The dichotomy you described was illustrated in the “tea parties” that took place this summer. Those of us who are hard-working, quiet-living people are simply fed up with being told that those with money, power, and celebrity know how to run our lives better than we do. The reaction of the CAN’T people was shock. How dare the “unwashed masses” (I am obviously speaking tongue-in-cheek) think they can run their own lives?

I fervently hope that the grassroots fervor that began this year continues and grows because it can only be good for this country for the “average Joe” (the plumber? – to have their voice heard.

Anne @alivenkickin

It’s clear–at least to me–that much time and soul-searching was poured into this. I wouldn’t discount the dichotomy as being too “simplistic” for these reasons:

1. In order to arrive at a respectable model that is understandable because of its simplicity, one must do countless hours of thinking, self-debating, and editing.

2. You’ve characterized the poles in ways that reflect observable actions toward or against what is constitutional, the foundational document that in and of itself was designed to draw a line in the sand regarding freedoms. I would offer that those found to have a majority of beliefs in the ‘AmeriCan’t’ category are also those who reject the Constitution and its underlying philosophy and are willing to use existing political structures to undermine it.

3. You note that “The major cultural divide is among those whose p-values diverge greatly on multiple levels.” You also state that “As Americans, we expect to differ on many ideas and beliefs, and we seek both reasoned discourse and representative governing structures to move the cultural needle in accordance with our convictions.”

This posture acknowledges that “differences” are expected yet, at the same time, there is also an expectation that governing structures will allow any related discourse to be conducted in a sprit of reason. Herein lies one of the fundamental issues we face.

The spirit of “reasoned” discourse in government is becoming rare, if not extinct. One party is totally shut out of processes able to be controlled by the other (this can hold true for both sides of the aisle). “Reasoned” requires a firm foundation on which arguments can be weighed; that foundation has always been, and was intended to be, the Constitution. Those with a majority of low p-values would, by definition, ignore such a foundation as irrelevant or non-”foundational”. Since the Constitution was also designed to provide, in great part, the “spirit” of future debate, it’s dismissal opens the door for “spirits” of all kinds. If nothing more than lip service is paid to the Constitution, then my rights and my arguments are as valid as yours, simply because I say so. There is no accepted “right” and “wrong”. This would seem to me to offer a fertile field for:

a. Anarchy

b. An open door for an ideological figure or figures who had the personal, organizational, and financial wherewithal to promise 300 million people that each could have what (s)he desires and is “entitled” to.

c. Doing what we would advise any business to do when they get off track and into difficulty: Re-visit their core values.

Option “C” is the only one that requires a spirit of genuine inclusion and compassion, because it means that a group of people has to agonize and search their souls in order to commit to a path that honors the aspirations of each while ensuring the safety and prosperity of the whole.

Perhaps there is a hidden irony in all of this.

You describe a certain “spirit” when defining each of the poles, which would indicate that this is a “spiritual” issue. There are all kinds of spirits: mean ones, loving ones, godly ones, evil ones, and 60% pure grain alcohol. Each can create its own distinct outcomes.

So, one of the questions becomes: What spirit, resting on what foundation, allows you the confidence to approach each of those factors as you do?

Steve, this post is an act of caring and courage. Kudos.

“I want to vote for Chris Daggett, but only if he has a real chance of winning. He needs pledges from 100,000 people like me. I don’t want to wait til Election Day to find out that those votes existed, but we were all afraid to cast them. So, I’m signing my name below, with my address to prove that I’m real, and pledging that if 100,000 people like me sign up, I will vote for Daggett.”

Take the I’ll Vote For Daggett Pledge Here

When my son was a baby we were having dinner at a restaurant and he was gnawing on a breadstick – perfectly harmless behavior he’d done dozens of times before. But this time, he decided to test his newly-sprouted tooth and while my wife and I were talking to each other, he managed to break off a bit just big enough to lodge in his throat.

Amazingly, and I truly am NOT making this up, the conversation my wife and I were having was about infant first aid and I was telling her about the choking first aid I had just learned!

As it became apparent that our son was truly choking, I grabbed him out of the high chair, flipped him over my arm, and gave him several good whacks on the back. The offending breadstick bit flew out of his mouth followed by some well deserved crying.

Had that happened a few days before I learned that first aid…well, I shudder to think.

Sixteen years later he is a happy, healthy, somewhat gainfully employed honor student. He managed to survive despite the odds, and we couldn’t be prouder.

So yes, I can definitely relate to what you’re saying here – thanks.