OK here goes…
I’ve read so much political biased crap on here lately so here’s my question.
Are any of you strongly political people ever satisfied with someone of the opposite party being in office? It seems to me that most of you just hate someone because they’re Dem/Rep/polka dotted whatever.
Your question is posed in a manner to presuppose that if someone is unhappy with members of a certain political party being in office, that the unhappiness stems from “hate” of members of that political party–kind of a “when did you stop beating your wife” sort of question. At first I thought this question particulary sophistic or incredibly naive. Then, I looked at your profile and saw that you are a graduate student, so now I realize that you are just part of a system where sophistry and feigned naivete’ are par for the course, so I’ll try to explain it to you.
I do not presume to believe that most people hate all members of an opposing party just for being in that party. For exaple, as a Republican, I am opposed to the massive government spending and nationalization of private industry that the Obama Administration and Congress has embarked on. I also disagree strongly with Obama’s actions on abortion and embryonic stem cell research to date. I fear the upcoming budget and its probable massive impact on the defense capabilities of our country. You see, I am aligned with the Republican Party because their principles align with mine. These are core principles of mine based on my life experiences, religion, upbringing, and military background. Strong defense, limited government, and respect for innocent life among them. I do not and will not make exceptions to them. When Republicans stray from these principles or act badly in government positions, I will criticize them, though.
I do not hate Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or even Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, or Chuck Schumer. I just disagree strongly with them on the right direction that this country should be headed.
Your terminology “opposite party,” implies that there can only be two alternatives. Anyway, as I commented in my “O.E. and the ‘I’ Diet” thread this morning, it’s not about Doctor #1 (Republicans) vs. Doctor #2 (Democrats).
I am a little naive about the political process. I’m not very political nor strongly aligned with a political party. I really don’t think it makes much sense. Now my background is in Ex Phys and not political science so you can set me straight here. I don’t feel we make any progress in our government because as the balance of power changes from repub to dem and back again it seems as if we’re in a constant undoing of what the other party did while in power and putting your ideas into practice. I see it as a large seesaw. So with your comment about your values… do we ever really make progress? It doesn’t seem so to me. The next Republican majority will probably ban stem cell research and the next Democrat administration will most likely reinstate it.
The original reason for my post was because I just felt that all of the republicans were just going to b*tch about Obama being in office until he out and then the Dems will complain about whoever is in office until he’s out. There’s no real he’s a great leader anymore or at least I haven’t seen it.
So yeah I’m only 24 call me naive or whatever you think I am because I’m not as experienced in the world yet as you.
Are any of you strongly political people ever satisfied with someone of the opposite party being in office? It seems to me that most of you just hate someone because they’re Dem/Rep/polka dotted whatever.
I stated repeatedly during the election that I would have been “ok” with Hillary in office over President Obama. I think Hillary has learned how to lead from the middle, must like Bill did. I thought Bill was a complete and total embarrassment to the country due to his extra-curricular activities, but, I didn’t hate him and thought he did ok w/ the country. I was embarassed by Bush, but, did not hate him either.
I don’t hate President Obama b/c he is a Dem. I just do not like ANYTHING he is doing to the country.
I’m sorry do we have a 3rd party that actually has any power?
OK here goes…
I’ve read so much political biased crap on here lately so here’s my question.
Are any of you strongly political people ever satisfied with someone of the opposite party being in office? It seems to me that most of you just hate someone because they’re Dem/Rep/polka dotted whatever.
The major parties sold out the American people years ago. How could anyone be satisfied with the status quo?
As long as people continue using terms like “opposite party” and “bipartisanship,” which imply that nothing else is logically possible, we never will. Also, as long as people continue to regard Doctor #1 vs. Doctor #2 as the only issue in politics, O.E. won’t be going to any other doctors, and his problems will only get worse and worse.
Isn’t this a redundant question? Doesn’t the words “strongly political” indicate that a person “Strongly supports politics”? Isn’t politics in and of itself more about supporting ones party than actually creating and supporting solutions?
I would agree that most simply have a “Knee Jerk” reaction to something based simply on what party it comes from, that would be “Strongly political” and thus the answer to your question is in most cases, “We don’t like it because it come from the “Other party””
OTOH there are also many that look at policy rather than what party it comes from and react to that. Most of the time you’ll find those people arguing vehement for or against an argument and often times regardless of the likely party affiliation. However those individuals will usually get “Labeled” according to whatever side they “Appear” to be supporting at the time.
~Matt
“Isn’t politics in and of itself more about supporting ones party than actually creating and supporting solutions?”
Not necessarily. George Washington was a strong political leader, but he certainly was a strong party man. Politics is by definition about determining what is best for the polis, and that does not inherently have to be driven by partisan factions.
Personally, although I have voted most for Libertarian candidates in the past, I am willing to vote for a candidate in either party, or possibly some other third party, if he or she supports positions I believe are best for the country. Furthermore, as you know, I have some strong opinions on the latter subject, so I am indeed one of the “strongly political.”
Okay, here’s your homework assignment. Go and read about the Constitution and the debates between the founding fathers from the time just prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, through the writing of the Constitution and its’ ratification. First off, you will see that there were “spirited” and heated debates between them about almost everything. But, you will also see that our system is designed to limit what you call “progress,” or what others might call “change.” There is a reason for that. Some of the founding fathers (i.e., Jefferson) were populists and felt that whatever the people wanted, the people should get. Others (such as Hamilton) felt thet the passions of the people were too easily inflamed and transitory, and that limits had to be in place to ensure that what was popular one day did not get enacted into law just to be rued and undone later. What we ended up with was a compromise.
Let’s look at nationalized health care, for example. Health care is 1/7th of the economy of the United States. Do we really want to make a rash decision to nationalize 1/7th of our economy based on the popularity of a recently elected president? Might we not rue that decision sometime later on down the road? Shouldn’t we have a vigorous debate over this issue? Shouldn’t the debate be based on the merits of the issue and not on one party claiming the other party wants people to be sick or die?
Take the current debate about the recession and what to do about it. We are going to, if Obama has his way, spend more money in the next six years than we spent in in the entire 233 year history of the country to date. Shouldn’t there be some debate about that? Should people who disagree with Obama be characterized as haters or racists? Didn’t the $700B+ bank bailout bill demonstrate what happens when “progress” or “change” is voted in with too little debate?
Now you say that this system ensures that we never make progress–go back and look at what the United States has accomplished in only 233 years and tell me we “never” make progress. Change in a huge country such as ours should be slow and deliberate and reflective of long-term trends, not hot issues du jour. I know that is hard to accept when you are an idealistic graduate student. But study and gain an appreciation for the Constitution of the United States and you will realize it is one of the greatest documents ever written, and even though it isn’t perfect in some peoples eyes, I challenge them to find a better governing document or system anywhere.
Politics is by definition about determining what is best for the polis, and that does not inherently have to be driven by partisan factions.
I think it depends on what definition you use to define “Politics”. Certainly by historic and correct usage of the term “Politics” is all about determining what is best for the community or society. “Modern” definition is far from this and I would think that few if any look at “politics” as “They are doing what is best for us”
If indeed “politics” was about doing what is best for the people rather than what is best for the party, much, maybe most, of what we refer to as “Politics” wouldn’t even take place.
I was looking at the OP’s question more in light of the current situation, but most definitely using the proper definition it’s not only possible but highly probably that a “Politician” would vote regardless of party policy or line. However with “Party line votes” are running around 90-95% in most cases I don’t see that happening. I also don’t believe for one second that all the people in one party or the other truly hold that different of values from the other party(ies) and if they were really looking out for the state and voting on personal belief that there would be much greater “Party crosssover”.
~Matt
Edit to add: In the “modern” usage I would not consider you “Political”, nor would I consider myself “Political”. In sense I think we’ve seen a “Bastardization” of the word similar to liberal and conservative. By correct definition maybe we are both political.
“In the ‘modern’ usage I would not consider you ‘Political,’ nor would I consider myself ‘Political.’ In sense I think we’ve seen a ‘Bastardization’ of the word similar to liberal and conservative. By correct definition maybe we are both political.”
It might be interesting to know whether the two of us are viewed as strongly political or not.
BTW, both of the usages you point out are acknowledged in Merriam-Webster for the term “political.” Fortunately, more of the definitions still relate to the older meaning.
It might be interesting to know whether the two of us are viewed as strongly political or not.
I would guess we are both viewed as “Political”, only that we end up on different sides of the fence being called “Political” by “The other side” on a regular occasion :-).
I would guess very few here or in the general population use “Political” in the more traditional definition, I could be wrong though. In fact I hope I’m wrong, that would actually be good thing.
~Matt
Great post, although I would not be inclined to label as “populist” the man who expressed his distrust of democracy in these words: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
Although there were certainly differences of opinion among the founders, I doubt that any of them would be seen as populist from today’s perspective.
If I implied that Jefferson was a believer in direct democracy, I apologize. But, he did believe that most power should be concentrated in the hands of Congress, who are directly answerable to the electorate, rather than in the hands of a bureaucracy. In that regard, I guess he leaned more to the “populist” side of the spectrum than the other.
I’m sorry if I’m sounding a little condescending, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I think our school sytems do a very poor job of teaching civics and economics these days, and what they do teach is heavily weighted to the left. Therefore, we have a poorly educated electorate that is spring-loaded to certain positions.
One other thing though–research your issues before you make up your mind on something. Your statement that “the next Republican majority will probably ban stem cell research,” leads me to believe that you think that the last Republican majority banned stem-cell research. In actuality, stem-cell research was never banned. The only thing that was banned was federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and even that was a limited ban. Privately funded embryonic stem-cell research was still legal, and federal funds were still being used to do other types of stem-cell research. Further, the federal funding ban on embryonic stem-cell research was only a partial one, in that preexisting lines of embryonic stem-cells could still be used.
"It seems to me that most of you just hate someone because they’re Dem/Rep/polka dotted whatever. "
Go read what mattinSF writes about Palin and you will see the answer is yes.
I’m sorry if I’m sounding a little condescending, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I think our school sytems do a very poor job of teaching civics and economics these days, and what they do teach is heavily weighted to the left. Therefore, we have a poorly educated electorate that is spring-loaded to certain positions.
One other thing though–research your issues before you make up your mind on something. Your statement that “the next Republican majority will probably ban stem cell research,” leads me to believe that you think that the last Republican majority banned stem-cell research. In actuality, stem-cell research was never banned. The only thing that was banned was federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and even that was a limited ban. Privately funded embryonic stem-cell research was still legal, and federal funds were still being used to do other types of stem-cell research. Further, the federal funding ban on embryonic stem-cell research was only a partial one, in that preexisting lines of embryonic stem-cells could still be used.
Maybe its just me, but you sound a LOT condescending.
It is not much different than the Packer fans hating the Bears and vice versa.
I generally find the Democrat politicians to be hypocrites and foolish (think Gore, Dodd, Frank, Waxman, etc) and that’s what pisses me off about them. Does anyone honestly think the Democrat politicians really care about the unions, minorities, etc.? It’s all about getting re-elected for them. It’s not that I love the Republican politicians, it’s just that for me they are the lesser of two evils.