A new idea -- since people seem a bit reluctant to edit the work of others maybe we need to start with polarized positions and work toward consensus. Anonymous collaborative writing should allow us to produce a consensus position on a some otherwise divisive political issue (e.g., pro-life vs. pro-choice). Well, maybe not a complete consensus but a statement that >80% of people could affirm. What would such a statement look like?

What do you think of Hillary Clinton's statements about wanting abortions to be "rare"? She says the abortion rate ( but not the teenager abortion rate) has gone up during Bush's administration. I have not heard any Republicans comment on her statements at all. Maybe the political game is such that discussions potentially leading to consensus are forbidden. That even if two sides agree, they cannot call attention to this fact. Is that inherent in the bipartisan political system? maybe a more rational public dialog (polylog? multilog?) is possible in a multiparty system?

(Maybe the Republicans regard Sen Clinton's comments as cynical posturing, unworthy of notice.)

There are groups working for middle-ground solutions.

Democrats for Life "is a national organization for pro-life members of the Democratic party." It is currently promoting policies it hopes will reduce the abortion rate by 95% over 10 years. Some proposals encourage contraception. Other proposals provide healthcare and nutrition to more pregnant women, infants, and young children.

Unfortunately, the "95-10" proposals may not do enough to reach their goal. They do not (directly):

• prepare young men to be fathers
• make an eighth grade education worthy of respect
• help people without college educations start their careers
• reduce the divorce rate