"People are sick and tired of"

Forums: Politics, Media, Rhetoric
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The more I see pundits or politicians on TV (or in print), I seem to see the presence of a certain phrase in the form of:

"People are sick and tired of"
...
"the bickering"
"the fighting"
"the partisan politics"
etc

It seems like a pretty intuitive thing. Of course people should be tired of these things. These things are genuinely petty, and do little to address the issues that effect our lives. This is language that I can anticipate from anyone; it truly matters not what their political affiliation. The gist of this kind of statement (in my opinion) is to market/advertise a person or cause to be moderate, and with that the person uttering these words is to receive some sort of secondary positive brand of objectivity and reasonability. Again, these things are what people should be tired of.

I'm just not sure that they are.

I've been thinking about it. I don't think people actually are tired of these things. I think quite opposite: That people are happily addicted to trivial political contest, and like the pundits and politicians like the idea of being above such things. More marketing, but on a personal level. People like the idea of being a person who is into the idea of being politically transcendent.

Masturbation to political porn--We get off at the downfall of the other side, and like porn, some people claim to not like it. Also like porn, the producers of it know what we like (less of what we need) and supply to the demand. I think we've demanded highly sensationalist media, and it's exactly what we've got. We're bored with sober informative information.

new metaphor...

It seems then that if this is true, it casts a light on most news orgs less as information gatekeepers, but as variety show hosts. Politics are sport; entertainment. Look at how they are presented to us. I think we're in such a state of despair that we've let a very toxic cynicism sink into our psyche. We feel helpless to see change, so we stop looking for it. We opt for emotion, we crave outrage, and vindication. We speak in terms of winners and losers, but either way we seem to be talking about the politicians? This just seems odd to me.

Are we addicted to political conflict?
What do you do that enables the media politics as is?
What do you do that discourages?

A
R
T

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,689 • Replies: 10

No top replies

@failures art,

You are making an assumption that politics as you describe them here is a bad thing. What you are really complaining about is the democratic process.

I don't think it is possible to have any sort of democratic political system that doesn't have "bickering", "fighting" or "partisan politics". Strongly fighting for what you believe in, standing up against people you believe are wrong and stating your case as forcefully as possible are all key to the democratic process.

It seems that what you want is an autocratic system where some central power makes decisions and then everyone falls into line without "bickering".

Freedom is messy. Humans have different ideas and passions. Democracy is loud. We fight for votes and support and, we have the right to promote our ideas freely with the idea that the electorate (the people) will sort out which ideas or tactics will prevail.

I don't think that freedom in a democracy is a problem as messy and rough as it is often is. And, I much prefer it to the "solution".

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

huh?

Nothing about the democratic process demands posturing like we're above petty bickering. Freedom is messy. We agree. That said, we're not getting messy when we talk about the **** we often talk about. It seems we're very afraid of actually taking discussion close to the topics that effect us. We like the idea of it, but I think we prefer to make sport of our political process and then talk about how we hate the way things are run.

I'm not advocating autocracy.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

I dont equate politics with governing the country. The politicel parties have all but ruined government because they only worry about their reelection and not about the good of the country. If we want to repair government we need to outlaw politicel parties. It would also help if our press deseminated information rather than propaganda.

1 Reply

@failures art,

What are you advocating then, Art? You are complaining about what I see as the core of our freedoms and our system of governing.

Yes, as in any conflict, there are winners and losers. That's the way thing get done. If you want to win same sex marriage, there are people who need to be defeated. Women won the right to vote over the objections of people who were trampled by history. Ending segregation was bloody fight with a bitter vanquished foe, and of course slavery was ended in a real shooting war.

In politics every success is a defeat. There is nothing wrong with this, it is the way the world works. The good thing about democracy is that we fight with ideas and words and usually don't need to shoot at each other.

But we should never stop fighting because when fighting stops, progress stops.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Rabel,

Outlawing political parties is a horrible idea. There is no difference between a no party state and a one party state.

Political parties are banned in places like Libya.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

What are you advocating then, Art? You are complaining about what I see as the core of our freedoms and our system of governing.

I'm complaining about a the posturing that we're tired of partisan bickering. We obviously are not tired of this. We seem very addicted to this.

maxdancona wrote:

Yes, as in any conflict, there are winners and losers. That's the way thing get done. If you want to win same sex marriage, there are people who need to be defeated. Women won the right to vote over the objections of people who were trampled by history. Ending segregation was bloody fight with a bitter vanquished foe, and of course slavery was ended in a real shooting war.

Yes, and the winners and losers are the people, so why do we frame our language in terms of winning and losing with regards to our elected reps?

E.g. - A new law slashes funding to Title X. The media will say this is a loss for the Dems. It's actually a loss for the people who use services funded by Title X. The focus is put on the politicians and pundits, not the people who these things effect.

maxdancona wrote:

In politics every success is a defeat. There is nothing wrong with this, it is the way the world works. The good thing about democracy is that we fight with ideas and words and usually don't need to shoot at each other.

Yes, I agree, but you're missing my point. There's something to be said about fighting for progress. It's something else entirely to engage in political theater.

E.g. - To keep people safe on airplanes new technology is implemented for security screening. Lots of effort and money goes into the system, and then terror groups simple design around it. In the end, all we have is the illusion of security. Lots of fighting and no progress. Perhaps even more fighting because now civil liberties are being abused.

You can fight without progress. I think you know this. What I'm saying here is that politicians and pundits like to sell the idea that they are transcendent of partisan bickering. Partisan bickering is what people like but aren't socially supposed to.

maxdancona wrote:

But we should never stop fighting because when fighting stops, progress stops.

Sure, but this is not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about how we trivialize these problems by buying into politics-as-sport to avoid the actual fighting that produces real progress.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

I don't know what your problem is with politics being sport. After all politics was developed as an alternative to war and has many similarities with sport. Politics is a competition although the stakes are higher than normal sports. Politics, like sports, is about winning. Strategy and tactics are part of both politics and sport.

And I think you are really off base with your objection to political theater. Theater has long been at the center of successful and important political movements.

The civil rights movement is a prime example. Rosa Parks wasn't a random person who made a lucky mistake. She was an activist who planned her act of defiance because she knew it would play well with the broader public. And it was fantastically successful. Any demonstration, including the civil rights marches, are theater, they are designed a tell a story powerfully.

The gay marriage fight has been fought and is being won because of well orchestrated theater from parades, to published stories to actual portrayals of homosexuals as humans in TV and movies.

Womans suffrage was won by women who made sure they were jailed and then knew a hunger strike would get wonderful press.

This is how you win. I don't see any problem with enjoying it. And whether you like it or not you certainly agree that is better than shooting each other.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I don't know what your problem is with politics being sport. After all politics was developed as an alternative to war and has many similarities with sport. Politics is a competition although the stakes are higher than normal sports. Politics, like sports, is about winning. Strategy and tactics are part of both politics and sport.

High stakes indeed, but not for the pundits and politicians that play.

maxdancona wrote:

And I think you are really off base with your objection to political theater. Theater has long been at the center of successful and important political movements.

I suspect we are defining this term differently.

maxdancona wrote:

The civil rights movement is a prime example. Rosa Parks wasn't a random person who made a lucky mistake. She was an activist who planned her act of defiance because she knew it would play well with the broader public. And it was fantastically successful. Any demonstration, including the civil rights marches, are theater, they are designed a tell a story powerfully.

You're quite correct about Parks. We very much disagree that this qualifies as political theater.

maxdancona wrote:

The gay marriage fight has been fought and is being won because of well orchestrated theater from parades, to published stories to actual portrayals of homosexuals as humans in TV and movies.

Still, this is a far stride from people talking about partisan bickering. These things are happening away from the pundits and politicians. It's a good fight, but it's being fought by the people, not our Representatives. They are who I am taking issue with primarily, and less so secondarily: Our reaction to them. I've have loved to see a politician stick their neck out for causes like this, but it's really rare. We saw a precious few in NY, and thank goodness for that. Most of the time, however, a topic like equal rights for homosexuals is used as a wedge issue to a politician's gain (no matter which side), and then little action is really taken.

maxdancona wrote:

Womans suffrage was won by women who made sure they were jailed and then knew a hunger strike would get wonderful press.

Getting press, is not political theater. A politician showing up and making themselves look good by supporting them, then doing precious little for the cause is political theater.

maxdancona wrote:

This is how you win. I don't see any problem with enjoying it. And whether you like it or not you certainly agree that is better than shooting each other.

I don't agree these are our only options.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

You are complaining about the way things are, but you have failed to suggest a single specific thing that we could do to make things better.

Could you please advocate for something better? All you are doing is saying what you are sick and tired of without suggesting, in any specific way, what you would like in its place.

Our system is based on politicians and pundits. They always have been part of the battlefield and they are instrumental to the way it works. Successful political movements don't complain about reality, they figure out how to make it work to their advantage.

But I am very interested in the practical ways you would change our system (other than generalized complaining). If you want politicians to stop being politicians it is all fine and good. But, what structural steps would it take to get there, and what would we lose in the process?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are complaining about the way things are, but you have failed to suggest a single specific thing that we could do to make things better.

Being more active citizens is what I've been advocating. This **** only flies because we're complacent.

maxdancona wrote:

Could you please advocate for something better? All you are doing is saying what you are sick and tired of without suggesting, in any specific way, what you would like in its place.

You're having a very different conversation than I am. This is frustrating. I'm going to try again to explain what I'm annoyed with.

Politicians and pundits are actively avoiding the hard work it takes for progress by providing the illusion of effort. It's political theater. What annoys me is the posturing about being above petty bickering. Obviously we aren't. If we were more interested in progress we'd actually be holding our Representatives' feet to the fire. We settle for political sport and theater.

If Politician A speaks against topic X, and you want your Politician B to make progress on topic X, what is more likely:

A) Politician B actively puts in work on a bill for topic X
B) Politician B makes excuses for the lack of progress on topic X due to the interference of Politician A

Meanwhile, both will go on TV and talk about "petty bickering." People seem more caught up in the entertainment value of these topics.

maxdancona wrote:

Our system is based on politicians and pundits. They always have been part of the battlefield and they are instrumental to the way it works. Successful political movements don't complain about reality, they figure out how to make it work to their advantage.

This is a lazy argument. A the-way-it-is argument on how it works is far too dismissive about how things could work better. You're wrong about successful political movements. They are work by the successful communication about the reality of a situation.

Look at the current state of news media. It's all sensationalism. They are responding to what people want, not to what they need or to what "works" in the political process. They are private for-profit orgs, and they will put on the screen and page what sells. Politicians and pundits respond to this and follow suit. As long as we're entertained and stimulated with political conflict, they are off the hook for doing any of the hard and messy work that progress actually requires.

maxdancona wrote:

But I am very interested in the practical ways you would change our system (other than generalized complaining). If you want politicians to stop being politicians it is all fine and good. But, what structural steps would it take to get there, and what would we lose in the process?

I don't object to politicians and pundits existing, nor to them serving their own interests. But they must put their job first. We've allowed for them to have an excuse not to.

In practical terms, one problem is that you cannot dictate to the press what or how they cover a given topic, nor do I wish too. Addressing media standards is futile. Obviously some outlets do not share the same sensitivity to the idea of bias. My roommate works for the Washington Post, and he tell me that the management is very sensitive to criticism of bias. Meanwhile, can you imagine Fox News even giving a damn? I think in the most practical terms, the tools needed to address this are already present. To many, their only interaction with their Reps is through a one-way media filter. The best thing I can think of is putting your energy into your elected reps via direct phone campaigns and letters. I think I do see this, but I think it levels off or declines after a person gets their politician in office.

What do we lose? Nothing.

A
R
T

0 Replies

"People are sick and tired of"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know