"Open For Debate" and "No Labels"

Maybe it depends which media you frequent.  The ones I frequent seem to talk a lot about a "divided country."  I rely mostly on public radio and two homepages, one of which is not NPR.  But it's also fair to say that people like Marjorie Greene are said to advocate for division (or, as she calls it, divorce), as the south attempted in the Civil War, and Ms Greene has never been quoted as saying she doesn't feel that way.  So maybe everyone agrees that ours is now a divided country.

But there are some movements against division.  One of them is a group that calls itself "No Labels," and it advocates for reduction of (combative) partisanship and increase in both general appeal (not the "labels" of right and left) and in the inclusion of "independent" candidates.  Of interest, some left wing advocates have argued recently that "No Labels" is really a screen for right wing dark money, intended to promote even more right wing candidates.  "No Labels" sent out an e-blast yesterday reassuring, without mentioning the left wing source of the accusation, that this was in no way true.  (My reading of "No Labels" communications over recent years has certainly suggested that it doesn't appear to be true.)

I have to confess that I was in the garage working out, and I had the radio on, as I always do.  So, I was half focusing on my workout, and half paying close attention to the radio.  I didn't catch what was the recent former name of the organization now called "Open For Debate," but the new name certainly speaks for itself in what it promotes: non-combative debate, and an effort at mutual recognition and even a degree of acceptance of other people's positions, even if one person or side doesn't agree with the other person's or side's position.  You don't have to agree, but you should understand what the other party is saying, and what it means to them.

And before I go on, here's an example of failing to understand the other person's or side's position, and of essentially arguing for the sake of arguing.  From "30K feet," as they say, it appears that there is stark division about abortion.  One side is seen as disapproving of any abortion at any time under any circumstances, and the other side is portrayed as permissive of abortion willy-nilly, with a claim, even, that that side is permissive of abortion up to the moment of birth.  But neither is true.  These posturings apply labels where they don't belong, and they suppress debate.  The facts are that the "vast majority" (that's the term I heard used a day or two ago) of Americans are in favor of abortion access, and it's more commonly legislators, who are "going rogue," and not representing their supposed constituents, and who propose to limit in unrealistic ways.  But even some of those legislators include permissiveness for things like rape, incest, and maternal health.  And some proposals even offer a limit of 15 weeks, after which those legislators want to ban abortion.  There's some flexibility there.  And the other camp, that doesn't want any limits, does not propose abortion access up to the moment of birth.  The fact of the matter is that 93% of abortions, when they can happen any time anyone wants them to, occur during the first trimester, which is just over 14 weeks.  Ninety-nine percent of abortions occur by 20 weeks (6% more between 15 and 20 weeks).  So, if Americans were open to debate, and were not distracted by an impulse to apply, or sometimes invent, labels, there would be a lot more room for agreement, or at least compromise.

This blog offers an example of the problem, too.  I write almost all of the posts, and I say what I want.  I used to confine myself, and guest authors, to matters of specific interest to BP residents, but more recently, I've dispensed with that restriction, and I talk a lot about politics, as I'm doing now.  There's a comment opportunity, for anyone who has something to say, add, dispute, or echo.  Generally speaking, I welcome the conversation.  Or I would welcome it, if there was one.  There increasingly commonly isn't one.  And I know very well that I write things with which some readers of this blog will disagree, or agree.  I wouldn't normally expect people who agree with me to bother to enter a comment to that effect, but it always surprises me that people I know read this blog, and who I know don't agree, don't say anything.  There should be a "Debate," and there isn't one.  I don't learn anything from people who agree with me.  I learn from people who look at things in a way I don't, or didn't, or which hadn't occurred to me: people who disagree with me.

One person, or possibly a couple of people (the assertion is "four or five"), sometimes enter inane and entirely off topic comments, generally ad hominem about me (or sometimes about someone else), and they don't sign their comments.  They're not offering a "debate," and they don't want one.

One of my non-BP friends does his own blog, also on blogspot.  I'm on his new post circulation.  He writes all the posts.  I comment often enough.  It is either rare or unheard-of that anyone else comments, and if I offer a different view than my friend has proposed in his post, even he doesn't "debate" the matter with me.  And he's a lawyer!  If anyone should be disposed to "debate," and be relatively good at it, he should.

So, we're stuck right now.  People are being territorial, or just blindly combative, and they don't want to, to put it in a familiar way, cross the aisle.  I don't know if it's even worth hoping this will change.  "Open For Debate" and "No Labels" hope it does.  I do, too.