. Maybe the aristocracy is a whole ‘nuther division … big money leveraged traders that would never dirty their hands with “our kind”.

  6. crosspatch says:

    The simple argument is:

    Look at what the “progressives” have managed to accomplish in 50 years of running Detroit:

    That is the part that baffles me. They keep voting in “progressives” and their situation keeps getting worse and yet the portion of the liberal vote increases as their city falls apart. It is just crazy. At some point there is a valid argument of “Democrats haven’t done any good here for 50 years, what do you have to lose by voting in Republicans?” except maybe their check in the mailbox. That is what I think they fear most … losing that. Well, they are about to lose it anyway as the city and the state are going broke. 75% dropout rate in the school system, 60% adult illiteracy rate. $5000 median home price, and not a single major supermarket within the city limits of Detroit.

  7. waytoomanydaves says:

    As Glenn Reynolds is fond of saying:

    “Anything that can’t go on forever, won’t.”

    Or some variation of that. And that is the ultimate solution (gee, that’s not so different from “final solution”, is it?) to the problem of Liberalism in this country. Left to their own devices, eventually liberal policies will cause a collapse that will deliver Liberalism to the dustbin of history.

    Obviously, it would be better if we as a country didn’t have to go through that. Sadly, I fear we must in order to get well again. Think of it along the lines of chemotherapy for a cancer patient. Much like a cancer, Liberalism has metathesized and become inoperable. Chemo is toxic and often comes darned close to killing the patient, but in the end, if the patient survives he will be cancer-free and able to regain his health.

    The open question is: Will we survive the cure?

  8. wormme says:

    Thanks for all these thoughtful responses. I’d like to converse with each of you here, but want to get back to the rad situations.

    We may be finally getting enough data to start answering some questions, rather than just adding new ones

  9. Leopold says:

    I am, unfortunately, coming to the conclusion that the differences are irreconcilable. I believe, however, that the separation should only be accomplished according to the “Oh! ye’ll take the high road and I’ll take the low road, And I’ll be in Scotland afore ye” formula if there is to be a separation.

    On the other hand, the truism about scientific change only occurring when one generation is replaced by the next can be extended to social issues, to. If those who are proud of Western Civilization can win the war of ideas with the next generation, things will get better.

    • wormme says:

      One reason I propose social shaming of the radical left is because I haven’t totally given up on all of them. They shriek “racist misogynist homophobe haters”, falsely (okay, there’s a little to it in one charge out of a hundred, or a thousand).

      We always try to reason with them, which never works. But we could calmly observe, “Well, you enslave children.” Or, “sell children into indentured servitude,” if you prefer. START with the social charge. Because that’s what they understand.

      And unlike their accusations, we can prove ours. “You don’t know there’s $50,000 in debt for every child in the country? That you’re insisting on adding another $5,000 to that this year alone?”

      “When did those children vote on whether they wanted such debt?”

      And so forth.

      Whenever I try to borrow money from a bank by signing a promise that my 16-year-old niece will pay it back, all I get is a funny look.

      If I can’t financially enslave my family for my own profit, why does the government get to?

      There’s a chance—a very small chance, true–that wholesale use of that tactic would change the battlefield. Whereas now we just continue doing something that has never, ever worked on them.

      What’s that definition of insanity, again?

Leave a Reply to DefendUSA Cancel reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s