On national politics

I wish I knew who to credit with this idea, and if anyone knows let me know who to credit with it because the last thing I want to do is plagiarise the work of another.  In management circles there is a train of thought that our professional weaknesses are nothing more than the overdoing of our greatest professional strengths.  For example, determination or persistence can easily become stubbornness if taken too far.  This basic (and to my mind, correct) idea is evident in any number of other fields.  Here, I'll apply it to politics.

There is a widening gulf between liberal and conservative viewpoints, and the bases of each party are digging in their heels to fight for the most extremist beliefs of their political party.  But what are we fighting over really?  Rhetorical flourish paints Democrats as tax and spend liberals and Republicans as American Taliban, where each view is irreconcilable with the other.  Take one of America's strengths or values, say, freedom, and apply the above philosophy of weaknesses being overdone strengths.  Both parties, even most Americans I'd say, support the idea of freedom.  At the heart of our disagreements are where those strengths become weaknesses, and therefore where intervention is (or isn't) required.

A libertarian might desire as little restrictions on freedom as possible, meaning that at no point on the continuum of the issue is action merited to curb it.  On the other extreme are religious conservatives, who might say that having legalized abortion is too much freedom, and draw the line there, while advocates for a woman's right to choose would disagree.  Advocates for minorities might argue that government action is required to eliminate structures that impede the freedoms of minorities, while others might argue that government action impedes on their freedom to discriminate or some such thing.  The point is that on the issue of freedom, where we choose to act (or not act when action is called for) depends on when an individual interprets that the value of freedom moves from being an asset to a hindrance.  But in the end, we need to recognize that "the other" places values on freedom just like we do, or any other issue, and stop painting each other like tyrants and Nazis in divisive rhetorical flourish.

We paint opponents as extremists for the reason that it presents clear choices; the truth, we fear, is that in the case of elections the voters won't be able to tell us apart.  When presented this way, differences are clear and the position of each candidate makes more sense without tearing at the public's faith in our political system. 

The only difference between the position of Democrats and Republicans on public policy is where they believe America's strengths have become weaknesses.