My brother Nathan just posted a beautiful article entitled "A short essay on dissent - and also I'm moving". I highly recommend it for anyone committed to making this world a better place. When I started reading it I thought - yeah, this is what we've been doing! - with which he later concurred.
Nathan and I don't always agree on issues. It is perfectly possible that we are each becoming a bit less radical and polarized; that we as we learn more about the world we recognize the validity within the other's position, and that without a vision of unity nothing will work or change. Whether we agree on the details, if we're willing to not have complete control over everything within our reach, doesn't matter. In fact, we've had some real doozies of an argument. However, on this I agree with him. Wholeheartedly. I don't see why someone would not, unless they were invested in the current political situation in the U.S. (ugh).
Check out his article - his name above will take you to it.
Hey, Mara!
I've been thinking about this, and someone could both agree that there's a lack of meaningful discourse in the elective process and be invested in the political situation in the US.
That doesn't make your statement untrue, they'd just have to be invested in the political situation in the US in a particular (and partisan) way in order to find that the current process isn't dangerously divisive.
-Nathan
Right. I was thinking of 'invested' as in having a reason (monetary?) that they wanted the political situation to be such as it is. So that, if the political situation were more cooperative and less mud-slinging they might be out of a livelihood. Either that, or they just thrive on the mud-slinging, gossip, rumors, invective, etc.