Ass, these days, has many meanings. It used to mean donkey, or someone acting like one, and I still approve of those meanings. These days we tend to concentrate more on the way it can refer to the rear end, although more delightful variations started cropping up when the word crossed over into a more generalized cuss word. I'm fond of the word.

The title came up when I was flippantly referring to my other blog as the one that's All About My Ass, and it occurred to me that with the Democratic symbol being a big ol' jackass and so much of politics sucking ass, this lovely variable word would do nicely. Anyone who's upset by the title, I do apologize, but I have to admit that the title is also operating as a filter: the faint of heart might want to look to Paula Zahn for their form of political discussion, not me.

I'm a Democrat. I don't see anything wrong with that. I'm a Christian, and I don't see anything wrong with that, either, when it's applied as a personal path and way of living and not as a weapon to whack people over the head with. I'm also the owner and operator of a very nice female reproductive system, which has thus far done well for me although it hasn't had to really do any reproducing, either. Oh, and I'm white. That one, like the female part, wasn't my choice, so I'm trying to do the best with it that I can and not be a jackass. It does limit my worldview in weird ways, some of which I'm not aware of, and I hate that.

I come from lower-middle-class folk (or possibly upper-lower-class); teachers, farmers, construction workers, oilfield workers, the occasional stint in the military here and there. My parents' generation is the first to get any of them into college and white-collar work (results vary depending on which side of the family you're looking at); my generation of family is almost all college-educated, some more than others. Politically, we're all some flavor of moderate. My parents' generation leans conservative; my generation of siblings and cousins leans liberal. None of us are the shoutin' type when it comes to politics, though, and if there's any overarching theme it's this: practicality beats ideology every time. We're very fond of brainy activity, but at heart we still prefer something solid to come of that activity-- having the brain drive the hands, building something that will stand, something that works, whether or not it's pretty.

I'm very interested in things that work. And from what I can see, the following things work:

Lively and open discussion-- an ongoing sort of brainstorming session.

Honesty.

Admission of fault where fault lies, with a real effort to fix the fault.

Putting capable people in charge-- people with not only brains, but sense.

Paying attention to what's going on.

Staying involved.

Small amounts of preventative medicine in order to avoid vast amounts of less effective, more traumatic post-event cleanup.

Staying out of debt as much as possible.

Quietly acting as a Christian-- acting, in small ways, to touch and change the lives around you for the better, regardless of whether or not these are people who particularly like you.

From what I can see, the following things do not work:

Cronyism.

Loyalty valued-- and rewarded-- more than practical ability or even success.

Idealology clung to even when practical applications indicate it's not working.

Discouraging dissent, and encouraging blind faith.

Racking up things to pay for "tomorrow."

Handwaving the plan thing-- thinking short-term, not long-term.

Racking up debt.

Legislating morality and/or Christianity. Seriously, man, just NO.

I want practicality. I am tired of the disconnect between the real world and the idealized head-space that so many politicians inhabit these days. In order for democracy to work, the government needs to live in the same reality as the voters, otherwise the government isn't responding to what is actually facing the public. Throughout history, that kind of disconnect has taken down government after government-- the people feel that their needs are ignored, and open their arms to anyone who will ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, and promote the general welfare, even if that person is a dictator. It's why the Taliban looked good to the people of Afghanistan, at the time, and why it's starting to look good to them again. It's why the people of Iran brought in a fundamentalist religous regime. Cuba, Iraq, China, Russia, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Germany, Iran: it doesn't matter what they have in place beforehand, it doesn't matter what causes the unrest, when the people are discontent and feel that their government doesn't understand them, listen to them, care for them, or are able to protect them: boom, crash, back under the hand of a tyrant.

I do not care for governments that can't meet the standard requirements. If you want to call that an ideology, so be it, but from where I stand it looks like practicality and common sense. America is a big balancing act, balancing the freedom of the population with its care and keeping, and I firmly believe that it is possible to cobble together solutions that will allow us to keep our rights and properly care for ourselves, but cobbling together solutions-- compromising-- is only possible with dialogue. Argument. Discussion. Debate.

It doesn't have to be the way that the talking heads do it. We don't have to call people names or theorize about the psychology that makes them do the things they do, we don't have to have each side screaming so loudly that they can't hear the other side at all. Political debate has become uncouth, and as a terrible result people regard involvement in politics or having an opinion on politics as being uncouth, as well. We saw this with the Superbowl commercials-- when it's more publicly acceptable to have six different commercials about erectile disfunction than it is to have a single political commercial aired (CBS, as I recall, refused to do so because it might upset people), we've reached a new low.

I believe it can be better. I propose these new laws of political debate:

We agree to assume that everybody loves this country. Frankly it's impossible to measure levels of love from person to person, so this is a ridiculous metric and doesn't meet any practical standard.

We agree to assume that everyone is loyal to this country and wants the best for it, until proven otherwise. Selling state secrets is traitorous. Exposing state secrets to further your own agenda (same thing, different coin) is traitorous. Holding a different opinion? No. Not traitorous. Again, a ridiculous and impractical metric unless actual, real treachery is done.

We agree that the point is not to be right, or to win. The point is to agree, to compromise, to find out what works.

And. Well. That's pretty much it for now. Now that I've got this thing up and rolling, it'll be the place to store my more politically motivated ranting. Hopefully I'll be able to stay sensible about it, and hopefully everyone commenting will play nice, and hopefully we'll be able to practice how to do this-- how to disagree without alienating each other or shouting or calling names. I believe that practical political debate is a learned process-- it's certainly not something we have within us at birth. I think I'm up for learning. How 'bout you?