The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    Turn off your VPN to register and your email must be a working email to join and login.

Why politics has become so destructive

Centexfarmer

Centexfarmer

JUB 10k Club
JUB Supporter
Joined
May 25, 2005
Posts
20,039
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Location
El corazón de Tejas
Caught this Editorial today from Leonard Pitts, giving his response to some of the criticism that he directed toward Rush Limbaugh.

You will seldom see a plainer illustration of the mental and moral midgetry to which ideological rigidity has reduced all too many of our fellow Americans.
Click to expand...
That paragraph stuck out because, as a Moderator of this Forum, I see a lot of what Mr. Pitts talks about in that article here.

Yes, we all have our politics, our prisms, our pet narratives. Nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with embracing an ideology that gives structure and order to your thinking. But for too many of us, ideology becomes identity, becomes an intellectual straitjacket, becomes an excuse not to think.
Click to expand...
You can catch the complete article here:

Why politics has become so destructive

So is our ideology and our identity so intertwined that any other opinion or view that's different or other, is somehow considered an affront to our own well being?

To the extent that anyone who presents an ideology different from our own, that we take that personal offense?

Please discuss.
 
centexfarmer said:
So is our ideology and our identity so intertwined that any other opinion or view that's different or other, is somehow considered an affront to our own well being?

To the extent that anyone who presents an ideology different from our own, that we take that personal offense?
Click to expand...

Centex first off I've read before that the way politicians use redistricting to protect their own jobs contributes to this problem because being grouped with like minded people means you won't often be challenged so that when you are your defending skills are rusty and you react badly.

And its those defending skills, or lack thereof, that I think explains your second question.

The ideologues like Rush always attack.....even when they're defending (like attacking those who are against the war in Iraq as being unpatriotic) and many have picked up the habit. Rather than thinking for themselves they merely repeat what those such as Rush say and when called on it get nasty because not having thought much about it themselves they really can't give an answer without attacking.

Its all style and no substance which is why Rush's fans happily call themselves "dittoheads"......they repeat what he says with no more critical analysis than a puppet might be expected to give the puppet-master.

And should anyone point that out nastiness results.
 
^ That's a good response Naked, I like that.

I've observed this phenomena within our politics over the past decade and half or so myself.

I think that part of what Mr. Pitts is trying to get at, is that this use to not always be the case.

As a Moderator of this forum, I see at lot of this too. Everyone seems to be talking past each other, with almost a deliberate attempt to avoid actually hearing what the other person is saying.

Do you see a connection?
 
centexfarmer said:
I've observed this phenomena within our politics over the past decade and half or so myself.

I think that part of what Mr. Pitts is trying to get at, is that this use to not always be the case.

As a Moderator of this forum, I see at lot of this too. Everyone seems to be talking past each other, with almost a deliberate attempt to avoid actually hearing what the other person is saying.

Do you see a connection?
Click to expand...

Sure do. I read posts here too. :-)

But if anything I think the anonymity of the net brings out the baser side of many and while maybe this ain't the way it used to be it used to be said that you should avoid talking about religion and politics which makes me thing not much has changed at all.
 
naked gent said:
Sure do. I read posts here too. :-)

But if anything I think the anonymity of the net brings out the baser side of many and while maybe this ain't the way it used to be it used to be said that you should avoid talking about religion and politics which makes me thing not much has changed at all.
Click to expand...

Actually I was always admonished to avoid talking about religion and politics within polite company. ;)

There's very little that's polite in this forum.

I am often amazed (or chagrined) at how often times I'm approached by a coworker, or sometimes complete strangers that automatically assume that I hold the same views that they do on either of those two topics. :cool:

Then to see the shock (or horror) when they realize that I don't. :badgrin:

It's at that point where I began to be treated as if there's something wrong with me. ;)
 
Broke Straight Boys
This isn't a new phenomenon, sometimes it just gets more polarizing. When people hold strong view points, on any side, passion often takes over from a civil conversation. When you can only see these views as back and white you often overlook the colors in between. When you can convince enough people there is only black and white there is no room for agreement or compromise.
 
Yes, Mr. Gent, I agree that redistricting is part of the problem. We've had our share of that here in Texas. However, it is with glee that I point out that the Democratic numbers in our state legislature has increased despite blatantly Republican redistricting plans. Things are shifting.

As to the original post, I love Leonard Pitts. This column is excellent as usual. It was in response to an email titled "you ravage Bush we ravage Obama." Mr. Pitt points out a particular mindset that conflates all that is good with one's own ideological brand, and he's not afraid to admit that it cuts both ways.

I would only note (as a slight corrective) that when a child is burned, he learns to respect of fire. Gay folk who don't "respect" (in precisely that sense) the Republican party just haven't been burned badly enough. (And there are a few other organizations that I would also apply that to.)

So while I try to remain cordial, Republicans (and a few other ideologues whose ideologies have proved damaging) have a tougher row to hoe with me than my fellow-travelers do, and I see nothing wrong with that.
 
Good topic, Centex!I see the polarizing of our politics as well. Almost to the point of blind support for a sports team. We do talk past one another. I suppose the reason is that there is readily available support for your position because of the internet and talk radio.

I've listened to Limbaugh. He's entertaining at times, but never called the pugs to task on outlandish spending. I've looked in on DU and moveon.org from time to time and it's not exactly a happy place to visit, but I see their views clearly enough. But the thing we should be taking away from he availability of all these points of view, is the appreciation of these points of view.

I can understand how an urban minority can be a liberal. I can see how someone who grows up in a rural religious environment, becomes conservative. It doesn't make their points of view any more or less valuable. They are what they are.

But blindly towing either party's line is rarely rewarding. Both parties tend to be more interested in garnering power and retaining governing majorities, rather than serving the people. That's why I believe in more choices outside of the two major parties.

I've learned much from others on this forum. I've grown to appreciate points of view that don't correspond to my own. I think we benefit so much more, by listening. And you can't hear others if your busy shouting your own views. Maybe that the election is over, we can learn to listen a bit more.

That would be a good thing!
 
Politics is war without Bloodshed.

War is politics with Bloodshed.

Politicians just figured out a way to put some metaphorical bloodshed in the mix, therefore not needing actual war within their own country to perform their deeds.
 
^ So is it a divide and conquer type of thing?

A deliberate act by those to divide, and then parroted by whichever adherents of whichever ideology without their being consciously aware of what they're doing?
 
I think what's at play here, as exemplified by Doug's email in the Pitts column, and so much of what I read here and hear elsewhere, is the personalization of politics, which came markedly into play when Republicans personalized their opposition to Clinton in the 90s.

When I was growing up and in my 20s, the political atmosphere was supporting/protesting causes (like Viet Nam and civil rights in the 60s, feminism and gay rights in the 70s, AIDS in the 80s) or supporting/opposing elected officials based on their positions and policy. By today's standards even Nixon wasn't hated on a personal level, and his wife and daughters elicited sympathy as opposed to the nastiness later directed at Hillary and Chelsea. It seems maybe Reagan ushered in the beginning of the love/hate personalization politics, but possibly wasn't as noticeable because so many Democrats voted for him.

Then in the most recent Democratic Primary, personalization politics loomed large, but for the first time became intra-party. And I think that may have happened because so many who were participating in the campaign had grown up in the 90s in an atmosphere of personalized politics. What we grow up learning is often what remains most potent in our response mechanism.
 
I forgot to add an important element that fed, or went hand in hand with, the personalization politics inflaming the electorate: Lee Atwater's contribution beginning with Reagan and really coming into full force for Bush I, followed by Karl Rove and David Axelrod in the same mold.
 
construct said:
You're right, ICO7. We are the change we were waiting for. ;)
Click to expand...


This is not the change I've been waiting for.

I was hoping for competence and integrity and someone who inspires their supporters to get to work, raise their game.

But down to brass tacks, as I've been saying, the Obama/Democratic Congress stimulus bill is a disaster. And that's not what I've been waiting for. In the long run this bill is going to be more destructive than helpful because the additional national debt is enormous and the benefits only fair and short term.


CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing. ...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/
Click to expand...


I would love it if someone became President and were able to end the personalization politics of destruction. But much more importantly right now, after 8 years of Bush's messes, what I've been waiting for is competence at coming up with solutions to problems.
 
Broke Straight Boys
construct said:
Jesus! You're citing the Washington Times as authority?
Click to expand...


No I'm citing a new CBO report as an authority.


Here's a link to another news source about the CBO report.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/02/05/obama-stimulus-plan-worse-than-doing-nothing/


The Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan official budget watchdog, issued a scorecard on the long-term impacts of President Barack Obama's and Congressional Democrats' proposed economic stimulus plan, and the numbers are not good. The report took a look at the impact the plan would have on the economy over the next ten years, and found that the stimulus bill would actually lower the nation's total economic output more than if the Administration did nothing.
Click to expand...
 
The only thing that really matters is power. There are different forms and bases of power (congress, media, unions, political powers), but the ultimate power is the presidency. And in a crisis the power of presidency is enhanced. IMHO, and probably in the opinion of Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and others, that power should now be used to crush the failed republican party its failed policies, and its supporters once and for all. And you can't do that without being destructive, but its for the good of the country.

Frankly, if Rush the Clown were not such a good public face for the republicans I suspect he would easily be disappeared.
 
PabloZed said:
IMHO, and probably in the opinion of Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and others, that power should now be used to crush the failed republican party its failed policies, and its supporters once and for all. And you can't do that without being destructive, but its for the good of the country.
Click to expand...


I hope you're wrong.

I hope Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and others in Congress hold the opinion that their power should be used to formulate and pass cohesive principled legislation to get us the fuck out of the hole we're falling into.

And leave the attempt to crush political opponents, and the destructiveness, to Obama supporters who seem to get off on that.
 
Broke Straight Boys
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top