Agreement amidst the Battle?

Yes, but we can still hurt each other.

Photo by Birmingham Museums Trust on Unsplash

For the mental exercise, let’s consider a thought experiment.  How do two opposing political forces growing closer together in their substantive thinking (identification of problems, similar values, shared evidence, common means of evaluating evidence) manage to sustain their opposition to each other?

Shout louder? 

And then turn this around, when are two opposing political forces likely to be shouting louder?

More substantive agreement?

Khrushchev at the UN, pounding his shoe on the table.

American politics has always been fought with sharp knives over limited policy differences. (For the moment just take for granted that we are just a very competitive society. I think I can give you reasons if you ask.)

Oh yes, we make it sound like big differences: the size of government, law and order, fair business and labor practices.  But given that virtually all mopsupport “an effective government,” personal and property security and market based fair competition in labor contracts and commercial transaction, we are always close to each other, as we tangle with the realities of complex social interaction.

Today? You want smaller government; I want larger government.  Neither of us are saying we want “bad government:” inefficient, unnecessary, ineffective. We both are saying that we want good (highest value and lowest cost) solutions to serious problems?  Quality not quantity.   

So, what are we to make of all the present shouting? 

That we are actually much closer to agreement than we realize?

Comment!