Damn it. Got caught bluffing again. I should know better than to try pulling such stunts against you guys. To allow me to save face, please allow me to insert a cryptic remark: Not all communication is done electronically.
I believe one of the key issues with voter’s discontent is the media and politicians imposing their views or the views of their radicals upon the other side through unpopular legislation. For example, “You can’t have guns”, “You can’t have an abortion”, “You have to get vaccinated”, etc. It seems like the majority of voters, moderates, perhaps quiet by nature, tend to get thrown under the bus by politicians seeking approval from vocal radicals. Of course, there is the opposing side to each issue, such as religious right to lifers, but it seems the side most heavily impacted by policy will have the highest emotional intensity. Further, there are practical issues with certain policies, such as mandating vaccines against viruses that are not that serious for most people or the fact that if someone wants a professionally performed abortion and their state does not allow it, it is often a roadtrip away. Like with guns, vaccines, abortions, etc., policy should focus on rules address significant issues and that would make sense to a reasonable person without taking a all or nothing approach. Sure, vocal radical elements of both sides may be angry, but I would think in the long run, more balanced Federal Legislation and unified state policy leads to a happier constituency. For example, laws that require gun owners to display a certain amount responsibility seems reasonable to me. Abortions could be unencumbered legally up to a certain time in a pregnancy. Covid vaccines could be required for certain occupations, and so on. I suppose our political parties need ways to fire up their bases, but the way they’ve been going about it is causing serious dissension and depreciating the value of the prize, as it were.