I probably wouldn't call that analogy a fair comparison to America's current political landscape. Digging into that just a little, if the Democratic party is the only adult in this scenario then maybe it's a problem that so many actors in our political system are just 4 year old children behind the wheel of a car. The Republican party and it's politicians have more agency and skill than a 4 year old. American voters have more agency and skill than a 4 year old. Even if the Democratic party is the only true adult in this scenario then perhaps you should also blame a preestablished system that relied on a single adult that could do so much damage without any check on them.

In reality, the Republican party is filled with adults that have the ability to make an impact on the world around them, the media is filled with adults, American voters are adults, President Trump is an adult. If we had so many adults around and they were at the mercy of just one adult (the Democratic party) that could cause so much damage while everyone else just helplessly watched, then maybe we shouldn't just blame the Democratic party. Maybe we should also take a long, hard look at the system that left only one adult in charge and fell apart so easily.

Just as you could fault the Democratic machine for providing an easy opponent for Trump to beat (among other errors), you can fault the process of the Republican primary for allowing Trump to rise to the top of a highly competitive field of 15 candidates (there was some involvement of the Republican party in that process). You could also fault the Republican establishment for standing by throughout a campaign in which their nominee did not campaign for or espouse their core values. You could note the contribution of the media in creating a dichotomous story line that was often high on drama and low on details. You could fault American people for voting for a candidate believing he would not actually do what he said he would (and now being surprised that he is actually doing what he campaigned on).

That irony kind of gets to my point. I definitely would not assign full responsibility to the blame game. But I might call it a contributing factor along with the other factors listed above (as well as others I have not mentioned and may not even be aware of). With so many factors, I would be cautious to assign 95% of responsibility to any one of them. Mentioning the blame game was a way to highlight the potential danger of oversimplifying and attempting to assign full blame to a single factor in a complex issue. So I agree with your criticism of playing a blame game and therefore think that, rather than looking for something to place full blame on, we should focus on humble evaluation of the many complexities of every situation in the world and even our own negative contributions to them when appropriate.

Not sure what tone you're talking about.

I'm not trying to say you aren't allowed to take a certain tone. I just think your sometimes unnecessarily negative tone doesn't help further your cause. For example, your response to me feels lectury, overly defensive and superior (whether that is an accurate interpretation of your intentions or not) and makes me feel more inclined to recoil, paint you in broad, negative strokes, ignore your potentially meaningful response, and become overly defensive myself. Although I appreciate the content of what you say and probably mostly agree with it, I have less desire to listen to it or further dialogue with you because of your less constructive tone.

If the way I speak makes it difficult for you to hear or appreciate the point I am trying to make, please let me know. I don't want to waste my words by not picking them well.