FACEBOOK - THE UNLIKELY POLITICAL THINK TANK

Over the past several months, I've engaged in many political debates on facebook. I've really enjoyed this venue, because facebook is an interesting melting pot where people of vastly differing political opinions coalesce together with only the most tenuous connections to one another. While you might never make the time (or even have the opportunity) to grab a beer with that old acquaintance from high school with whom you have little in common any more, the click of mouse suddenly brings them squarely into your day to day world and social circle. If you ever use facebook for political rants or posting, you might find yourself debating this person about your most heartfelt, passionate beliefs despite the fact that you haven't spoken to one another in years.  This same dynamic literally grows exponentially when you factor in all of your friends' acquaintances who might comment on their political postings. At this point, you might even find yourself debating tax policy with someone you've never met who lives hundreds of miles away from you simply because you have a mutual friend on facebook (a situation I've found myself in fairly often lately, and highly enjoy.) I love the fact that such a situation draws one out of their comfort zone, and forces them to engage with ideas they typically dismiss. It has also made me a think a great deal about what, if anything, most Americans who thoughtfully engage with politics have in common.


POINTS OF AGREEMENT

Within these facebook political discussions, I can only find a few very broad points of agreement among the diverse political opinions.

1. Politicians Suck

It seems that most people have a disdain for politicians and feel that they all lack integrity -either morally, ideologically, or both. For the sake of convenience, I'll divide these into three broad camps - Dems typically aren't liberal enough for progressives, Republicans aren't conservative enough for conservatives, and centrists are frustrated by all of the ideological bickering and lack of common sense results-oriented governance. (This leaves out "radical" positions like far-left socialists, right wing secessionists, or Emma Goldman style anarchists, for instance. Regardless of the merits of those positions, they have no chance in hell of gaining legitimate traction anytime soon, barring an unexpected violent revolution.)

2. The Media Sucks

This one is pretty straightforward, though I'll generalize again. Liberals think the media is too right wing and is dominated by corporate interests, conservatives think the media is too left wing and is dominated by coastal elites out of touch with mainstream American values, and anyone who appreciates thoughtfulness agrees that blowhards on the left and right are obnoxious and manipulative (even if people like me secretly sometimes like to have my biases reaffirmed by loudmouths cashing in on my desire for this affirmation. I suspect I am not alone.)

3. Powerful Forces Have Too Much Influence Over Our Lives

Regardless of one's politics, people seem to feel that large, powerful forces influence their day to day lives for the worse, limiting their financial and/or personal freedoms. Of course, any thoughtful person has very nuanced ideas about this, but for the sake of brevity I will generalize these into three camps. Conservatives often feel that government (especially the federal government) is the main source of this overreach; progressives feel that the private sector (especially large corporations) are the source of the problem; and centrists feel it is both or the collusion of the two. Actually, I'm sure many feel that collusion is the problem, but I'm speaking in broad-based terms, where I suspect the differing ideologies place the lion's share of the blame.

So, those are three broad areas of agreement. However, they revolve around disdain for institutions for vastly different reasons, sometimes polar opposite reasons. A coalition of disdain does not provide much ground for cooperation, but it does offer a starting point for compromise. At least, theoretical compromise.

A HYPOTHETICAL COMPROMISE

Given the above areas of agreement, I've tried to come up with a hypothetical system of governance that could at least be the beginnings of a discussion that engenders further exploration of common ground. I've tried to think of something that involves deep sacrifice from opposing ideologies. This is only the most skeletal of ideas, and it only addresses a few major areas of disagreement (for instance, it totally omits defense policy), but I'm curious to see what people think. I will be inviting people to comment via facebook (either on the comments section here or via facebook comments where I will post this, too.) This is a deliberately vague outline, because I don't want to lead the discussion too far with my own details. I'm curious to see what others might offer in the way of specifics within this model, or a better model evolved from this one.

To be honest, I'm probably not comfortable with this hypothetical model (I'm probably most inclined towards a Scandinavian style social democracy if pressed for a shorthand of my ideals.) I do, however, think this crude model could be an interesting exploration of ideological biases rather than the typical "gotcha" shoutfest that can easily happen when people discuss issues they are passionate about. So, here is my rough sketch of a hypothetical compromise system of governance:

• Medicare and Medicaid are dismantled/dissolved
  
• Social Security is dismantled/dissolved
• Government employs muscular regulatory power over the private insurance, medical, and banking/investment industries to eliminate abusive practices, ensure access to health care, and promote genuine competition/eliminate monopolistic practices
  
• Elections are funded exclusively through modest public financing with enforced spending limits
• Political office seekers (who demonstrate reasonable measures of support for their candidacy) are given a finite but equal allotment of time for FREE television and radio advertisements, via our federally owned airwaves, and televised debates with mutually agreed upon moderators are mandatory.

Again, this is only a vague, limited outline for the purpose of engendering discussion (and none of these points are politically realistic in today's political climate.)