party-driven thinking

[Guest wrestlingbs]

During my breaks at work I like to sit back and look at the Forum section of my local newspaper to see what people think. However, I've noticed a disturbing trend in the letters sent in. You see, the town's college where I live is very liberal-minded. There were Bush protests there all throughout the spring. The surrounding area, however, is very conservative. Lot of pro-war supporters.

 

So it makes since that there would be a lot of conflicting opinions in the Forum. But that's not what scares me. What scares me is that both sides seem to use the same justification for their points: we're right because we're liberal/conservative, and you're wrong because you're conservative/liberal. Their is little discussion is key issues. No weighing in of other side (yeah, I wasn't expecting that, but I thought at least one person would do that). It's just mind-numbing partisian bickering at it's worst. And it's not just confined to my newspaper. The net, the news, even people I work with, it's everywhere. If you disagree you're either a "cowardy hippie liberal" or a "close-minded conservative hick."

 

It isn't about doing right or wrong anymore. I hate Bush and think a lot of his backers support him simply because he's Republican, no matter whether what he's done is right or not. However, I also see a number of Democrats cling to Kerry just because, you guessed it, he's a democrat. Does Kerry have any strong points on reforming the government? No, but he's not Bush! The only alternative is Nader, but I want to stay the hell away from that guy.

 

So is their any solution? Is their any end to the partisian mentality?

[Dr. Tom 0]

Not really, no.

 

People identify themselves as a member of a particular party, and they'll defend -- sometimes to ridiculous lengths -- the deeds and misdeeds of that party. I know a few people on both sides who can criticize their own party and its most public figures, but most people just toe the party line because it's the party line.

 

Registered independents can be an interesting bunch. Some identify strongly with smaller parties, like the Libertarian or Green Parties, and will defend those parties' actions as staunchly as advocates of the Big Two will defend theirs. The problem is that party and political affiliation become part of many people's identities, and they're unable to take a step back and look at things objectively.

 

Personally speaking, I'm a registered independent, a small-L libertarian, and someone who would have a hard time voting for a Democrat if there were no Republicans in a particular race. Still, I've criticized the GOP and conservative thinkers many times on many issues, and I'm sure I'll continue to do so. For example, I absolutely refuse to vote for PResident Bush this November, for several reasons, despite the fact that I'm a supporter of his.

[NoCalMike 0]

Personally, I have given up on political parties, including 3rd parties. I think I am a registered democrat, but like I said before, that is only because it was the closest registration table in the mall when I was 18.

 

If you swear allegience to a political party then you turn into someone like Rush Limbaugh, rather then Michael Savage, who at least will lambaste bush rather then keep hush because he doesn't want to "hurt the base" or "rock the boat"

 

Ann Coulter is another classic charatcer, on Bill O'Reily she claimed the war was going, "fantastically well" and O'Reily tried to get her to name ONE THING not positive about the war, and she claimed there was nothing negative about it whatsoever.

 

Of course democrats and leftists also have the same loyalty issues, like the Al Franken's and Garaffalo's who will bend and compromise certain beliefs about democrats in the name of ousting bush.

 

I don't respect people who are more concerned about a candidate winning the presidency, then actually expressing their honest opinion.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Actually, politics is more about issues than parties. The problem is that the parties have adopted issues and gotten so riled up about them that they're currently going hand in hand.

 

There's plenty of people who's opinon varies from issue to issue. However, a blurb in the local mailbag section of your newspaper is often too condensed to present a fair view of someone's entire beliefs.

[iggymcfly 0]

I'm certainly sick of the mentality that you have to be loyal to one of the two parties, because they'll be just slightly more to your views than the other parties. The way I see it right now, the Democrats are trying to turn the country into a socialist state by raising taxes to astronomical heights until everyone in the country is guaranteed a perfect life.

 

The Republicans, meanwhile cut taxes, but instead of cutting spending to compensate for it, they just leave it at the same level, and mortgage the future by building up the deficit higher and higher.

 

The thing is, that the two major parties have stopped trying to affect change, and have simply started adopting all the platforms of the other party that would help gain the voters in they very center, while they feel confident in theit core support. The mentality that being electable should be the prime concern over any doctrinal issues is what's causing all the problems in the country, and letting the government become way too powerful.

 

In the upcoming presidential election, I'm voting for Michael Badnarik, (the Libertarian candidate), because even if the Libertarians never win a major office like that, if they get enough votes, they might at least make the major parties have to stretch themselves out a little bit, so that they're not carbon copies of each other.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

So people side with certain public figures because they are of the same party?

 

GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!!!!!

 

Holy shit -- voting for someone because they have a "D" or "R" by their name. Why, you may have stumbled on a voting trend that has been previously undiscovered.

 

Imagine that, people voting for Bush because he's a conservative/Kerry because he's a liberal. This line of thinking has shattered my previous theory that people go into a voting booth and carefully examine each candidate's issues before pulling that lever.

 

Oh, by the way, where do you go to school (I would say "getting educated" instead of "going to school" but you're in college)? Sounds exactly like Sappy Valley...

[Firestarter 0]

re: thread title/subtitle

 

Shut the fuck up, you flaming liberal twit.

 

JMA "banished" himself from the folder in a hysterical weepy pity-party typical of that whining nancy-boy some time ago, and a replacement is neither necessary nor welcome.

 

re: the rest of it (I'd say "content" but that would put me over my RDA for irony)

 

See KKK's post above this. Also see the past 200 years of our history. If you're astonished by the existence of "partisan politics," you're a clinical idiot. If you think the volume or "nastiness" is "unprecedented" or remarkable in any way, you're either a journalist or an obscenely ignorant naif (not that there's much difference). If you think this can be changed, you're wrong. If you think it should be changed, or that politics or the nation in general would be better off if it were, you're even more wrong. And finally, if you think it was any different at any time in the past, rub your two brain cells together and see if you can start a fire. Pretty much the only way any light will get into your skull.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Yeah, the partisanship is completely overrated. It's bad, but there's been worse.

 

Just look at the Adams/Jefferson administration and the years surrounding it. Politics were extremely dirty around then or look at Andrew Jackson for someone that was an actual tyrannt. The current stuff is nowhere near the level of the Federalists and the DR in the early days of the country. They actually tried to deny Ohio's statehood at one point because it was going to mean the DR was going to dominate the state.

[Guest thebigjig]

Yeah, the partisanship is completely overrated. It's bad, but there's been worse.

 

Just look at the Adams/Jefferson administration and the years surrounding it. Politics were extremely dirty around then or look at Andrew Jackson for someone that was an actual tyrannt. The current stuff is nowhere near the level of the Federalists and the DR in the early days of the country. They actually tried to deny Ohio's statehood at one point because it was going to mean the DR was going to dominate the state.

Well obviously the partisanship of today doesn't match up with the partisanship of the country when it was new... no offense, but... duh

 

Most will agree however that the climate of today is the ugliest in modern history

[Guest wrestlingbs]

re: thread title/subtitle

 

Shut the fuck up, you flaming liberal twit.

 

JMA "banished" himself from the folder in a hysterical weepy pity-party typical of that whining nancy-boy some time ago, and a replacement is neither necessary nor welcome.

 

re: the rest of it (I'd say "content" but that would put me over my RDA for irony)

 

See KKK's post above this. Also see the past 200 years of our history. If you're astonished by the existence of "partisan politics," you're a clinical idiot. If you think the volume or "nastiness" is "unprecedented" or remarkable in any way, you're either a journalist or an obscenely ignorant naif (not that there's much difference). If you think this can be changed, you're wrong. If you think it should be changed, or that politics or the nation in general would be better off if it were, you're even more wrong. And finally, if you think it was any different at any time in the past, rub your two brain cells together and see if you can start a fire. Pretty much the only way any light will get into your skull.

That's why I love the internet. It can be a bastion of knowledge and public discussion, but more often than not it's a place for people to insult each other and download porn (although I don't mind the latter).

 

Listen, I know partisian politics has been going on since the beginning of America. I'm not saying it hasn't. In fact, you're right Mad Dog, back during the time of Adams and Jefferson it was much worse. I'm just saying that I've become sickened by this current "you're either with us or against us" mentality that's infected both parties. If you think partisian politics isn't that big of a problem, fine, but don't act like a dick and write shit just to get a reaction.

 

Anyway, getting back on topic, yeah I see your point iggy. But i just have a hard time thinking that voting of a third party will change anything.

[Firestarter 0]

I'm just saying that I've become sickened by this current "you're either with us or against us" mentality that's infected both parties

Poor baby.

 

If you think partisian politics isn't that big of a problem, fine, but don't act like a dick and write shit just to get a reaction

It isn't, I'm nothing of the sort, and I didn't. Cheers.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Yeah, the partisanship is completely overrated.  It's bad, but there's been worse.

 

Just look at the Adams/Jefferson administration and the years surrounding it.  Politics were extremely dirty around then or look at Andrew Jackson for someone that was an actual tyrannt.  The current stuff is nowhere near the level of the Federalists and the DR in the early days of the country.  They actually tried to deny Ohio's statehood at one point because it was going to mean the DR was going to dominate the state.

Well obviously the partisanship of today doesn't match up with the partisanship of the country when it was new... no offense, but... duh

 

Most will agree however that the climate of today is the ugliest in modern history

Actually you'd be surprised by the amount of people that thought early U.S. politics were just some giant tea-party with little to no bickering. I think it's more the oversaturation by the media and the constant trying to make a mountain out of a molehill that makes it seem so severe.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

That's why I love the internet. It can be a bastion of knowledge and public discussion, but more often than not it's a place for people to insult each other and download porn (although I don't mind the latter).

People insult each other on the Internet? Where?

 

Listen, I know partisian politics has been going on since the beginning of America. I'm not saying it hasn't...

 

It has ALWAYS been this way, so what you mean is that you hate America's political system. Only thing you can do otherwise is have a dictatorship.

 

Anyway, getting back on topic, yeah I see your point iggy. But i just have a hard time thinking that voting of a third party will change anything.

 

The more people that vote for a third-party, the greater chance it has to get federal money and spread its message -- that's what any alternative party has to do. Sure the candidate you hate the most might win the current election, but that's what you have to do if you belive in a Perot/Nader/etc. that much.

 

And you never answered my question -- where do you live?...

[TheBigSwigg 0]

The only thing that pisses me off is that politicians will bend their views to better fit the parties. The most obvious to me is Al Gore. When he was a Senator from Tennessee he was pro-life, and publicly stated his position on several positions. he then flopped on his position so he could become Vice President. That's shitty. I know it happens, I know it's always happened, and I know it always will, it's just shitty.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

If you think the volume or "nastiness" is "unprecedented" or remarkable in any way, you're either a journalist or an obscenely ignorant naif (not that there's much difference).

Woah, woah, woah.

 

I'll be a journalist in a few years, and I think the nastiness is very precedented.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Hahahahahahaha...

 

Kudos, Marney. Well put flame.

 

RE: the topic

--------------

 

 

What, are we suggesting that both sides of the spectrum should work together to come up with viewpoints that are somewhere inbetween their two perspectives? Doesn't that sound great?

 

Fuck no.

 

The entire point of democracy is to have the voters choose between two distinctly different viewpoints. You mean people who don't agree with each other in principle... fight about it? Could it, perhaps, be their JOB TO DO JUST THAT?!?!!

 

GET OUT OF TOWN!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And finally, if you think it was any different at any time in the past, rub your two brain cells together and see if you can start a fire. Pretty much the only way any light will get into your skull.

Not exactly true. How did the Democrats and Republicans slowly switch places in the 60s? Because they weren't trying to adopt issues and defend them at all costs like it's their mother.

 

Ben Stein's a pretty intelligent guy, but on that one Hardball where he started going on about how he believes a Republican isn't really a Republican unless they're anti-abortion, it made me kind of sad, because we've finally reached such a point.

 

So yeah, partisan politics have been going on for a long time, but cookie-cutter partisan thinking is rather new in the long run.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Hahahahahahaha...

 

Kudos, Marney. Well put flame.

 

RE: the topic

--------------

 

 

What, are we suggesting that both sides of the spectrum should work together to come up with viewpoints that are somewhere inbetween their two perspectives? Doesn't that sound great?

 

Fuck no.

 

The entire point of democracy is to have the voters choose between two distinctly different viewpoints. You mean people who don't agree with each other in principle... fight about it? Could it, perhaps, be their JOB TO DO JUST THAT?!?!!

 

GET OUT OF TOWN!

I think you just illustrated my biggest beef with modern politics (in the US, at least): this false dilemma that democracy is about picking between two different viewpoints, or else you have a dictatorship. It's possible to have a lot more than just two parties, each with differing viewpoints on enough issues to make them all fundamentally distinct from one another.

[Guest MikeSC]

re: thread title/subtitle

 

Shut the fuck up, you flaming liberal twit.

 

JMA "banished" himself from the folder in a hysterical weepy pity-party typical of that whining nancy-boy some time ago, and a replacement is neither necessary nor welcome.

 

re: the rest of it (I'd say "content" but that would put me over my RDA for irony)

 

See KKK's post above this. Also see the past 200 years of our history. If you're astonished by the existence of "partisan politics," you're a clinical idiot. If you think the volume or "nastiness" is "unprecedented" or remarkable in any way, you're either a journalist or an obscenely ignorant naif (not that there's much difference). If you think this can be changed, you're wrong. If you think it should be changed, or that politics or the nation in general would be better off if it were, you're even more wrong. And finally, if you think it was any different at any time in the past, rub your two brain cells together and see if you can start a fire. Pretty much the only way any light will get into your skull.

Heck, I'd KILL for them to see papers in the early 19th Century. They flat-out SLANDERED political figures who they didn't like.

 

Today? We're pussycats.

Well obviously the partisanship of today doesn't match up with the partisanship of the country when it was new... no offense, but... duh

 

Most will agree however that the climate of today is the ugliest in modern history

Most have no concept of history and brutally short memories. Reagan wasn't exactly treated nicely. Nixon wasn't. JFK wasn't. Today's discourse is NOTHING.]

 

You know why there's acrimony in politics? BECAUSE THEY ARE DISCUSSING IMPORTANT THINGS. Important things WARRANT a level of passion in discourse about them.

Listen, I know partisian politics has been going on since the beginning of America. I'm not saying it hasn't. In fact, you're right Mad Dog, back during the time of Adams and Jefferson it was much worse. I'm just saying that I've become sickened by this current "you're either with us or against us" mentality that's infected both parties.

Good for you. I hate having these bone spurs in my elbow. Doesn't change that they're there. I hate the heat here. Doesn't mean it won't be hot tomorrow.

 

I suppose if we decide to do away with that pesky 1st Amendment thing, we could make discourse much nicer. I mean, yeah, people would die in the process --- but you know, the USSR didn't have many ugly political discussions.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I think for me personally, it pisses me off more that people are labled by a party affiliation before they even get to speak of have their ideas/opinions listened to. Like if a Libertarian wanted to speak on the economy or something, a critic would just jump in with a "oooh wait don't listen to him, he wants to legalize drugs" blast, just to try and use an opinion on an entirely different subject in order to discredit every single one of his other views.

 

I would say a fair share of good things in life that we have been afforded, have come from people thinking "outside the box"(bleh, not that quirky phrase again), however more often then not, when first suggested, said ideas may sound whacky, or "way out there" and discredited, only to be revisted at a later time.