Prof. Barker leaves out one important point. Each side views parts of the world
view of the other as evil. For example, a core example is sexual conduct. For
the stereotypical leftist, the boundary of what sexual conduct is bad or evil
has not yet been found. For the stereotypical social conservative, sexual
conduct outside of a heterosexual marriage is evil. For the stereotypical
conservative, government coercion to achieve a social goal is wrong or even
evil. The stereotypical liberal sees that path as affine and worthy way to
modify group behavior. Our stereotypical conservative believes that abortion is
evil. The stereotypical liberal thinks that it is an unremarkable women's
health procedure. Now, this is a very simplified model to make the point.This disconnect in the views of the parties prevents cooperation on what
few areas that they can agree on because of our cultural moral imperative of not
compromising with evil at any level.
@the truth 6:26 p.m. June 19, 2014 If you really anted to tell the
truth you would also say:The attacks here in this forum against
democrats and anyone even a tiny bit to the left of being on the extreme
far-right of the political spetrum,show how partisan and personal
things have become.We do need to get back to principle.I
do hope the those on the extreme far right can get back to making principled
arguments and stop basing everything on their hate for the opposition.
happy2behere, you really have no idea what I said do you? I suspect you
don't even understand what the author said. "
putting all the blame on conservatives," Neither of us was blaming anyone.
Go back and try again. This time try it from the principled position of
understanding rather than the partisan position of liberals are wrong and to
I have to respectfully disagree with Ms. Baker's conclusions.Now for my conservative diatribe. Marxist, just because one of Obama's
Czars says Bush committed war crimes doesn't make it true nor factual. For
years Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, et.al. all said "Bush lied, people died"
many many times. Clinton lied on the witness stand after he'd sworn to
tell the truth. You or I do that, we go to jail. I'm not going to
regurgitate history for you, you can look it up yourself, except for this one
point. Everyone agreed with the intelligence used to justify invading Iraq. A
lot of it came from the Brits.
Alas, I see but few comments that don't engage in precisely the behavior
lamented by Mary Barker.I have one disagreement with the column,
which is the notion that science is above the fray. There are really two things
called by the name "science". One is the science itself, and the other
is the public perception of science as presented by the popular media. Sometimes
there is a correlation between the two, but often there is not. When I visit the
Hansen Planetarium or read Discover magazine, I'm a bit embarrassed at how
science is portrayed as something of a freak show or absolute authority rather
than what it really is. (Richard Feynman famously stated that the best a
scientist can say is, "I'm not wrong yet.") I'm disappointed
that Americans, as a general rule, are scientifically illiterate and can't
see through the false portrayal of science in the media. Nowhere is the division
more pronounced than in climate science. I invite Mary Barker (and anyone else)
to spend some time getting acquainted with science rather than the media
portrayal of it.
Come on Tea Party conservatives, accept some of the blame. You know you want
to. You know it is true.One of you said that Reagan was a great
uniter. The opposition to Reagan did not demonize him as does the opposition to
Obama. An entire TV channel was not obsessed with demonizing Reagan. And we
all knew he was "less than competent" in his final years of office. It
was painfully obvious the man was starting his downward spiral into full blown
In fact after reading most of the liberal posts, one has to wonder if you guys
even read or understand what the author is trying to say. There a great amount
of partisanship on this DN site by you guys, trying to defend Obama and the
Democrats. Therefore, I'm sure in the eyes of the author, you come out no
better than the conservatives do. Think about it.
pragmatistferlifeI hope you realize that the very position you make
in your post, putting all the blame on conservatives, is EXACTLY what the author
is arguing against. You therefore are the problem, not the solution.
Principled v. partisan politicsBy Mary BarkerFor the Deseret
News====== Another excellent article by Mary Barker!Agreed with others -- KEEP her.The lone sane [and shall I say;
moderate and non-FoxNews parrot] reporter on the DN staff...
Principle.The Republican Party, for 4 years, sacrificed America to
follow the #1 Republican Principle... Make President Obama a one
term POTUS.The Republican Party failed.For the last two
years, the Republican Party sacrificed America to follow the #2 Republican
Principle...Obstruct, at all costs.The Republican Party
has succeeded.The Republican Party will continue with obstruction at
all costs, because they have nothing else to offer.
The attacks her in this forum against republicans and conservative,show how partisan and personal things have become.We do need to
get back to principle.I do hope the left can get back to making
principled arguments and stop basing everything on their hate for the
It's all about power and greed. I don't believe for a minute that
politicians believe all the twisted conspiracy theories they spout off. One day
it's the birth certificate, the next it's too much golf. But they
never talk about 9/11 and why there was thermite or how building 7 fell without
being hit by anything.
To "The Real Mavelick" you got some things right, but mostly wrong since
you are so biased against anything Republican.Reagan was actually a
great uniter, and his high approval ratings that lasted through his presidency
show it. If you read "Look How Far We’ve Come Apart" in the NY
Times, there is a graph where members of Congress were asked how they feel
towards the opposite party. The graph is quite clear that during reagan's
time the polarization was there, but not bad. During Clinton't time the
members of congress became more polarized and are only getting more polarized
under Obama.You are forgetting about the 14 years of Democrats
crying "Bush stole the election", followed by "I supported the war
before I opposed it".Actually Clinton was not on trial for his
adultery, he was on trial for purgery, obstruction of justice, and abuse of
power. Do you think it is good to have a president that will lie in a court of
law, obstruct justice, and abuse power?Your attemps to distract from
the fact that your liberal allies are making the polarization worse only shows
you willingness to allow more corruption.
@ Real MavI was just about to say the same thing. The polarization
of the 2 parties has always come over race issues. Slavery in the 1850s-60s. And
Civil Rights 100 years later.The more things change the more they
stay the same. I only wish we let the south secede this time. All those welfare
taker states would finally actually have to produce something rather than rely
on the blue producer states.
@ Redskirt"This is the fruit of the political divide that has
been growing over the past 20 years or more. Obama received a Nobel prize
because they thought he would unite the world. Instead we see that he has
divided the nation. Just look at the polls since Bush was President. The nation
was starting to get polarized then, but since Obama took office the polarization
has increased dramatically."In the 90s, the Clintons were
accused of murder in Arkansas. Even their daughter was called horrible things.
Remember the polarization of Terri Schrivo? Repubs jumped all over
that to hurt democrats.The (republican) speaker of the house also
led a witch hunt to impeach the president for his adultery while he himself was
carrying on in adulterous affairs. The great polarization started
years ago. I would say it got a real stimulus under Newt. It was kick started
under Reagan (the great divider). And it started at the civil rights act, in
Karen R. is right on! Utah is a perfect example. We have a state
governed by conservatives who aren't afraid to use fairly high taxation
(liberal idea) to fund a well run government. (government = liberal idea). Utah promotes business (conservative idea), and fortunately these
businesse's tendencies toward environmental excess are stymied by federal
ownership of Utah Land. (liberal idea) and federal environmental laws. (liberal
and conservative idea)Good ideas are where you find them regardless
of political origin.
This is the fruit of the political divide that has been growing over the past 20
years or more. Obama received a Nobel prize because they thought he would unite
the world. Instead we see that he has divided the nation. Just look at the
polls since Bush was President. The nation was starting to get polarized then,
but since Obama took office the polarization has increased dramatically.
Politicians need us to be divided so that they can use that division as a
distraction to their goals.
So... most of the posts here violate the basic premise of the excellent article.
We deserve our elected officials. They represent ourselves. The Left blames
the right instead of trying to find common ground and the Right blames the left.
We prove it ourselves by laying blame instead of focusing on solutions. Both
will want to show me how wrong I am, how there side isn't doing that, how
it's mostly (or laughably all) the other side faults.
Re: Happy2bhere "Wars, by the way people like Clinton, Kerry,
Reid,..." True enough. These politicos didn't have the courage to do
the right thing when it really mattered, so they voted for the Iraq resolution
even though most of them knew the Bush, Cheney arguments were bogus. But the
Bush/Cheney administration built the "case" for war, and the GOP bears
the guilt which leads to much of our polarization.
Thank you, Ms. Barker. Politicians, I don't care what your political
affiliation is. If you come to me with ideas based in reason and the common
good, you're going to get a hearing from me. If you come at me with
ideology first, then you've created a hurdle of distrust for yourself.We did not become a great nation because of any one ideology or
religious perspective. We became a great nation because we took the best from
ALL of them. Can we get smart again, please?
“shame on you, Mr. President, for lying to a grand jury?”Shame on you, Republican Party, for literally turning a President’s sex
life into a Federal case. Did that help America in any way? No, absolutely
not. It just distracted attention away from significant issues, like
Terrorism.Republicans were insanely jealous that Clinton would leave
GW Bush a country at peace, with strong allies, a history of four straight
budget surpluses, and a strong economy. And so they decided to literally make a
Federal case out of the President’s sex life.Shame on you
Republican Party.And then GW completely DESTROYED Clinton’s
brilliant gift to the nation in only eight years. But the Republicans, not being
ethical enough to admit their mistakes, constantly twist the facts and invent
lies in attempts to blame everyone but themselves.Shame on you
Republican Party.Even now, as GW’s horrible legacy reasserts
itself, the Republicans insist it’s Obama’s fault. I say, hold
the people responsible accountable. And please don’t imply that Democrats
in any way share the lack of character and integrity that seems to define
I agree that sensible people should be able to agree on what is principled and
what is partisan, but I think the author has left out the concept of
proportionality. I think that President Clinton's behavior was
distasteful, and should be criticized, but does it compare with President
Bush's discretionary war in Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of tens of
thousands of people?Or what about 9/11 vs. Benghazi? Both incidents
were tragic, and I've never felt Bush should be blamed for the deaths of
nearly 3000 people who were killed in the 9/11 attacks. Every bad thing that
happens is not the president's fault.But 4 Americans were
killed in Benghazi and the right has kept up an endless stream of venom towards
Hillary and President Obama over the unfortunate deaths. Sometimes U. S.
citizens in dangerous places get hurt or killed, and it doesn't mean there
is a conspiracy at play.It seems that the right has become so
resentful towards Obama's presidency, and Bush's failures, that no
issue is beyond being attacked by the conservative naysayers, as witnessed by
the attacks on Michelle over her advocacy of healthy school lunches!
Another outstanding Mary Barker piece.
To the point of intensity, I've noted a few times here that periodically a
leftie on this post will agree with a conservative point, but I'm not sure
I've ever seen the opposite except as sarcasm. As harsh as the
criticism was for GWB there were moments of unity in the country and even
general liberal support for some policies and decisions. I dare someone to find
that same unity during the Obama years. There's an interesting
book about conservatism called the "Reactionary Mind" I think the title
is on to something. It's pretty easy to believe in fiscal
responsibility, and human rights as principles. I'll bet most Democrats,
and Republicans would say they subscribe to the principles. I think it's
harder to believe in such principles in a dynamic and rapidly changing world
when you see through the lens, or think through the fog of conservatism, which
by definition wants things to stay the same. They don't and fiscal
responsibility is not the same today as 1950. Thus the reaction and
intensity of the conservative tribe.
Some of the people Mary talks about were just as abusive to Bush and the Iraq
war, (some even the Afghanistan war). Wars, by the way people like Clinton,
Kerry, Reid, all voted for. (take note of that Marxist). And now, we have a
President and first lady that we are supposed to go soft on? This column seems
to believe that no one should have any allegiance to anything. That we as
people should all be nice equal little lemmings that follow a supreme leader
like, our dear Obama, I suppose? Look at it like this. How could any person
have a religion and a belief in God, without there being an automatic seperation
of values from others who choose not to believe? As long as there are two
people on planet Earth, there will be disagreement, sometimes it will be
principled, sometimes it will be partisan. It always has been that way, and
always will. What surprises me is that I think Mary doesn't understand
that, or actually believes it can change.
But I thought the political Conservative mind did not believe in compromise.
Isn't that a dirty word to Tea Party folks? Everything to a political
conservative is black and white. Government is inherently evil to most Fox
viewers (well, when a Democrat is in charge anyway). There may be a few deeply
left political liberals left who are like that, but the majority of the
so-called left is really only a bit left of center. If you
don't believe in compromise or the idea that we must all get along and
govern based on mutual interests, then how can we get along politically or
Mary Barker is a joy to read: thoughtful and articulate. Keep her, Deseret News.
"Haidt argues that our innate need to form groups is the cause of
today’s polarized partisan divide. Yet, it can’t account for its
intensity."I believe one reason for the intensity of our
partisan divide is the need of the American political right wing to defend the
indefensible - the Iraq invasion. The network of falsehoods used to justify
that invasion, and the destruction and loss of life engendered by that invasion
constitute the most criminal foreign policy in the history of the United States.
Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke stated recently that Bush, Cheney and
Rumsfeld Committed War Crimes and could have charges brought against them at the
Hague. So to keep from facing these horrors, the right vilifies
Obama relentlessly. The Deseret News editorial page is a demonstration."Ex-Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld
Committed War Crimes