I was going to add this to my other post but thought it deserved it’s own.
Listening to the same interview the interviewer said something that struck a cord with me. I’ve been saying for a long time that politics creates sides, not solutions. The interviewer stated something similar. HE said that politics today has gone very far away from simply trying to convince the other side that you are right, that is no longer enough. In order to truely show your loyalty to “Your side” you must “Hate the side”.
I see this almost on a daily basis here, in the media, and in friends and acquantances. You can no longer simply disagree with Bush’s policy, you must hate Bush. You can no longer disagree with Nancy Polosie’s policy you must Hate Palosie.
It’s been this way for quite some time it seems and has been fairly obvious, just that I’ve never really put my finger on it. The discussion rarely surround policy, but the individual and the disdain you must have for that person.
Not really sure what you are talking about because everyone here loves me. Especially slowguy, slowman and Ken. Even comments about how I am off my meds, a prick, and plain stupid are always intended in the nicest possible way.
It is a very interetsing topic I think. If you look back, there are some true Statesmen who can dis agree without hating. In fact, some of these guys are often hardline partisans too.
One really good example is one of our local guys here, Rep. John Dingell. He is certainly partisan and he is very loyal to his constituents. However he is a Statesman as well. On the other side, would be a Rep. John Conyers. Obviously partisan, but one thing I would not consider him is a Statesman. In Detroit, during my life, the last 3 mayors have also been good examples of this. Coleman Young (not), Dennis Archer (is), and Kwame Kilpatrick (wasn’t but is becoming). I’m not entirely sure what the distiction is, but I’m sure listening is part of it.
**I see this almost on a daily basis here, in the media, and in friends and acquantances. You can no longer simply disagree with Bush’s policy, you must hate Bush. You can no longer disagree with Nancy Polosie’s policy you must Hate Palosie. **
I tried to make a similar point earlier and was, not surprisingly, dismissed as a Bush hater. My point was that I have seen a marked increase in the political hatred on both sides since Bush came to power. He didn’t create the issue but since 9/11, when the country was largely unified and in support of his policies (83% approved of going to Iraq) there has been an incredible polarization.
You are right, at this point you either love every single thing Bush has ever done and will ever do, or you are the opposite. Those who support Bush also immediately dismiss every single thing coming from any Democrat (you see that here all the time on ST) and vice versa.
I think there is only one possible solution and that is have a Presidential candidate pick someone from the other party as a running mate. You run the risk of upsetting all sides but I’d support the idea just to stop the constant bickering.
I’ve always found that once the discussion stray’s from mostly policy to mostly personal that the discussion also goes from one of information to one of emotion. I think that’s typically where the hate starts entering in.
Although I realize that leaving the policy makers out of the discussion of the policy is difficult I also believe it can be done FAR more often than it typically is. In short it’s easy to kill decent policy if you pin it to a flawed person, I.E. “That policy sucks because teh person that came up with it did blah blah”. But once the policy is seperated from the person the policy must stand on it’s own merits. Hard to say that “The policy is trying to take over the governement” or “The policy has no right to say that” etc etc.
I think there is only one possible solution and that is have a Presidential candidate pick someone from the other party as a running mate. You run the risk of upsetting all sides but I’d support the idea just to stop the constant bickering.
That’s an interesting idea. Why not make it really simple and just have Co-Presidents. I’m guessing this would have a rather huge benefit in several ways.
First both parties will end up taking crap for any bad presidential policy. Second the increasing cost of presidential campaigns would likely nearly disappear overnight. Third, I’m guessing intially, we would have a “Presidential stalemate” and as I’ve said for years until the government can start to figure it out teh best policy is no policy.
I can think that we would likely have problems as well, but can’t think of any major ones right off the bat.
Not really sure what you are talking about because everyone here loves me. Especially slowguy, slowman and Ken. Even comments about how I am off my meds, a prick, and plain stupid are always intended in the nicest possible way.
I’m glad you brought this up. You know, it’s tough for us guys. We can’t show emotion or love for other guys without coming across as weak or girlie. I’m tired of hiding my true feelings, so I’m taking a stand here and now, in front of all of the Laveneder Room denizens, and speaking out for myself and all of those who are too afraid to speak for themselves out of fear and uncertainty.
I think one of the big reasons for that is because people no longer have to hear both sides when getting their political news. You can get a slant on news that simply reinforces your opinion, without hearing anything different. On top of most news sources being slanted one way or another, it also includes commentary, likely negative to the other side (since that will get more ratings). People these days let their favorite talk radio, blog, columnist or cable TV personalty do their thinking for them.
Doing what is right for your party rather than THE COUNTRY seems to have intensified in the last decade, maybe longer. I guess that is why I respect President Bush’s stand on Iraq because he believes what he is doing is best for THE COUNTRY and obviously not for his personal popularity or that of his party. (Just using that for an example, let’s not get into an Iraq right/wrong discussion hijack)
I tried to make a similar point earlier and was, not surprisingly, dismissed as a Bush hater. My point was that I have seen a marked increase in the political hatred on both sides since Bush came to power.
Casey,
I think that I noticed things growing very polarized during the 90’s. Certainly well before President Bush took office. Of course, this was the period in my life when I became more politically aware (early 20’s), so I rely on history to fill in my knowledge of what went on before. I will grant you that it probably has something to do with perspective. Please don’t think that I am not aware of the polarizing effect President Bush has had. It would be completely dishonest to think that the hatred knows boundaries.
Along those lines, the politicians of today are rank amateurs compared to the partisans of 1800. Now there were some fellas who got really nasty with each other. Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Burr…Those guys were the real deal.
It doesn’t really seem that among politicians there is any more or less regard for one another, for them it is as it has always been, about the acquisition and/or maintenance of power. The difference shows up more in us. Could be the media is being used to drive the wedge, or is choosing to do so. Could just be that in the internet age, the loudest, harshest, and often, ugliest voices on each side get a big stage.
Secondly, there is a hardcore conservative guy I know that rails on GWB for not cleaning house the way the Clintons did when he first came into office. Heck, if he had fired and replaced the slew of prosecutors that Clinton did on entry to office, Bush may not be seeing the current “scandal”, as the guys in place would have been “his” people. Not sure how much validity there is to that thought myself, though it really did look like Bush tried for a time to work across the aisle. (His work and tour with Kennedy, on the education front comes to mind)
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, Matt. Its not enough to disagree…one must impugn the other side’s motives as well. If you’re a Democrat and against the war, then you are unpatriotic. If you are the President, then you started the war for reasons other than the stated effort to disarm Iraq. I also agree with one of the other posts in this thread that stated that party politics has gotten more important than governing the country. It seems that more and more its not about what’s best for the USA, but how best to score points on the other guy, or how to make the other party look bad. I think both parties are equally bad on this account. I really think that the time is coming for a third party that represents the middle of America because it seems to me that the Dems and Repubs are going further and further left and right to appeal to their “base”.
“everyone here loves me. Especially slowguy, slowman and Ken”
the truest tests of love occur when a person’s in need. i rather guess everyone here would do their part if the person in need was you. including us three. even mattinsf. even though you are a prick and off your meds
I think the villification of the other side is because the margins on either side are so slim. And the margins are so slim because there’s little difference in the parties. If you can get your followers to hate the opponent, and associate that hate with the entire opposing party, there’s little chance that those voters flip parties over an issue in the next election.
It’s really just the same fear of the enemy manipulation of the public that’s been used for years in a variety of ways. Right now Bush wants you to fear the terrorists, and the dems want you to fear Bush. The winner in "08 will probably be the one who manipulates the public fear most effectively. The Hillary/Big Brother ad was the latest example. Fear Hillary, Barak will set you free. Effective, but sad really.
Would it be something if a leader were to set a positive course, and had a vision of the future so positive, and so believable that people would follow for those reasons?
I just had another thought. Hating the other side really simplifies the argument. If you hate the opponent, there’s really no need to explain your policies in detail. I think the average person really doesn’t want to understand the issues, and wants simple choices.
That’s an interesting idea. Why not make it really simple and just have Co-Presidents. I’m guessing this would have a rather huge benefit in several ways.
So who, from either party, would you have in Command? I mean, is there any of them worth two cents?
So who, from either party, would you have in Command? I mean, is there any of them worth two cents?
I’m of the opinion that the position of “President” is less talent and worthiness and more plain old desicion making on a fairly common sense level. That being said most mature semi level headed individuals HAVE this ability. Unfortuntely when most anyone is backed into a corner they make really stupid desicions.
My point is that once the star wars defense shiled can be lowered from the position of the presidency I suspec the descions made will be more “centrist” and likely more logical. Not to mention individuals in that position will be more like to change course without fear of reprisal.
Take the worse from either side, offset them and force them to work together, and the result will likely be better than the best from one side that is forced to constantly defend themselves against incoming ICBM’s on a daily basis.
