Tiffany Bond  🦞 🇺🇸Verified account

It's framing. When we frame something as "the other" it's very easy to dismiss it or hate it. We need to start seeing problems as "OUR" problems. We have a problem with healthcare access. We would all like to be able to have healthcare we can afford. WE have a problem.

We all want our children to be safe at school. WE have a problem. We could insert dozens of problems that we have that we want solutions to. Those problems cross party lines and tribes.

It's easy to name a problem and blame someone or something for blocking a solution. It's harder to find solutions. It's even harder to hear someone tell you that your solution is flawed, and then accept criticism, even if well-intended, to improve your solution.

Most folks don't want to step forward and throw their name in the hat for office. No matter what level of public service, it tends to pay quite a bit less at every level than the private sector, with people yelling at you all the time.

If we want to start encouraging better, less partisan leadership - we need to change. We need to reward measured, kind, thoughful leaders instead of screaming. We need to stop saying it's all the other side and take responsibility for our own role...

And before a thousand of you @ me saying it's objectively true that the other side has been a block to your solutions...let me offer, it kind of doesn't matter. What? How can I say that!?!?! Look at X, Y, Z, AA...

If we change the composition of congress, we owe those we put forward the benefit of a clean slate. Let them start with whatever the current law is and commit to make it better. Let our rage and angst be focused on supporting those who commit to process and solutions.

That puts a burden on all of us to put forward good candidates, not just the most monied or the only one willing to run. We need to hold our own candidates to good behavior and good law. Review candidates individually, forget there is a letter after their name.

We all have busy lives, not a lot of energy to throw at vetting - prioritize your time. Start with your federal delegation. That's only 1-2 elected roles to research each year. Then focus on your gubernatorial options. Work your way down with those who impact your life most.

Finally, try to presume that not all of the other are ridiculous and obstructionist just because of their party leadership and a very small sampling of those who catch air time. They think the same about you and it's not true most of the time, right? #

I'm un# to add this. This is not about bothsiderisms. This is about when I talk to people and they know I'm not the other, I hear the same thing. We have a manufactured two sides, and an individual responsibility to fix that.

I literally can have a near verbatim conversation with a D or R. It goes something like this... Them: I'm worried that I can't afford to get medical care for my family. Me: me too, the current law has a lot of problems that need to be improved.

T: I'm concerned my children won't have a good financial future and can't afford college. M: me too, we've been defunding colleges for eons, and student loans are out of control. We need to provide a range of training options for the next generation.

T: There is so much greed and corruption in DC. They are all so bad, I don't know who to trust. They all sound like they kind of care, but I feel left in the dust and like I am begging my government to not harm me. M: me too, the job interview sucks and doesn't show real skills

T: I'm really worried about social security and medicaid. I'm not sure who to trust, all the politicians say the other party is trying to kill it. M: me too, we've worked our whole lives paying into it. It's insurance not entitlement.

...almost any issue, you can strip out the party and get the very same responses. There are certainly differences, but what we want from government, particularly at the federal level, is not that different - and not mutually exclusive in most cases.

To run for office, you make a point of creating how you are different. To stay in office, you perpetuate how you are different. Which needs an enemy, it needs another side. Otherwise we get lazy and don't bother to vote because government seems fine.

We need to start rewarding common goals and ostracizing the ridiculous, even if it's our side. We need to still show up if people are thoroughly adequate so the ridiculous, once rooted out, does not again take hold.

My argument is not that one side is not objectively better or worse, or that both sides suck. It's that sides need to be path preferences on generally shared societal goals not warring factions.

Most importantly, there is no benefit in treating "the other" like the enemy. Even if we roll with the premise that the other side objectively is horrible, that doesn't change that they exist, vote, and won't be shot off to Mars in the near future.