Drinking with the Enemy

For those who haven't understood, the point of this blog (that no one reads) is that no matter our political view point we all have valid points. Abortion kills what is (or at least will be) a baby. Unwanted pregnancy is a problem. The poor need help. Property should remain in possession of it's owner. While every President dating back to Ronald Reagan has run on a platform of being post-partisan, not a single winner governed with consistency in a post-partisan way. PointcounterPoint attempts to highlight the consequences of choosing to abide in a culture that polarizes through political extremes in order to win elections. I'm just kind of sick of it. Maybe the one individual that reads this blog as they attempt to find a recipe for chicken cacciatori will agree. I don't want to think that this is the way that we must politic in order to win elections. I want to think better of myself and my common citizenry. I want to think that the extremes where presented on MSNBC and FOX commentary, et al are simply catching the same impulse that makes us slow down when we see an accident on the side of the road. You know, hoping no one's hurt but curious about calamity.

Is it possible to bring disparate groups together? My remembrance of Ronald Reagan was that while he would vehemently disagree with Speaker O'Neil - he was able to put aside the partisanship long enough to have a conversation over drinks. (Usually, the story goes, at the end of the day over a beer.) My impression is that Reagan ran on issues and principles. He picked up Republicans and Southern Democrats. He disagreed with whom he disagreed, he agreed with whom he agreed - and they all could come together and agree to agree or disagree. respectively. That methodology-at least affords us the opportunity for civil discourse. Is it possible to achieve that kind of balance in discourse again?

I think so. I hope so.