mr sticky

I am going to be the first one to admit that I can no longer think for myself.
I am also going to admit that I have no idea where to turn to for information.
I also don't really know, if indeed, there is really anything to argue about.


Sensationalism rules the media...both on the liberal and conservative outlets. Truth, as always, is a matter of interpretation. Case in point...
The majority of the US (according to polls), was in favor of bringing the terrorist war to the mid-east. It was assumed that this war would be bloody and long. The fight for geography is over, but the fight for security is in its infantile stages. I was pseudo-informed that these conflicts were projected to take upwards of five years to fully materialize. The "hot" conflicts are over in supposedly record time. Now, eveyone, including the conservatives, are hurling criticisms about the length and cost of the conflict. The liberals say the war was about oil. The conservatives say it was about WMD's.
I haven't seen either.


On to the economy... I have never in my thirty-two years, heard any pundit praise ANY president, or legislator in their plan for the economy. It is ALWAYS a critique on that individual's plan and where it fails. Does the prez really have any control over the economy? I have never thought so, but everyone else seems to think it's a button he presses on the desk in the oval office. Yet, it's always his fault for it going bad, and everyone else gets a pat on the back when it cycles back.

What I'm getting at, is that we spend a lot of energy debating stuff that really may not matter. It may have been a slow news day so the network edits a memo to make Howard Deans look like an ass, or "W" look like he ordered an attack on a mosque full of kids. Every reporting outlet has some opinion of the newsmaker themselves and this bias cannot be cleansed.
Fox news says fair and balanced? Not in prime time your not.
Liberals say they're progressive and open to new ideas? Not if they come from a conservative.

We say we argue simply because we are "on different sides" of the issue. There is no way in hell that that many people agree. I can't get the four people in my house to agree on dinner. Our information comes from sources that are either biased in presentation, or just they went to look it up to prove their point anyway!

I'm thinking that we have reduced politics to the sporting world. I support this team and every other team sucks. We don't have debates, we score points on each other. I know that each of you initially will start typing to refute what I say in your usual mode of debate. BUT, ask yourself some questions...
Are each of your opinions your own?

Do you consider the politics of the speaker before you form an opinion?

Does the other side have nothing to say of value?

Why IS there just two ways to look at an issue?

Please, feel yourself out before you answer. We've all heard the pat responses to political debate, and this is not really about that.

__________________
The sad thing is... as you get older you come to realize that you don't so much pilot your life, as you just try to hold on, in a screaming, defiant ball of white-knuckle anxious fury

Macheath

A liberal politician and a conservative politician can say exactly the same thing. If you know the politics of the speaker you make assumptions about the way they see the world and their ultimate motives. It follows then that if the guy on "your side' says something you disagree with, you imagine that perhaps he is somehow being forced into pragmatism - that deep down he must believe what you believe and would say as much "if he had the chance". Likewise, the "enemy" who says something you agree with must be just trying to manipulate people.

It's very tribal and seems like a very old way of doing things. People seek out unique social identites that are actually more homogenous than they'd like to admit. We're all ambivalent about the status quo because even though it's not bad, it's far from perfect. Making tribes or teams within the status quo is a way of flirting with the prospect of a revolutionary "change for the better" while changing very little in reality. Maybe we do this to create a mythology of human struggle for progress or improvement - because the actual technological and social advancement of humanity is too subtle and complex for us to easily comprehend. Always five steps forward, then four steps back.

I'm certain this whole "teams" business was much more marked with the dichotomy of the Cold War and now, with that over, we're feeling at a bit of a loose end; wondering whether arguing amongst ourselves is distracting us from the main game. Which is?.....

2wolves

It's not a matter, usually, of mental prowess. The United States and it's government has become so complex and interdependent on outside factors, completely beyond any individual's control or understanding, that it's natural to feel that true comprehension is impossible.

Economists of varying stripes argue endlessly over exactly how much unemployment is good. The party out of power always prods the majority about pork spending. Air quality standards only matter to those who have bad air. And so on and so on.

My approach is to keep my energies focused on local issues/policies if at all possible. Politics on a local level can still be grasped by a reasonable individual.

Or.... you can chuck it all and move to the wilderness. A couple of friends have done just that. Not luddites, just don't give a rodents patootie who is ahead in what poll this week.

2Wolves

lurkette

No, it's just you

Seriously, I do agree that our society has a tendency to dumb things down and to obfuscate the issues with ideology. It takes a good deal of initiative to track down objective and serious information, and a bit of education to be able to distinguish credible sources from biased ones. Most people who get their news from television will be hopelessly uninformed, or informed in the most manipulative of ways.

I do think the things we argue about matter - the economy certainly matters to the people without jobs right now, and tax law should matter to all of those of us who are being screwed while the wealthiest 5% get richer and richer. The war in Iraq matters not just for its own sake or for the immediate consequences, but for the precedent it sets for future administrations considering a "doctrine of pre-emptive action." Iraq is just a great big trial balloon for the neo-cons' bid for American hegemony. At this point, with unipolar dominance, either the U.S. or the U.N. will emerge as the dominator of world affairs, and this administration wants it to be the U.S. These things do matter, and there are legitimate differences between the parties.

In terms of breaking down opinions into two "sides," for some reason humans tend to see all things in binary terms. Two genders. Black and white. Us and them. Tall and short. Thin and fat. Never mind that there's not just a whole continuum of characteristics between the two poles, there is really a 3- or 4-dimensional matrix of characteristics. Too complicated for the 6-o'clock news. Is a parliamentary system with multiple parties any better? It still eventually breaks down into Coalition and Opposition. Two sides. Go fig.

In terms of my opinions being my own: to the extent that any of us have opinions of our own, yes they are. They're informed by my experiences, some data, and some logic. Of course I have some knee-jerk opinions that are just deep-seated biases, but I am willing to hear alternative opinions and if they're sound (backed up by facts, data, logic) I'm willing to reconsider my own opinions. However, few people (as you point out) are willing to argue on those terms rather than on ideological terms that break down basically to "nyah nyah na boo boo, you dirty liberal."

These are really excellent questions you're raising, particularly for this forum where we have a lot of very intelligent people, a lot of very strongly held opinions, and a lot of diversity of viewpoints. It's always good for us to be aware of our biases and our automatic assumptions.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Grothendieck

Some random thoughts, I hope they're not 1) You don't have to think about politics all the time. It's good to take a couple of weeks of sometimes; afterwards I tend to jump back in with renewed energy.

2) I was (still am?) in a similar dilemma recently. First, do I have to have an opinion on everything? There are things I know about, and others I know little about. When I look around, there aren't a lot of people who, like me, just listen when I don't have anything to say (yet?) to a given question.

3) Even on a given question, with reasonable background knowledge, there is a multitude of possible conclusions. I can get into all sorts of twistings when I ponder the randomness of that. It's not like mathematics, it is swooshy, subjective, personal, moody, cultural, subliminal... How does our mind work, what are we influenced by... This can drive a man into neuroscience or psychotherapy

4) Remind yourself that politics is a living thing. First, there are so many morons it's unbelievable. My pet theory is that 90% of any given group lacks any kind of intellectual skills. (Mind you, depending on the observer, I'm probably in that 90% most of the time...) But more importantly, we do not have full information. We never will, but, if you're considering World War II, or the Big Depression, you have a lot more information, and you have the development of events that sprang forth since then. You have more context, and a sense of objectivity.

5) Basically though, I interpret your questions in the following way: Politics is a game. Politicians are in it for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which are fame, power, money. The results are those you have mentioned.
Now: Is that a good thing? A bad thing? Can it be changed? I'm not sure. It is a natural, evolving system after all, and it has its merits.

I agree with lurkette: I love this thread. I love the openness of your questions.

__________________
Didn't remember how intense love could be... Thank you B.