Robert Naiman wrote: > It's true that it takes two sides not to be divisive, but just 1) like > Obama with the Republicans, you could make clear that your side is not > the source of the divisiveness and 2) while there would very be likely > be some significant pushback, especially at the beginning, the center > camp would have different incentives than the Republicans, since the > latter actually benefit from the divisiveness. It's possible that they > could end up taking the high road - that's largely what they did in > 2008.
back in the late 1940s, the "center" (Truman) was quite divisive (at the same time it _called for_ unity), setting the stage for McCarthyism. In the 1960s, the "center" (LBJ) was also divisive (at the same time it called for unity), by escalating the war. I could go on, but I have other things to do. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
