What three things would we all have to agree on?

JMC wrote: Sorry AV but I don't see one issue that right and left would agree on. They are all political constituencies that neither side would compromise. Even if there is agreement on the end result how to achieve it would create a fight. Fun for discussion though.

I agree and disagree with you. First off, as AV said before, I think we have a lot of issues in common that we want close to the same end result, so I disagree that we dont have issues that we agree on. But our issue, as you stated and I agree with is that both parties have very different ideas as to how to come to those same conclusions. I feel the right wants the people to have more control to fix things with their own money and decissions, where as I feel the left thinks the government has the best chance to fix things and they need our money and more control to do it. That is the biggest difference in the two parties and that is what divides us on how to fix almost all of the issues.

mtntrekker, I can't believe those two wouldn't be a good start, but I've been surprised before. I would add NO deficit spending unless approved by voters.

i would also add transparency - something we still don't have that should be available to the american people.

I think we can all agree that "refudiate" is not a word.

Creativity may be a sign of intelligence. :rofl

Don't make me call the grammar police.

My wife occasionally creates new words and the grammar police should fear her.

My husband and father are the same. They wouldn't know refudiate from liberry.

What we all will agree with is the end result of goals such as:
1. economic prosperity,
2. national security,
3. public welfare.
(Really there are more areas with which everyone will agree.)

Our strong disagreement comes whenever we try to create policy on how to accomplish these goals. I suspect it is because of our view of what government's role should be.
If the government is to solve all of the countries wants and wishes, then you agree with the view of government since the first nomadic tribes swooped in to rape and pillage.
If you are very distrustful of government and want to limit the criminals who call themselves "leaders" then you agree with the founders of this nation.

Some of you have hinted at what I was thinking when I started this thread. The disagreement seems to focus on how to accomplish the goals, not necessarily the goals themselves.

What would happen, do you think, if people got a whole lot less invested in "their way" to achieve the goal being the "right way" and a lot MORE invested in just solving the problem, even if the eventual method isn't the one they would have supported? What then?

Because, see, I think a lot of the reason it is so difficult to achieve public policy change is that people get so hung up on the "hows" they forget the "whys". And most of the stupid ideological fights and gridlocks come out of not so much disagreeing on what needs to be the goal, but getting stubborn, opinionated and very ego-invested in believeing "our side" knows the only "right way" to get things done.