It has struck me for a long time that the real political difference between people is between those who?

Question

value tolerance ,inclusiveness,and negotiated settlements,and those that believe in asserting their particular view (left, right,etc), combatatively.
Is the new public awareness of this a sign of politics maturing ?

I was thinking about Britain ,where although the Liberals haven't increased their share of the vote ,their values have in many ways been incorporated by the other two main parties . So that to discern the subtle differences ,(if any) ,voters have to assess each issue seperately ,rather than just voting according to habit ,or prejudice. Trditionally the media has defined liberals in relation to the old left/right spectrum of the last century, without recognising that way of thinking is itself one end of a spectrum.I think this is generally true of Europe.
I agree ,it does look as if the US is becoming more polarized with the rise of religious fundamentalism .

And ,of course, individuals with more tolerant and more hardline views are found within any group ,which shows up the limited accuracy of such groupings.

Finalment, recognising the neccessity of cooperation ,inclusion etc, does not mean being soft ,or giving in to bullies. It means setting up fair systems which

...safeguard the wellbeing of all . That means an unbiased and fair policing system ,and judicial oversight.
It means not lumping innocent and guilty together , It means negotiate first . If I might remind those that mentioned the second world war, it was those who viewed the world in a polarised fashion that tried to impose those views and led to such bloodshed. It was those who valued tolerance and minority rights who stood up to them ,when there was no other choice. As I guess you know ,W.Bush's grandad was indicted for Anti-American activities ,when he helped finance Hitler's rise to power.
Also at that time after the horrors of the first world war ,no sane American or Briton was keen for another war.

Oh yes ,and don't forget northern island ,where real change has happened through negotiation after so many years of unsuccessful hardarm tactics.
And of course ,once we were in the Second world war, harsh reality meant cooperating with Russia,and led to the oppression of half of Europe, anyway !

Answer 1

it was the republic of ireland going into the european union that ended the troubles, money ended the troubles. money talked. everyone has their price, money can drown principles. money makes the world go around and a lot of unpleasantness go away.

the first world war saw limited weapons, as weapons became more sophisticated with further combat war became more of an occupation than a mechanism for self-defence.

the world is smaller and more dependent each country on another, the awareness springs from the global economy and our communications systems. from the spread of peoples throughout the world. one day the awareness may hit all peoples that we are all basically the same, then we will have peace.

i don't see much in the way of tolerance on any which way sides of any dispute or confict.

liberal and social democratic parties have failed to ensure enough seats to be viable for election.

Answer 2

Are you trying to say that one side (left or right) is tolerant and the other side is not? Or are you trying to say that there are 2 types of politicians, those that are tolerant, and those that aren't?

If the former is what you are trying to convey, you are very wrong. Both sides want to get elected so they can impose their views on others. That is pretty much the whole point of electing a representative. So they can implement your ideas, or stop others from implementing theirs.

Regardless, I don't see how you can say politics is maturing. It is just as much about mud-slinging now as it ever was. Both sides try to scare people into voting for them. Both sides cater to special interests because that's where the money is. Both sides get away with telling bold-faced lies because they know their base will continue to support them. If anything, politics is more immature.

Answer 3

I would like to believe that but I don't think it's happening. You are right, there are always those opposing views and it seems over the last 6 years the rift has only gotten wider. I think a lot of the problem has been the new "Christian agenda" that is assaulting politics with it's "my way or the highway" mentality. There are religious groups today that are VERY active in politics and people can say what they will but if that mentality succeeds what makes us any different than some Middle Eastern countries who want to be controlled by Islamic law??? It's scary stuff...........Church & state must remain separate...........

Answer 4

Not really because you're going to get both types of people on each side of the political spectrum.
I find that the left is way more intolerant than the right based on all the Blair and Bush bashing and the Israeli and American bashing. I believe that they are much more insistent on pushing home their point of view but they also resort to using hate messages, slander, name calling, lots of abuse.
I have to snicker when I read some of the crap.

Answer 5

The only problem is that those who don't value tolerance and inclusiveness etc. have an equal right to their views in a completely tolerant and inclusive society, so how do you dissuade them from their actions / policies without resorting to violence.... Its fighting for peace....complete BS but until we figure out a better way to resolve differences or remove all intolerant people from the face of the Earth, its all we really have... sad really...

Answer 6

Then why you guys supported your No. 2 perspective twice? Or what do you mean is that asserting one's views (in your case as a nation, the views from the right) with a gun in your hand amounts to "political maturing"? Mind you, the US did it twice and now have a doube-double Georgie messing things up even further.

Answer 7

I think that the public awareness that you're referring to stems from the fact that people have realised that politics has little bearing on everyday life and that the opinions of the majority are rarely, if ever, reflected in the laws. Basically, people are aware enough to say "what's the point?" I don't think that's enlightenment though, do you?

ps: sod tolerance and enlightenment - look where it's got us!

Answer 8

no. people that try to negociate are the same people that caused ww2. Chamberlin had multiple attempts to stop Hitler an Nazi Germany early. He chose to "negociate" and we got war. Appeasement has always failed. Native Americans tried to appease white settlers, and white people got it all. Carthage tried to appease Rome, and Rome got it all. It is as true in the ancient world as it is in the modern world....apeasement is a path of death and failure.

Answer 9

I think politics suck and all politicians are theives.
As for political differnces its just a question of who steals less.

Answer 10

Negotiating sure worked with the Nazis', didn't it?