Why politics has become so destructive

[NickCole]

Congressional Budget Office
Director's Blog:​

Macroeconomic Effects of the Senate Stimulus Legislation


... Including the effects of both crowding out of private investment (which would reduce output in the long run) and possibly productive government investment (which could increase output), CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=205

 

[HenryReardon]

Jesus! You're citing the Washington Times as authority?

Would you rather he cite the Washington Compost?

 

[construct]

Would you rather he cite the Washington Compost?

Sure, the Washington Post is a reputable source. But if the Moonie paper reports that your mother loves, you'd better ask her.

 

[Centexfarmer]

It's interesting to me that even when we discuss political division we are tempted to do so from our ideological point of view. We can speak of "people like Rush" but the truth is Oberman is no more or less incisive. The issue isn't who has more loud-mouths on their side, it's who is allowing their identities to be defined by their political leanings. <snip>

I agree with this observation, and would take it a step further; how do we go about developing our own political identities?

When carrying on a political discussion, isn't the idea of having a dialogue about learning different perspectives?

I think that we've gone beyond having any sort of political dialogue, and instead focus more on the some other website.

"If it bleeds, it leads" seems to be the mantra of our news sources, and talk-radio is replete with dogmatic ideologues drumming their talking points home at every opportunity for ratings, and sometimes shock value.

I meet people all of the time who claim to be "liberal," or "conservative," Democrat, or Republican, but when I challenge them on their positions, they're really none of those things, but rather a little of both.

For example, I find it ironic that the U.S. Congress still has incredibly low approval ratings, but yet most all Congressional Leaders as individuals get re-elected, and generally hold pretty high approval ratings within their respective Congressional Districts.

This makes little sense to me, and indicates that the focus is more on what separates us than actually brings us together.

 

[Glafna]

^ 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?

Partially, yes. There will always be the divide and conquer mentality in conflicts. You divide the weak from their stronger allies(just an example of warfare strategy), in politics being the voters having their trust in the current politician being broken by a constant stream(in many cases) of negative media that attack insignificant issues, yet have something to do with everyday life with most people, although more likely being the other way around, with the politicians losing the voting public to whatever tactics the opposition uses.

I also think there is a conversion strategy that is constant in today's politics. In the past, you could just have your political enemies "removed"(often meaning assassinated or secretly imprisoned in a facility loyal to you), but that was when the army could be called in to quell any dissent. Nowadays, the voters must be wined and dined(so to speak) so that they will join your "side" in the power struggle.

 

[archive]

Excellent topic, centex farmer.

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. Instead, they wallow in a lazy childishness such that questions involving the life and future of a great nation are treated like stickball or tag, games played with the mindless zeal of childhood, as if nothing of substance were at stake, and victory were its own reward.

this statement right here applies to more than just politics(it can be applied to music, movies, books, culture, food, etc)....its our way of life....im guilty of it from time to time....it becomes a question of how you pose your answer or opinion to a situation...is it unbiased...or is it so twisted in your ideology...you dont even know which direction your going anymore...honestly the reason why politics are the way they are now.....is us...the american citizen......you wouldnt have politicians gunning for votes from the anti-abortion movement....obama's candidacy of change....mccains real talk express.....we have a short attention span...we are the child in the store.... all wide eyed at whatever happens to shine in our face...can it be changed....i dont know....but this is just my opinion

 

[Kulindahr]

Enthusiastic, even vigorously insulting, exchanges between people of differing political views has been pretty much the norm for much of the nhistory opf the Republic. Just look at old newspapers; today's political vitriol often seems tame by comparison.

What's changed is that our society as a whole has lost certain extremely important concepts, concepts which ultimately boil down to the principle of self-ownership.

The specific concepts are honor, integrity, mutual respect, and humility. Guided by those, our forefathers could rail, insult, slur, fling mud, all just as we do, but at the end of it they still understood that the other guy is their fellow American, their fellow human being, their brother in this little adventure called life. Those are why a tycoon could stand on the street corner and talk to a bum, knowing deep inside that they two were equals, why everyone important treated everyone as a colleague.

We've lost that. When the American Dream was understood to be liberty, it was plain to everyone that "all men are created equal", that Jefferson's proposition wasn't something stuffed in a courtroom to keep things balanced, but a foundation for everyday life, it was obvious as water flowing downhill that before and above anything else, we were all partners, all here to stand together and help each other. So the words that politicians mouth today for form were actually meant; they considered one another colleagues first, and members of opposition parties second; they understood themselves as colleagues not because they'd been elected to the same governmental body, but because they were Americans.

The American Dream got changed from liberty to prosperity. The old "car in every garage" line had a lot to do with that; it put wealth above others, above country, above liberty. It made getting, and having, and winning more important than anything else -- and in so doing, it made people regard one another not as comrades in guarding liberty and thus each other, but as property, as targets of a battle in which the winner got to tell the loser how to live.

With stakes like that, civility goes out the window because of the larceny resident in every human heart, but at a deeper level because we have ceased to regard one another as equal.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nick:

You should take that info about the stimulus package and start a new thread.

 

[andysayshi]

Enthusiastic, even vigorously insulting, exchanges between people of differing political views has been pretty much the norm for much of the nhistory opf the Republic. Just look at old newspapers; today's political vitriol often seems tame by comparison.

What's changed is that our society as a whole has lost certain extremely important concepts, concepts which ultimately boil down to the principle of self-ownership.

The specific concepts are honor, integrity, mutual respect, and humility. Guided by those, our forefathers could rail, insult, slur, fling mud, all just as we do, but at the end of it they still understood that the other guy is their fellow American, their fellow human being, their brother in this little adventure called life. Those are why a tycoon could stand on the street corner and talk to a bum, knowing deep inside that they two were equals, why everyone important treated everyone as a colleague.

We've lost that. When the American Dream was understood to be liberty, it was plain to everyone that "all men are created equal", that Jefferson's proposition wasn't something stuffed in a courtroom to keep things balanced, but a foundation for everyday life, it was obvious as water flowing downhill that before and above anything else, we were all partners, all here to stand together and help each other. So the words that politicians mouth today for form were actually meant; they considered one another colleagues first, and members of opposition parties second; they understood themselves as colleagues not because they'd been elected to the same governmental body, but because they were Americans.

The American Dream got changed from liberty to prosperity. The old "car in every garage" line had a lot to do with that; it put wealth above others, above country, above liberty. It made getting, and having, and winning more important than anything else -- and in so doing, it made people regard one another not as comrades in guarding liberty and thus each other, but as property, as targets of a battle in which the winner got to tell the loser how to live.

With stakes like that, civility goes out the window because of the larceny resident in every human heart, but at a deeper level because we have ceased to regard one another as equal.

Really great post, thank you!

I will ponder it a little longer, but it has really inspired my thought. It gets to the heart of so much that is wrong in contemporary Western Society - politics, industry, popular culture, even sporting personalities. We have become focused on winning above all else, on personal gain above community gain.

 

[Centexfarmer]

While I personally agree and acknowledge throughout politics one opponent or another usually always rails, insults, slanders, and flings mud at the other.

Today it seems different. As if adherents of either ideology are pointed at, and accused of wanting to take something away from the other. As if there ideology is better suited for the good of the other without consideration for the other.

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. Instead, they wallow in a lazy childishness such that questions involving the life and future of a great nation are treated like stickball or tag, games played with the mindless zeal of childhood, as if nothing of substance were at stake, and victory were its own reward.

For many of us being on the receiving end it became apparent that their attacks against us were successful because no one knew any of us. Or at least didn't think that they do.

The American Dream got changed from liberty to prosperity. The old "car in every garage" line had a lot to do with that; it put wealth above others, above country, above liberty. It made getting, and having, and winning more important than anything else -- and in so doing, it made people regard one another not as comrades in guarding liberty and thus each other, but as property, as targets of a battle in which the winner got to tell the loser how to live.

So now rather than attacking an individual, we find ourselves witness too, and often times on the receiving end of an entire demographic or segement of the population as a whole that's being attacked.

The "Two Americas," as it's been used as recent as the last POTUS elections.

I remember when "Liberal" meant progressive, and Patriotism meant defending liberties.

Not so much anymore, and perhaps that's one of the reasons why our politics have become so destructive. Why some of us are so predisposed to go on the offense.

Please continue discussing this, it's been pretty informative.

 

[andysayshi]

^ Best thread here in a long time, thanks Centexfarmer!!

 

[HenryReardon]

Sure, the Washington Post is a reputable source. But if the Moonie paper reports that your mother loves, you'd better ask her.

The Washington Compost reputable? LOL Too funny.

 

[construct]

The Washington Compost reputable? LOL Too funny.

Are you defending Sun-Myung Moon's pet paper now?

 

[Centexfarmer]

Jesus! You're citing the Washington Times as authority?

Would you rather he cite the Washington Compost?

Sure, the Washington Post is a reputable source. But if the Moonie paper reports that your mother loves, you'd better ask her.

The Washington Compost reputable? LOL Too funny.

Are you defending Sun-Myung Moon's pet paper now?

Though not entirely off topic, the exchange between HenryReardon, and construct illustrates another point.

As Palindromos pointed out in post 12 of this thread:

Has greater access to political information in the form of 24/7 cable news or radio, not unbiased either mind you, and the internet with its plethora of blogs and partisan, indeed warped, viewpoints contributed to a hardening of opinion on both sides? So much out there allows people to reinforce their views in ways that weren't possible 20 years ago. And it's not human nature to listen carefully to and appreciate opposing view points. Beyond that, Road-to-Damascus experiences are rare.

What I find interesting is the assertions that certain "newspapers" are left or right leaning.

With declining subscription rates, and the decline of print media as we know it, and the rise of single paper towns; Dallas has the Dallas Morning News, but use to have that and The Dallas Times Herald for example, forced others to read the Fort Worth Star ********, which itself use to have a competing paper.

The left says that they're too far right, while the right calls them "liberal."

Despite the fact, for instance, that the Dallas Morning News endorses more incumbent Republicans than competing Democrats, and hence the accusations of being a "conservative" newspaper. Is it really true?

During the Reagan years, was it the Washington Post that was referred to as "Pravda on the Potomac?"

So now, in addition, any ideology or source that we use to assert any claims that we wish to make are equally free game.

There are reputable sources from "both sides," but when tossed into the mix with the likes of FOX News, or MSNBC, then things get questionable. As if they're irrelevant.

However it is telling isn't it?

 

[boogalee]

An interesting thread, Thanks.

I too have noticed how vicious politics has become. However my perspective is different. I can remember the split in the country over the Vietnam War and I can speak from experience, dissent was not tolerated. Those of us questioning our government were called Pinko Communists and considered the enemy.we were brain washed, stupid youth. You all know the history from that time I hope.

In my view when Reagan was elected POTUS he ushered in the radical christian right and the neocons. The rhetoric became harsh...we on the left were weak, we were socialist/communist, we were godless atheist/humanist cowards who wanted to destroy America.

These right wing authoritarians have been busily working for 30+ years to undo the 'damage' of the 60's and restore America to it's gawd fearing christian roots...right.

The right began the culture war and they have been feeding the flames for years. How can anyone be surprised at the divide??

Today's definitions of liberal/progressive and conservative are laughable. Barry Goldwater would be liberal compared to the conservatives of today, and he hated the religious wing nuts. Clinton was a good republican! There is no left...they are marginalized even by the Democrats. I have started calling myself a socialist/democrat because the language has been twisted. Up is Down...

The right wing has been in control more often than not over a thirty year period...and they have used it to their advantage. For 20 years Limbaugh has been spewing hate and when called on it he insists he's just a comedian/entertainer. Yes his followers are ditto heads...but what we have is propaganda...and a kind of brain washing.

People parked in front of the TV being fed infotainment as news...News programs that don't feel a need to even pretend they are factual. I'm talking about Rush, and the other talking heads. MSNBC I've been enjoying..it's nice hearing someone's opinion (beside the Daily Show) that makes sense to me.

During the Reagan years, was it the Washington Post that was referred to as "Pravda on the Potomac?"



I believe that was because it was the Washington Post that was outing the corruption of the Republicans...the Pravda remark is meant to mean 'communist'...at least that has always been my take on it. Did I mistake your meaning?

Much has changed but I don't feel that those on the left have been viciously anti-Republican to the point that they will do anything to win...I can't say the same about the Republicans, I get the feeling (through evidence) that anything goes with them, as long as they win.

I have been enjoying the fact that those coming of age, who are of the liberal/progressive persuasion are fighters and don't take shit off of the Republicans. Which brings me to my last observation...I didn't hear Republicans talking about wanting a dialog with those on the left before Obama. Now we all need to stop and take a look back...hmmmm...I think I like the 'new' no BS left too much to recommend they try to treat rabid Republicans as though they can be reasoned with...because it's a waste of time. I've tried, over and over...

Again there is much to think about in this thread, very good posts.

 

[chance1]

it's always been destructive IMO

and if i hear/read one more time about how the republicans started it - atwater or rove well ...............

as with corruption, dems and repubs do it

individuals do it

they need no party affiliation to be unethical or criminal

a friend showed me an ad that LBJ ran against Barry Goldwater - the little girl playing with flowers

about as vicious as u could be

maybe the dialogue has become vicious from a visibile/in your face standpoint

but it was always there

and will never go away

problem now is that the people are doing it too

not just the politicians and their lackeys

like alfie saying personal shit about any republican - questioning their manhood - suggesting str8s r gays - calling them names, girl names

and the flock let it go ................. cuz ................

cuz they're weak

why is the sky blue

why is water wet

my 2 cents

it started with atwater/rove

bullshit

 

[construct]

There is a Letter to the Editor in my local newspaper this morning. The point of the letter is that the Recession is entirely the fault of the Republicans and their conservative agenda. After making this statement, the author then writes that if you don't agree, "Get a clue".

In other words, there is no room for discussion. If you don't agree with his point of view, you are entirely wrong and uninformed.

Any issue as complicated as the economy is not easily understood. But this author, like so many of us, is not interested in understanding the multiple facets of a complicated issue. He appears not to be ready or interested in objective dialog. Such dialog is essential if we are to rationally understand what has brought us to where we are and what might be done to solve a problem.

I agree, at least to the extent that it hinders us from thorough self-criticism. (Yes, I know that is Communist praxis.)

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree, at least to the extent that it hinders us from thorough self-criticism. (Yes, I know that is Communist praxis.)

LOL

That's communist distortion, because what they did wasn't self-criticism.

Self-criticism is a principle that can be found in the New Testament, where Paul says a person should examine himself before acting.


Oh, wait -- I can't say that; the NT is a totally outdated document with no modern application.... sorry, I forgot.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ I'd take it back farther, to the Vietnam era, when ideology became a serious element -- protesters called the government "evil". Nixon fed that, by being a good target for the accusation. When Regan was in office, the people who had been protesters, and their peers, were more at the levels of power, and brought that with them.

 

[construct]

Self-criticism is a principle that can be found in the New Testament, where Paul says a person should examine himself before acting.


Oh, wait -- I can't say that; the NT is a totally outdated document with no modern application.... sorry, I forgot.

That's right. The New Testament is totally outdated (as is Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology). Paul was not interested in political involvement. Indeed, he could hardly imagine that possibility.

My "self-criticism" is probably closer to the "fearless moral inventory" of some 12-step program applied to political commitments.