Last night around this time, a few glasses of eggnog and I published this friendly meta diary, arguing in part that we should set up groups in DK4 to get people in opposing groups to talk through and establish the factual bases for disagreements here on the site.
The idea is that the strife on DKos is not a cause of, but a result of, arguments in the broader public. As such, "changing the world" by arguing that people on DKos should change their views (or else shut up or be driven from the site) really does nothing; as an effect rather than a cause, the beliefs that people have here reflect, don't have a disproportionate effect on, the outside world.
What DKos can do, though, is take advantage of the fact that we -- more than any other website I can think of -- have a large number of smart, interested, verbal, any somewhat mutually respecting participants, who range the political spectrum from very far left to not-quite-Republican.
We can show the way towards reconciliation within our broad coalition.
That was step 1. Step 2 -- today -- is: where do we begin?
I refer you to yesterday's diary for more background, and to the comments section for many generous responses from people who would like to try to work on determining exactly where the (perhaps narrow!) factual bases of our disagreements lie. (Note: much of our disagreement will stem from what we infer from the same facts, and that's fair game too -- the idea is to try to narrow the basis for our disagreements to things that may be relatively readily examined and perhaps resolved.) Think of it as relationship counseling among the Broad Center-Left. If it works well, we can start a reality show.
I am going to start inviting people to the new DK4 group, "Undisputed Facts", that I created last night. ("Undisputed Facts" comes from the legal term "Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts," where two opposing parties try to narrow for a court just what is at issue in their dispute by identifying and eliminating what isn't at issue; this makes adjudication or problem-solving outside of court much easier. Here's an example of such a statement related to this case involving the electronic Freedom Foundation, which I thought might be of intrinsic interest to people here. It's not well organized in this form; maybe someone can copy it and put in proper line breaks.)
Part of this diary, I freely admit, is just to shed another spotlight on last night's diary so that people can see what they think of it. Part of it is to invite people to request group membership. And part of it is in a new paragraph.
I'd like to get some ideas on what problem we may want to tackle first. We can start large or small; we can do more than one simultaneously. I have a vague sense that President Obama and his Administration may play a role in whatever topic we take up, and we can't shy away from that, since it is much of what divides people into unproductive warring factions for now.
My guess is that we'll find out that the factual background from which we in various factions -- and I think that I'm in both or neither of the main ones here -- view the political world is not all that different. What may differ is the inferences we draw from those inferences. Other possible differences -- more within than between each group -- are whether we're trying to work productively towards a resolution of our differences, rather than just trying to bludgeon people into accepting our view; whether we are willing to listen to and understand the perspectives of those with whom we disagree; and whether we, especially when we sense we may be on the losing side of a given issue, are willing to stay focused on that issue or to quickly try to expand the field to some other ground where we feel we have a better advantage.
Oh, it will be fun, I guarantee it -- if by "guarantee" one means "neither promise nor all that much care." Actually, done well, it will be hard work -- but might pay off. I don't know about you, but after 2010 and looking forward to 2011 and 2012, I can use some real healing among the Broad Center-Left. I want the payoff to be mutual respect and dedication to productive change -- in whatever ways we individually think it best possible.
The question I have today is: where do we start? What issues dividing us do you think lend themselves to this sort of cooperative engagement among those who disagree? I look forward to your thoughts, your help, and your participation.