Sender: Evelyn Messinger
Subject: Re: Conservatives
Date: Sun, Apr 27, 2014
Msg: 100949

It's really helpful that Michael has laid out some specifics of how Conservatives feel. This brings to mind Debilyn's statements about people feeling victimized, especially because Liberals can create an equally long and detailed list of grievances. The idea of offering apologies is quite interesting. Perhaps a more attainable approach is for each side to acknowledge what they agree with in the other side's ideology and list of complaints. For example,Liberals could admit that increased expenditures on the education system have failed. But they are not likely to apologize, because the Liberal perspective is that Conservatives refused to spend ENOUGH on the problem to solve it.

I have noticed that in the course of civil discussions, Conservatives are often willing to admit that the power of corporations and big business plays a role in our problems; and Liberals are willing to admit that government incompetence plays a role in these problems. Nonetheless, the either/or structure of our political system, the lack of alternatives and the role of partisan media in adding fuel to the fires of discord ultimately push everyone into their 'default' partisan positions. The possibility of resolving this dilemma may be the greatest strength of a Transpartisan movement.

Evelyn -- Evelyn Messinger http://citizenschannel.org +1.415.377.6278

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Michael Strong wrote:

> I haven't had time to dig into the details of Rick's "cap-and-prioritize" > strategy, but I'm broadly in agreement with much of what he says here. > > Many libertarians and conservatives might be willing to negotiate with the > left if the nature of the negotiation was along the lines of "how much is > enough" (e.g. how much government spending, how much taxation, how much > redistribution, etc.) But their perception is that for many on the left, > there is never enough (never enough government spending, never enough > taxation, never enough redistribution, etc.) > > And they focus on the history of particular programs, such as public > education, where spending has gone up 3x over the past several decades > while measurable outcomes have been flat, > > http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/22/losing-the-brains-race > > And for most business people, the notion that "we" should spend even more, > when we have already increased spending three-fold as with no improvement > in outcomes, is absurd. Insofar as they hear the left endlessly demanding > "more" with no focus on whether or not the spending is effective, they > regard the left as stupid (any business person who "invested" this way > would go broke) or evil (e.g. motivated by hatred of the rich rather than > caring about the poor). > > In addition to Rick's cap-and-prioritize strategy, someone here has > suggested that we provide an exemplary dialogue on particular issues so > that we can model how such a dialogue might go. I think that is an > excellent idea. > > Finally, in many cases, I think concessions by the left that they have > been wrong, including apologies to conservatives for the insults and > attacks, would go a long ways towards improving dialogue. I know many > older conservatives who feel as if events over the past several decades > have vindicated their beliefs. Meanwhile, at the time when they were > defending their beliefs, they were attacked for being stupid and/or evil. > I see the harsh, ugly rhetoric on the right in venues such as Fox news, > Breitbart, etc. as the result of decades of insults, followed by feelings > of empirical vindication, followed by a complete absence of apologies or > even acknowledgement that the left had ever been wrong. > > I was tempted to provide some examples of such incidents, but instead I'll > leave it as an exercise to the reader. All transpartisans should seek to > develop the capacity to pass an "Ideological Turing Test," > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test > > This longstanding resentments by conservatives of attacks on them from the > left is a great issue on which to develop one's abilities to show that one > can understand and empathize with ideological opponents. > > > Michael Strong > CEO and Chief Visionary Officer > FLOW, Inc. > www.flowidealism.org > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Rickrad wrote: > >> About a month ago, someone commented that the transpartisan movement >> seemed to be dominated by left-leaning individuals and that this is a >> problem. >> >> I would like to suggest a possible cause and two possible solutions. >> >> I believe the cause of the problem is actually quite simple: >> conservative philosophy (with a few notable exceptions) is about limiting >> government and since government is currently dramatically beyond such >> limits, conservative philosophy is unavoidably a "no compromise" type of >> philosophy. A compromise to them, is a loss. So even a dialog is a loss >> -- or at least it feels like it to them. (A debate, on the other hand, >> they love, but that's different) >> >> Left-leaning philosophy and moderate philosophy, on the other hand, is >> more about "let's come together and help each other" and this philosophy is >> more naturally transpartisan. In fact, this allows left-leaning people to >> claim the mantle of transpartisanship even if they truly aren't >> transpartisan -- because any dialog is a win, or at least it feels that >> way. Something to think about. >> >> Here are two possible solutions... >> >> SOLUTION #1: THE UNDERDOG STRATEGY >> >> One way to get conservatives on board the transpartisan train is to look >> for places where conservatives are weakest -- e.g. San Francisco, the north >> east, or inner cities -- and focus on building dialog-structures there. To >> put it simply, conservatives in such areas benefit hugely from structured >> dialog since they effectively have no voice via the more formal political >> processes. >> >> SOLUTION #2: CAP-AND-PRIORITIZE >> >> If a right-leaning person is offered the limits they want in the context >> of a larger deal, you will find them willing to enter the dialog >> enthusiastically -- because they feel like they already won. This is the >> idea behind the cap-and-prioritize reform I keep talking about. (details >> at IncentiveReform.org) >> >> Hope this helps. >> >> - Rick Raddatz >> Founder, http://IncentiveReform.org >> 303-949-8075 >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list, click the following link: >> http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1 >> > > > > -- > Michael Strong > CEO and Chief Visionary Officer > FLOW, Inc. > www.flowidealism.org > > For the definitive Conscious Capitalism book, see Be the Solution: How > Entrepreneurs and Conscious Capitalists Can Solve All the World's Problems, > by Michael Strong with John Mackey, CEO Whole Foods Market, Muhammad Yunus, > founder of Grameen Bank and 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Hernando de > Soto, Co-Chair of the U.N. Commission on the Legal Empowerment of the Poor, > and others, and listen to John Mackey's audio CD Passion and Purpose: The > Power of Conscious Capitalism, both available at amazon.com or > www.flowidealism.org. > > Liberating the Entrepreneurial Spirit for Good > > When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with > your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will > always long to return. > > Leonardo Da Vinci > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list, click the following link: > http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1 >

############################

To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list: write to: mailto:TRANSPARTISAN-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG or click the following link: http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1