The competitive athletic opponents is not the appropriate metaphor. Why? Because the athletes still share the same “world” view, whereas todays political adversaries do not. Whether you play for the 49ers or the Chiefs your world view is the same: the field is 100 yards long. The goal is to get the ball into the other guy’s end zone. You can do this by passing or running the ball. There are other niceties but the bottom line is all adversaries agree to the rules of the game: their “world view is the same. They agree to the “game.” They “treasure” and value the “game”. They do not intend to tear up the field or destroy the NFL. That is clearly not so in present day American politics where one side believes in virtual open borders, and the other not; where one side thinks there are 72 genders and the other the long held teaching of two; where one side believes men can give birth; where on side believes DEI stands for “Didnot Earn It” and the other side thinks it is foundational for societal fairness and progress; where one side thinks western civilization is the root of white supremacy and evil and the other thinks western civilization is the height of human endeavor and accomplishment; where one side sees Israel as a Zionist oppressor and the other sees Israel as an exemplar of western democratic ideals; where one side sees skin color as foundational to virtually all human endeavor and identity; the other totally discounts skin color as even relevant; where one side sees the US Constitution as the greatest political document in recorded history, creating the greatest Republic in history, the other sees an old piece of parchment whose words were composed by wealthy slave owning land owners whose major interest was the preservation of slavery. I could go on but I am sure you get the message.
I am older than you and lived thru the Civil Rights and Viet-Nam era: the issue was largely those on the “outs”, wanted “in”, as promised by our foundational document. Despite the civil unrest, they wanted a piece of the American myth, the American dream, a piece of the action so to speak. They were largely not interested in destroying the game board or burning down the house (although cities did burn and there were exceptions like the weathermen). Today, it seems that vast members of our “elite” – largely on the left and almost totally affiliated with the Democratic Party - do want to destroy the game board or burn down the house. After all, Mahmoud Khalil – regardless of what one thinks of his immigration dilemma – freely admitted he belonged to a group dedicated to the total destruction of western civilization which rather than resulting in censure seemed to do the reverse.
That then, Matt, is the difference between the two competitive athletic opponents in the arena giving it all they got – in fact knocking the snot out of one another - and at the end, regardless of outcome, embracing. There will be no such embracing in present day American politics or culture. .
I know not really the point, but from the first, I have not been able to stand Gorsuch and have found him an extreme phony. I found Amy Coney Barrett something of an intellectual at her hearing, and have not been disappointed. Does Gorsuch's genteel routine cost him anything? Or give anyone else anything real? It seems easy enough on him to me. Meanwhile, all I see is someone who generally takes bad positions on the Court, and made up reasons for not taking any positions at all during his hearing.
However, I do try to persuade that we are on the same side on some core values such as the dignity of hard work, the social contract to treat workers with respect and to pay them for the work they do for us.
I don’t get into who does not model these values. I hope facts eventually speak for themselves.
Hiring the leader of the free world, hiring the Chief Executive of the largest work force in the world is not the same as being on the opposite wrestling team. It’s not even the same as being the team of adverse attorneys on a legal issue in an adversarial system of law.
This reminds me of a tangential issue in this last election. Biden’s appearance on the View recently brought it all back, it’s true Biden is past being able to command riveting tv, I’m still not convinced he was past being able to be Chief Executive; many of the best professors and chief executives are slow and steady thinkers steeped in many years of incomparable experience. Biden knows more about our world and its leaders and our nation and its core values than just about any leader I can think of. I get it, no campaign chops left, but the Infrastructure bill, the end of the endless corrupt war in Afghanistan, the decrease of childhood poverty by over 20%. In my 70 years, no leader has done as much for our safety (bridges strengthened, WiFi access more equitable) or for peace or toward the very reachable goal of ending desperate poverty. (Venting cousin to cousin …)
I hold dear the goal to persuade my friend on the other side, that we can realize peace, strength and security for all of the people on this earth.
A couple of friends who have attacked other friends mercilessly have changed the relationship forever. One couple, nbd. I don't care if I ever speak with them again. The other, the wife of a good friend remains a friend. But the relationship is forever changed.
The competitive athletic opponents is not the appropriate metaphor. Why? Because the athletes still share the same “world” view, whereas todays political adversaries do not. Whether you play for the 49ers or the Chiefs your world view is the same: the field is 100 yards long. The goal is to get the ball into the other guy’s end zone. You can do this by passing or running the ball. There are other niceties but the bottom line is all adversaries agree to the rules of the game: their “world view is the same. They agree to the “game.” They “treasure” and value the “game”. They do not intend to tear up the field or destroy the NFL. That is clearly not so in present day American politics where one side believes in virtual open borders, and the other not; where one side thinks there are 72 genders and the other the long held teaching of two; where one side believes men can give birth; where on side believes DEI stands for “Didnot Earn It” and the other side thinks it is foundational for societal fairness and progress; where one side thinks western civilization is the root of white supremacy and evil and the other thinks western civilization is the height of human endeavor and accomplishment; where one side sees Israel as a Zionist oppressor and the other sees Israel as an exemplar of western democratic ideals; where one side sees skin color as foundational to virtually all human endeavor and identity; the other totally discounts skin color as even relevant; where one side sees the US Constitution as the greatest political document in recorded history, creating the greatest Republic in history, the other sees an old piece of parchment whose words were composed by wealthy slave owning land owners whose major interest was the preservation of slavery. I could go on but I am sure you get the message.
I am older than you and lived thru the Civil Rights and Viet-Nam era: the issue was largely those on the “outs”, wanted “in”, as promised by our foundational document. Despite the civil unrest, they wanted a piece of the American myth, the American dream, a piece of the action so to speak. They were largely not interested in destroying the game board or burning down the house (although cities did burn and there were exceptions like the weathermen). Today, it seems that vast members of our “elite” – largely on the left and almost totally affiliated with the Democratic Party - do want to destroy the game board or burn down the house. After all, Mahmoud Khalil – regardless of what one thinks of his immigration dilemma – freely admitted he belonged to a group dedicated to the total destruction of western civilization which rather than resulting in censure seemed to do the reverse.
That then, Matt, is the difference between the two competitive athletic opponents in the arena giving it all they got – in fact knocking the snot out of one another - and at the end, regardless of outcome, embracing. There will be no such embracing in present day American politics or culture. .
I know not really the point, but from the first, I have not been able to stand Gorsuch and have found him an extreme phony. I found Amy Coney Barrett something of an intellectual at her hearing, and have not been disappointed. Does Gorsuch's genteel routine cost him anything? Or give anyone else anything real? It seems easy enough on him to me. Meanwhile, all I see is someone who generally takes bad positions on the Court, and made up reasons for not taking any positions at all during his hearing.
Yes, of course, friends on the other side.
However, I do try to persuade that we are on the same side on some core values such as the dignity of hard work, the social contract to treat workers with respect and to pay them for the work they do for us.
I don’t get into who does not model these values. I hope facts eventually speak for themselves.
Hiring the leader of the free world, hiring the Chief Executive of the largest work force in the world is not the same as being on the opposite wrestling team. It’s not even the same as being the team of adverse attorneys on a legal issue in an adversarial system of law.
This reminds me of a tangential issue in this last election. Biden’s appearance on the View recently brought it all back, it’s true Biden is past being able to command riveting tv, I’m still not convinced he was past being able to be Chief Executive; many of the best professors and chief executives are slow and steady thinkers steeped in many years of incomparable experience. Biden knows more about our world and its leaders and our nation and its core values than just about any leader I can think of. I get it, no campaign chops left, but the Infrastructure bill, the end of the endless corrupt war in Afghanistan, the decrease of childhood poverty by over 20%. In my 70 years, no leader has done as much for our safety (bridges strengthened, WiFi access more equitable) or for peace or toward the very reachable goal of ending desperate poverty. (Venting cousin to cousin …)
I hold dear the goal to persuade my friend on the other side, that we can realize peace, strength and security for all of the people on this earth.
A couple of friends who have attacked other friends mercilessly have changed the relationship forever. One couple, nbd. I don't care if I ever speak with them again. The other, the wife of a good friend remains a friend. But the relationship is forever changed.