Good articulation of the terminology and the problem with communication.

To take a different example: if I’m a Republican who wants to keep assistance for the poor local, then I might vote against Federal Aid for social programs--wanting instead for it to be handled locally (perhaps with better--i.e., .local--accountability). If I’m a Liberal-progressive who wants to the poor to be cared for then I’d vote for Federal financial support for these programs because perhaps more funds could be made available Federally than can be raised locally.

The value is care or compassion for the poor. The difference is: how is this best accomplished?

If the actual value is shared, how can someone demonize a person who votes for Federal participation in care for the marginalized (or vice versa)? One might disagree, but why demonize?

If people could find common ground around values (as opposed to beliefs) and quit viewing politics as a competitive sport with clear winners and losers then perhaps we might be able to compromise on a common value.

Unfortunately, the view of politics (instead of what is good for the polis) is that of full contact competitive sports. That view needs serious change. I can’t list how many times I’ve heard commentators use the terminology of competitive sports over the years to describe various political campaigns. We are in need, among other things, a serious change in metaphors.

One could apply this to immigration, foreign policy, public school issues, and a number of other issues.

So, thank you. I think the terminology of “values vs beliefs” could be quite helpful in the discussion.