Partisan Politics Good For America?

[OE32]

The partisanship is undoubtedly bad for the country. Without common ground, there's no opportunity to advance the common good. Each party has a number of single-issue or identity voters, meaning that there's no opportunity for candidates of the other party to appeal to them. Thus, we're deadlocked. Such extreme acrimony that we can't even agree to engage in honest empiricism anymore. If only Nelson Rockefeller had won the nomination...

[Nodack]

It's beyond sad. It's broken.

"United We Stand"

[OE32]

I would like to see this guy run for the Republican nomination. It would give me, at long last, a reason to pay attention to that side of the aisle.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1213 ... christians

[OE32]

Once again, this fuckin guy! Would love to see what havoc he would wreck in a primary debate! http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/john-kasich- ... ent-voting

[OE32]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

AZ represent! Thank your neighbors for voting!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu ... nuke-deal/

Read: fuck the global poor, fuck immigrants, and fuck peace. Then if you read the article, you see fuck the American poor, too. Given the characteristics of the Republican base, I'm optimistic about Hillary's chances.

[Dan H]

I'd be okay with John Kasich as a nominee. He'd probably have just as much of a shot as Dole, McCain, or Romney once he got into the general and started being painted by the press, but that's a separate issue.

Read: fuck the global poor, fuck immigrants,

Please, enlighten me as to the specifics of your position.

1) So the fix for global warming is to transfer resources from more affluent nations to poorer ones, and if I disagree with this position or the bona fides of anthropogenic global warming, I'm saying screw the poor?

2) If I'm for legal immigration but disagree with illegal immigration, an I saying screw immigrants? Mexico has an even firmer policy on its own southern border in regards to illegal immigration from Guatemala and other southern neighbors, are they saying screw immigrants as well?

[OE32]

I'd be okay with John Kasich as a nominee. He'd probably have just as much of a shot as Dole, McCain, or Romney once he got into the general and started being painted by the press, but that's a separate issue.

Read: fuck the global poor, fuck immigrants,

Please, enlighten me as to the specifics of your position.

1) So the fix for global warming is to transfer resources from more affluent nations to poorer ones, and if I disagree with this position or the bona fides of anthropogenic global warming, I'm saying screw the poor?

2) If I'm for legal immigration but disagree with illegal immigration, an I saying screw immigrants? Mexico has an even firmer policy on its own southern border in regards to illegal immigration from Guatemala and other southern neighbors, are they saying screw immigrants as well?

(1) I'm not generally interested in feeding you, goose, but I had a boss once who was not a believer in global warming. Smart guy, Stanford PhD. He and I got into it online, because he liked to listen to those radio shows - you know the ones I'm talking about - "just for fun." Well, I asked him for cites supporting his position, to compare to mine. It was public, so it got pretty embarrassing for him. But that's the thing - the people who do the science are interested in finding the truth. So when the scientific community comes to a consensus, there is soooooo much more information and thought that have gone into that position, and for people like you and me, who don't have PhDs in the relevant sciences, should be able to acknowledge wisdom. But this libertarian nonsense would have you believe that you can do the science yourself! Look at this graph! Read this article! Don't listen to those charlatans at NASA or the NAS! Think for yourself! We live in an era partially characterized by a distrust of experts and a willingness to let our politics guide thee rest of our learning. But the answer to your question is, yes. If you don't want to do anything about climate change from a public policy perspective, yes, you are saying, fuck the global poor. I'm not going to try to educate you about it, because the relevant science in this area indicates that your mind can't be changed by my showing you evidence. The best I can do is - as I did with my old boss - is have you try to explain your skepticism, and thereby have you reveal your ignorance to yourself. Good luck on your expedition of ignoring the vast majority of sources as you scour for something that you think supports your view but which is ultimately embarrassing. Or you could HUMBLE YOURSELF and acknowledge that the people who is has been to the top of the mountain probably have a better idea of what's on top of the mountain than you do.

(2) The undocumented immigrants are here for jobs, and we pay them. American businesses want them here, and they don't want them unionized or paid American wages. They use your dislike of them to keep them disempowered. I would try to talk to you about practical policy considerations, but your side isn't actually interested in a cost-benefit analysis, and in any case, your big Christian hearts have already decided that the consequences to these lawbreakers don't need to be considered. I don't pay close attention, but I do recall what happened when Glenn Beck asked for support for undocumented children being held in detention centers. I ask you, are you interested in penalizing all the businesses and individuals who make use of illegal labor? Well, good luck convincing your representatives, because that's just not the politics. Personally, I think we'd do very well to start putting money into modernizing Mexico to make it a place people don't want to leave, and ending the drug war, which has caused so much of their tumult. Much of the "left" would be amenable to this, I think... because they're reasonable. And it seems the best-kept secret in American politics is that "liberals" is actually a code word for moderates.

Also, I don't have to enlighten you to anything. I'll save my words for people who are interested in solutions - and that includes just about no one on your side of the aisle, and not you. If I drop the knowledge, you won't be able to tell. After all, you do your own science and your own economics, and as a substitute for policy, you have principles, I'm willing to bet. Great. And I see you're a lover of the book. Fun. You can use it to justify your perspectives where it suits you, with impunity. IMO, if people are going to invoke the word in the halls of congress, we should set up a fucking committee to discern where the book came from, who wrote it, and whether or not there is reason to believe it contains cosmic fucking information.

Whatever you say next is the last word on this subject. It's okay, I don't have to win. I know how this plays out. Science and wisdom will win, because they're fucking cool. Your side hates progressives, but what leaders of our country are deemed worthy of legacies of greatness? Lincoln, Teddy and Frankie Roosevelt - the progressives.

Talk to the radio. I'm not interested.

[Indy]

You seem really bitter and condescending

[OE32]

I know. I could put some effort into being nicer, but there's no way around the condescension. I'm an intellectual snob. I'd appear nicer in public, simply because I'd keep my opinions to myself. I just fucking hate conservatism. Their politicians are liars feeding on the ignorant trying to drag us back into the stone age. I hate them.

Edit: One more thing. Condescension is a rhetorical maneuver. You play the villain. And if you can be shown wrong, then you can be embarrassed. It's designed to communicate confidence and strength, because nobody wants to be embarrassed, especially when you're playing the villain. I'm trying to communicate as best I can that the perspective of the opposition is not worthy of respect. And the inference to be made is, if the villain can't be knocked from his perch, then he is probably right.

I promised myself I wouldn't do this. This is a Suns forum. Believe it or not, I like Dan, apart from his politics. From my perspective, he's infected. But I really should just stay out of it. But then I have boring Sunday morning, and this happens. I just don't want it to affect our Suns conversations, because that's what I'm really here for. I need to remember that.

[Dan H]

[Indy]

I know. I could put some effort into being nicer, but there's no way around the condescension. I'm an intellectual snob. I'd appear nicer in public, simply because I'd keep my opinions to myself. I just fucking hate conservatism. Their politicians are liars feeding on the ignorant trying to drag us back into the stone age.

I don't think it is any more intellectual to blindly support any side and completely generalize the other.

[OE32]

I know. I could put some effort into being nicer, but there's no way around the condescension. I'm an intellectual snob. I'd appear nicer in public, simply because I'd keep my opinions to myself. I just fucking hate conservatism. Their politicians are liars feeding on the ignorant trying to drag us back into the stone age.

I don't think it is any more intellectual to blindly support any side and completely generalize the other.

Generalize, yes, I have. But blindly support? Does my conversation indicate that my support is blind? Or are you partial to the faux-middle, that strain that wants peace at all costs, even if it means pretending that absurdity and wisdom are equals? That same strain that is more offended by tone than untruths. That strain that prefers emotion to reason in our political discourse... I guess I shouldn't say "faux." That is indeed the middle.

[Mori Chu]

The Politics folder, ladies and gentlemen!

[Indy]

The Politics folder, ladies and gentlemen!

No shit. More double talk than in Congress itself.

[OE32]

You got some specific critique, Indy? A problem with the facts or the context? I just don't understand. There's been no response from anyone, actually. Congress rarely has anything of substance said - maybe part of the problem is that people can't take substance. They'd like to think the truth is short and sweet enough to stuff in their pocket, that political issues are as simple as analyzing a sports game. Sometimes they are, and it still doesn't stop people from foolhardiness.

Are you worried because, as a Libertarian, you're bothered by any political position other than, "Fuck it"?

[Indy]

If you think "Libertarian" means "fuck it" you are not as intellectual as you say. It is really the exact opposite.

You just posted a bunch of rhetorical questions pretending to make points. To me, and this could just be how I am reading it, you seem to think that "conservative" politicians are liars, but "liberal" politicians are not. I think that is incredible inaccurate and naive. And honestly, it is a trap I think most devout supporters fall into for whatever cause/beliefs they are supporting.

[OE32]

I honestly don't believe that libertarianism is a sophisticated political position. I say this in large part because I know many people in various areas of policy making, business and law, and in that crowd, libertarianism is quite rare. The tagline of the libertarian party is "Maximum Freedom, Limited Government." I see a glaring problem with that line - do you?

I wouldn't say democratic politicians aren't liars, but there is a big difference between the two sides. You can talk about lower or higher taxes with democrats, and they'll listen. A business person can walk into the democrat's office, and so also can a union rep. People of all races and faiths can walk into the office and make a plea. You can ask a democrat to push for additional regulations or to get rid of them. Do you see the difference? Because of the nature of their coalition, they have the flexibility to consider all points of view and to advance multiple interests. Republicans, on the other hand, have a constituency that prevents them from considering the interests of many and the merits of various policies. I'm pretty sure I'm just describing the parties here.

Look at their media. The most liberal radio station? NPR. The most noteworthy "liberal" newspapers? The Times and the Post. From what I can tell, these are not actually liberal sources as much as they are just reporting on politics and asking experts their opinions. On the other side, there's a terrible demonization of experts, a mass distrust of institutions and government. There are, of course, extreme elements on the left, but that's just it - they're considered extreme. Where's the communist radio station? The back-to-the-earth newspaper? The world government TV station? I say, the extremists have taken over one of the parties - and many of the moderates of that party will freely admit it!

I simply don't respect those who want to engage in a false equivalency. I don't recall democrats espousing armed insurrection against Bush. Democrats aren't trying to abolish industries the way Republicans are trying to abolish government agencies. When the anti-vaxx movement took off across the political spectrum, you saw conservative politicians embracing the paranoia, while democratic politicians spoke out against it. They weren't appealing to their bases in that case: they were appealing to different styles of politics.

Look, economics is part-profession, part-hobby for me. If I were to classify my views, I would say I'm a developmentalist in the tradition of Amartya Sen. From a developmentalist view, prosperity can be measured by liberty. So why am I not a libertarian?

You say my questions are rhetorical. You think they can't be answered? You think it's all style, no substance? The whole point of my asking others to present views is because it displaces the burden of proof - of which I believe I've embraced plenty on this board. Who else is willing to lay out any genuine political positions or philosophies?

Goose, for instance, just attacks liberals. I got him to espouse essentially just one position of his own - and he thought of the safest thing he could think of - that the national debt was big and scary. Risk-aversion is very consistent with the psychological profile of conservatives (and yes, social scientists are trending towards the conclusion that the two sides are psychologically distinct in their approach to many things, but primarily centered around the way they interact with new information). By contrast, I've opened myself up to all sorts of critiques, but all I hear is, Boo! Where's the substance?

Just answer the first question I posed. Do you see a problem with that line? If you want to distinguish some intellectual libertarianism from its current political manifestation, that's fine. But then I would ask, what's the problem with liberals other than marketing?

Thanks, by the way, for responding.

[Nodack]

Been busy lately and haven't been to the politics folder for awhile. You guys have been busy.

I like you OE32. I like Indy too. You two don't seem to be hitting it off very well. I can't help but to agree with OE32 on pretty much everything. Bitter and condescending? Probably. He seems like a guy that has been in these internet political trenches more than a few times like a lot of us have and might have developed some attitude about one side or another like most of us have.

We lump everybody into groups and they are either on your side or your enemy that needs to be vanquished.

Things change. You can't stop it, you can only hope to steer it. That's what the politics of the world try to do. Control over the steering wheel is expensive and lots of people want to drive the bus. They don't play nice.

I have been trying to figure out the world and the big picture like everybody else has and have concluded that the world is a very complex beast. There are billions of different people believing all kinds of different things and there are forces all over the world trying to manipulate the minds of those people for various reasons. We each come to our conclusions of what is right and wrong based on our surrounding influences such as friends, family, church, schools, country, and media. Once we have chosen our side, those beliefs are etched in stone forever regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

Progressives + Conservatives + Libertarians = Moderate

I don't get the Libertarian thing. The platform is smaller government and Liberty?

My platform would be a better World and a better US.

Liberty in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism.[1] In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms guaranteed to all citizens.[2] In theology, liberty is freedom from the bondage of sin.[3]

I really don't see all our freedoms being stripped away. There isn't a group of militants going around chopping off our heads unless we swear our allegence to a strict interpretation of the Koran. Nobody has taken our guns away. You can call the President a bunch of four letter words and nobody cares. Nobody is forcing us into labor camps. I just don't get the Liberty thing. I get that we value it, I just don't get it as one of the main Libertarian platforms as in "Vote for us or else all your freedoms will be stripped away". It comes across as paranoid and fringe extremist almost to me and ignores the real issues of today.

[OE32]

Thanks Nodack. Love your posts. Wish I could maintain your degree of cordiality. Cheers!

[OE32]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... id=rssfeed

Article summarizing recent movements away from climate change denial by major conservative groups.

Will conservatives themselves be able to admit that they were wrong on this issue - aggressively, confidently, and meanly so - for decades? My guess is they will conveniently forget. I want to hear, "We were wrong."