Politics in America

[BigRedBuster]

The other night while watching something on TV, this question popped into my head.

 

When was the last time you thought American Politics was about honest debates on issues and not controlled by crazy extremes on either one side or both?

 

Put another way, when was the last time you really felt you could sit down and really consider what both sides are saying and weigh which side you support based on actual merits of both arguments?

[carlfense]

The other night while watching something on TV, this question popped into my head.

 

When was the last time you thought American Politics was about honest debates on issues and not controlled by crazy extremes on either one side or both?

 

Put another way, when was the last time you really felt you could sit down and really consider what both sides are saying and weigh which side you support based on actual merits of both arguments?

In my time as a reasonably well-informed voter I've never felt that American politics was an honest debate about issues.

[Whistlebritches]

About 2 years ago I got sucked into a political conversation at work, something I swore I would never let myself do. I've listened to these two guys forever but never joined until the day they were talking about how they expected the Liberals to steal their Tea Party candidate signs out of their front yards. It ended after 15 minutes when the two other guys swore that Obama was intentionally trying to destroy the United States. I asked for clarification because I thought maybe he was ruining things through bad policy decisions or anything like that. No, he is purposefully trying to destroy the country.

 

I excused myself because there's simply no sane way to even discuss that.

 

Now my step dad believes this same crap.

 

It's a terrible time for politics.

[BigRedBuster]

About 2 years ago I got sucked into a political conversation at work, something I swore I would never let myself do. I've listened to these two guys forever but never joined until the day they were talking about how they expected the Liberals to steal their Tea Party candidate signs out of their front yards. It ended after 15 minutes when the two other guys swore that Obama was intentionally trying to destroy the United States. I asked for clarification because I thought maybe he was ruining things through bad policy decisions or anything like that. No, he is purposefully trying to destroy the country.

 

I excused myself because there's simply no sane way to even discuss that.

 

Now my step dad believes this same crap.

 

It's a terrible time for politics.

Which brings me to my question. When was the last time you didn't feel that way?

[strigori]

1992 maybe? I'm not old enough to have a great grasp on politics that far back, but looking at things in a historical sense, there were more statesmen types before the radicalization of the GOP with Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America" that has so heavily tied the right to religious zealots. You can't have a debate when one side will die before allowing another thought in.

[Whistlebritches]

 

About 2 years ago I got sucked into a political conversation at work, something I swore I would never let myself do. I've listened to these two guys forever but never joined until the day they were talking about how they expected the Liberals to steal their Tea Party candidate signs out of their front yards. It ended after 15 minutes when the two other guys swore that Obama was intentionally trying to destroy the United States. I asked for clarification because I thought maybe he was ruining things through bad policy decisions or anything like that. No, he is purposefully trying to destroy the country.

 

I excused myself because there's simply no sane way to even discuss that.

 

Now my step dad believes this same crap.

 

It's a terrible time for politics.

Which brings me to my question. When was the last time you didn't feel that way?

 

 

Voting for GWB in 2000 was really the first time I voted and felt like I made my own decision despite being 26 years old. It didn't feel real toxic like it does now until his second term. So I'll say 2004 or thereabouts. Though to be fair I didn't pay much attention prior to that.

[True2tRA]

I have never understood how an attachment to a political party meant you somehow 'had' to believe in all their extreme ideas. Both sides have them. I voted for Obama, but there are things I do not agree with him or the Democratic party on. I just tend to align much more with Dems than I do Republicans. To me the Republican party has become blindly extreme and pretty much irrational. It wasn't that way that long ago, but now I have a hard time really agreeing with anything their representatives say. Maybe it's just poor representation, but to be honest, the things the Republican Party and their media machine can make people believe nowadays just scares the hell out of me. It's just scary people can be misled the way they are.

[TGHusker]

1992 maybe? I'm not old enough to have a great grasp on politics that far back, but looking at things in a historical sense, there were more statesmen types before the radicalization of the GOP with Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America" that has so heavily tied the right to religious zealots. You can't have a debate when one side will die before allowing another thought in.

Before Newt and the CWA, there was no debate in the House. The repubs were just along for the ride for the previous several decades - since the 1950s. Hard to have a debate when one party controls the House all those years. Newt didn't radicalize the GOP - that came later. He did however allow the GOP to have a set of ... to voice a different opinion. Newt ended up working pretty well with Clinton in the end. Both were pragmatic and not ideologues like we see on both sides today.

 

I think there has always been negative campaigning esp when one candidate can't stand on their own record.

Regarding the last time there was a debate - I would go back to 1984 - Reagan/Mondale (even thought Reagan beat Mondale and Carter before that easily, I don't remember it being a real negative campaign - other than Mondale's & Carter's fear tactics on Reagan's age and Reagan taking us to the edge of a nuclear war wt the Soviet Union). In 1988 GHWB, made it all about Dukakis and his ride in the tank and the murderer he let out of prison. Negative campaigning was at front and center during that campaign. GHWB won in a landslide but didn't need to resort to such negativity. Of course, if I recall correctly, he started out slow in the polls but ended running away wt it. Negativity seems to work when you are behind unfortunately. No one since 1988 has won the popular vote or the electoral college vote as large as GHWB did.

[strigori]

 

1992 maybe? I'm not old enough to have a great grasp on politics that far back, but looking at things in a historical sense, there were more statesmen types before the radicalization of the GOP with Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America" that has so heavily tied the right to religious zealots. You can't have a debate when one side will die before allowing another thought in.

Before Newt and the CWA, there was no debate in the House. The repubs were just along for the ride for the previous several decades - since the 1950s. Hard to have a debate when one party controls the House all those years. Newt didn't radicalize the GOP - that came later. He did however allow the GOP to have a set of ... to voice a different opinion. Newt ended up working pretty well with Clinton in the end. Both were pragmatic and not ideologues like we see on both sides today.

 

I think there has always been negative campaigning esp when one candidate can't stand on their own record.

Regarding the last time there was a debate - I would go back to 1984 - Reagan/Mondale (even thought Reagan beat Mondale and Carter before that easily, I don't remember it being a real negative campaign - other than Mondale's & Carter's fear tactics on Reagan's age and Reagan taking us to the edge of a nuclear war wt the Soviet Union). In 1988 GHWB, made it all about Dukakis and his ride in the tank and the murderer he let out of prison. Negative campaigning was at front and center during that campaign. GHWB won in a landslide but didn't need to resort to such negativity. Of course, if I recall correctly, he started out slow in the polls but ended running away wt it. Negativity seems to work when you are behind unfortunately. No one since 1988 has won the popular vote or the electoral college vote as large as GHWB did.

 

I didn't intend to say Newt was the radical. He just opened a Pandora's Box when he tied his party to the religious zealots. I think it was a case of he understood that they were easy to lead and motivate to get out to vote, and very little understanding of the level of crazy that resided inside their churches.

[Husker_x]

I have honest discussions about facts with people all the time. But that's person to person, eye to eye contact. It even happens over the internet occasionally.

 

Unfortunately this doesn't extend to the media because the media––especially the cable news brand––is mostly comprised of echo chambers (though the comedians tend to do a better job than the pundits at balancing the books). I don't want to draw a false equivalence here: I think the left is far more prone to substantive criticism of Obama and other major figures like the Clintons than the right. The right also criticizes its own members, but usually their complaints simply reduce down to "X is not conservative enough, Y is really a liberal/appeaser/progressive/socialist/RINO," and most of the time they can't be bothered to explain further. But then the modern right is like something out of a Stephen King novel. To them compromise is like a curse word.

[tschu]

There's way too much money at stake for it to ever be an honest discussion - just like anything out in the real world, the drive for money and power influences or corrupts almost any system, even those with the best intentions. I had a super-in-depth post written out but discarded it because it was structured horribly, maybe I'll try again later

[Husker_x]

There's way too much money at stake for it to ever be an honest discussion - just like anything out in the real world, the drive for money and power influences or corrupts almost any system, even those with the best intentions. I had a super-in-depth post written out but discarded it because it was structured horribly, maybe I'll try again later

 

Please do. I'd like to read it.

[TGHusker]

There's way too much money at stake for it to ever be an honest discussion - just like anything out in the real world, the drive for money and power influences or corrupts almost any system, even those with the best intentions. I had a super-in-depth post written out but discarded it because it was structured horribly, maybe I'll try again later

Go for it!

[TGHusker]

I have honest discussions about facts with people all the time. But that's person to person, eye to eye contact. It even happens over the internet occasionally.

 

Unfortunately this doesn't extend to the media because the media––especially the cable news brand––is mostly comprised of echo chambers (though the comedians tend to do a better job than the pundits at balancing the books). I don't want to draw a false equivalence here: I think the left is far more prone to substantive criticism of Obama and other major figures like the Clintons than the right. The right also criticizes its own members, but usually their complaints simply reduce down to "X is not conservative enough, Y is really a liberal/appeaser/progressive/socialist/RINO," and most of the time they can't be bothered to explain further. But then the modern right is like something out of a Stephen King novel. To them compromise is like a curse word.

Could it be that the right suffers too much from being shot at more by the media - or the feelings of that. It is "us against the dems and their MSM" so they aren't as critical of each other. The far right, while they own Fox (which is becoming a bit more centered) has always contended that it is conservatives against the Big 3 networks, CNN, MSNBC, etc (even though Fox has by far the biggest cable rankings: )?

 

But then one could look at the 2012 primaries - it could be argued that the very substantive debate caused Romney to loose the election - the repubs went at each other's throats and Romney's team was one of the worse.

[LukeinNE]

I think part of this is that we just tend to remember the past more fondly than it actually was. Nastiness is always a big part of the deal. That being said....

 

We've become better at winning elections and worse at governing.

 

Politics has become both a game and a science. Everything, from the color of a necktie to the hairstyle to God, Guns, and Gays is poll-tested and focus grouped to death before anything happens. The result is a deluge of trite talking points that don't even scratch the surface of the issue at hand. Even presidential addresses have been dumbed down. Debates ask candidates to detail Social Security reform in 60 seconds and advertisements are rarely longer than that. We even have an expression for it: in politics, if you're explaining, you're losing.

 

The same science still applies once in office. What polls well? What do my client groups insist on if they're going to support my re-election? The result, all too often, is a series of policies that make little to no sense when taken as a whole.