Why Democrats and Republicans don't understand eachother

[carlfense]

Good stuff here. Makes the current political climate a little more understandable.

Political scientists Matthew Grossman and David Hopkins think the Democratic and Republican parties really are different, and in a series of papers they're trying to prove it.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/15/6131919/democrats-and-republicans-really-are-different

[tschu]

Republicans: I want small government and a certain set of values! Why do you Democrats want huge government and socialism?

 

Democrats: Here's the problems we have, here's how we can solve them! Why are you Republicans so against progress?

 

The end result is everyone just talking past each other instead of having discussions

[carlfense]

Republicans: I want small government and a certain set of values! Why do you Democrats want huge government and socialism?

 

Democrats: Here's the problems we have, here's how we can solve them! Why are you Republicans so against progress?

 

The end result is everyone just talking past each other instead of having discussions

TL;DR

[BigRedBuster]

My problem is I see benefit in both ways of thinking and down falls in both ways of thinking.

[carlfense]

My problem is I see benefit in both ways of thinking and down falls in both ways of thinking.

Agreed. There can be real problems with strictly ideological decision making. There can be real problems with transactional decision making.

 

And there can definitely be issues when genuine problems are caught between the two.

[TGHusker]

Very good article Carl. Very insightful. Probably explains why we all argue the way we do on this forum (gives me better insight into myself and some of my more left leaning friends on the forum). It is true, I've thought of dems as being ideologues yet not considering how repubs are very much ideologues (and self righteous might I add) when it comes to small govt. I know Knapp often brings up the word 'moderation' or a 'moderate solution'. Probably the best way to get things done while not giving away the store is moderation - finding that middle ground. I do think repubs need to be better at the policy wonk thing that says more then 'small govt'. In our current political environment, that is a non-starter for the electorate - why I don't see a Ted Cruz type to be electable in 2016. Paul Ryan has tried to put forward various policy initiatives- so some are trying to be more 'wonk-like'. What is disheartening is with all of the debate on the ACA, the repubs have not put forward a comprehensive, understandable, and workable alternative - but keep shouting the mantra repeal (code for smaller govt which is in line with what the article is stating).

Often times I think both parties can be good intentioned but just come at the problem from different perspectives thus they have different solutions - and as Tschu noted above, we talk past each other. Instead of looking at each party wt suspect, we need to slow down and listen.

 

There is an old book called "The Six Hat Method" I've used in my classes before. It is about team decision making. One of the criteria for good group decisions (also works good for personal and family decisions)., is to understand that all stakeholders have an vested interest and and emotional stake in the decision. For there to be a collaboration of effort, all stakeholders need to feel that their interests and emotional stake are known by all and are represented/considered in the decision. Most of the time, the decision goes to the most powerful voice in the room (speaking of business meetings that often accomplish little except to confirm the strongest voice's opinion). In the same way, it seems that decisions in DC should somehow consider the impact of creating larger govt while still effectively meeting the needs that the policy seeks to rectify. Then dems and repubs can be more comfortable in the outcome.

 

Again, very good article. I really enjoyed reading it and gaining the insight.

[BigRedBuster]

Very good article Carl. Very insightful. Probably explains why we all argue the way we do on this forum (gives me better insight into myself and some of my more left leaning friends on the forum). It is true, I've thought of dems as being ideologues yet not considering how repubs are very much ideologues (and self righteous might I add) when it comes to small govt. I know Knapp often brings up the word 'moderation' or a 'moderate solution'. Probably the best way to get things done while not giving away the store is moderation - finding that middle ground. I do think repubs need to be better at the policy wonk thing that says more then 'small govt'. In our current political environment, that is a non-starter for the electorate - why I don't see a Ted Cruz type to be electable in 2016. Paul Ryan has tried to put forward various policy initiatives- so some are trying to be more 'wonk-like'. What is disheartening is with all of the debate on the ACA, the repubs have not put forward a comprehensive, understandable, and workable alternative - but keep shouting the mantra repeal (code for smaller govt which is in line with what the article is stating).

Often times I think both parties can be good intentioned but just come at the problem from different perspectives thus they have different solutions - and as Tschu noted above, we talk past each other. Instead of looking at each party wt suspect, we need to slow down and listen.

 

There is an old book called "The Six Hat Method" I've used in my classes before. It is about team decision making. One of the criteria for good group decisions (also works good for personal and family decisions)., is to understand that all stakeholders have an vested interest and and emotional stake in the decision. For there to be a collaboration of effort, all stakeholders need to feel that their interests and emotional stake are known by all and are represented/considered in the decision. Most of the time, the decision goes to the most powerful voice in the room (speaking of business meetings that often accomplish little except to confirm the strongest voice's opinion). In the same way, it seems that decisions in DC should somehow consider the impact of creating larger govt while still effectively meeting the needs that the policy seeks to rectify. Then dems and repubs can be more comfortable in the outcome.

 

Again, very good article. I really enjoyed reading it and gaining the insight.

Here is the problem with the bolded part and why the Repubs screwed the pooch on the entire thing. Something I actually learned on this board is that many of the major points in ACA that the Republicans are frothing at the mouth about ARE THEIR IDEAS!!!!!!!!!!!

 

But, they can't pull their heads out of their azzes enough to use that in a positive manner to prove they can come up with good ideas. They can do it and they have in the past. But, they can't get out of the way of their own stupidity to realize stand capitalize on it.

[TGHusker]

 

Very good article Carl. Very insightful. Probably explains why we all argue the way we do on this forum (gives me better insight into myself and some of my more left leaning friends on the forum). It is true, I've thought of dems as being ideologues yet not considering how repubs are very much ideologues (and self righteous might I add) when it comes to small govt. I know Knapp often brings up the word 'moderation' or a 'moderate solution'. Probably the best way to get things done while not giving away the store is moderation - finding that middle ground. I do think repubs need to be better at the policy wonk thing that says more then 'small govt'. In our current political environment, that is a non-starter for the electorate - why I don't see a Ted Cruz type to be electable in 2016. Paul Ryan has tried to put forward various policy initiatives- so some are trying to be more 'wonk-like'. What is disheartening is with all of the debate on the ACA, the repubs have not put forward a comprehensive, understandable, and workable alternative - but keep shouting the mantra repeal (code for smaller govt which is in line with what the article is stating).

Often times I think both parties can be good intentioned but just come at the problem from different perspectives thus they have different solutions - and as Tschu noted above, we talk past each other. Instead of looking at each party wt suspect, we need to slow down and listen.

 

There is an old book called "The Six Hat Method" I've used in my classes before. It is about team decision making. One of the criteria for good group decisions (also works good for personal and family decisions)., is to understand that all stakeholders have an vested interest and and emotional stake in the decision. For there to be a collaboration of effort, all stakeholders need to feel that their interests and emotional stake are known by all and are represented/considered in the decision. Most of the time, the decision goes to the most powerful voice in the room (speaking of business meetings that often accomplish little except to confirm the strongest voice's opinion). In the same way, it seems that decisions in DC should somehow consider the impact of creating larger govt while still effectively meeting the needs that the policy seeks to rectify. Then dems and repubs can be more comfortable in the outcome.

 

Again, very good article. I really enjoyed reading it and gaining the insight.

Here is the problem with the bolded part and why the Repubs screwed the pooch on the entire thing. Something I actually learned on this board is that many of the major points in ACA that the Republicans are frothing at the mouth about ARE THEIR IDEAS!!!!!!!!!!!

 

But, they can't pull their heads out of their azzes enough to use that in a positive manner to prove they can come up with good ideas. They can do it and they have in the past. But, they can't get out of the way of their own stupidity to realize stand capitalize on it.

 

YES, I've supported Newt in the past because he tried to put forth policy recommendations to address the problems (some better than others) and not just throw red meat out to get votes. Any more, we live by who can stir up their crowd the most wt the rarest red meat they can throw and then govern based on the reaction instead of sound policy.

[tschu]

Nah guys, Ben Sasse released an entire 20-page document telling how he'd fix healthcare after repealing Obamacare

[Abdullah the Butcher]

They have proposed alternatives.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/01/27/senate-republicans-develop-the-most-credible-plan-yet-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare/

[carlfense]

They have proposed alternatives.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/01/27/senate-republicans-develop-the-most-credible-plan-yet-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare/

Is this the proposal in its entirety?

 

http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/bf0c9823-29c7-4078-b8af-aa9a12213eca/The%20Patient%20CARE%20Act%20-%20LEGISLATIVE%20PROPOSAL.pdf

 

I hope that there was more to it than that . . . because that's not a proposed alternative. That's a wish list.

[tschu]

Yeah that's even worse than Sasse's.

 

Obamacare was somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 pages - this stuff is complex. For someone to release an 8-page "alternative" is simply just a person dealing with wishful hypotheticals and not actually doing the dirty work to figure out the details. Why? Well, probably because they know that it won't work. Or don't care to know that it won't actually work.

[carlfense]

Yeah that's even worse than Sasse's.

 

Obamacare was somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 pages - this stuff is complex. For someone to release an 8-page "alternative" is simply just a person dealing with wishful hypotheticals and not actually doing the dirty work to figure out the details. Why? Well, probably because they know that it won't work. Or don't care to know that it won't actually work.

Or don't want people to know the actual effects.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Or not bother to write out 1,000 pages because it won't be allowed to see the light of day.

[BigRedBuster]

To be fair....

 

I'm sure ACA started off at one point as a proposal put forth in a docent less than 100 pages.