Politics as usual.

I dunno. I think there are three main categories, with movement between them. (As in, someone might be in one category some of the time and another one the rest of the time.)

1.) Stress-relievers. They go to politics for the sport -- they want to get their licks in. They rarely-to-never admit fault. They purposely word things so as to get a rise out of their "opponents". They talk about "opponents" and "teams" a lot. They get really, really mad and often use big font and/ or exclamation points.

2.) Analysts. This group is more about what's going on and why it's going on, and the main interaction with group #1 is challenging problems in facts or logic. Someone who starts out in this group can be dragged over to the first group if they are successfully baited.

3.) Gawkers. These people are not regular politics participants and stop by when they're bored (ahem) or when there is some particularly noteworthy event that has a political component. They can fall in either of the above two groups, but usually are more hit and run (make a comment, don't stick around for the whole ensuing discussion.)

Note, people from all over the political spectrum are in all three groups.

Did you list those in order of perceived occurrences or just a random order as they came to mind?

Hmmm. It was random order -- I think the ratio of #1 to #2 changes. Probably obviously, I'm happier when there are more #2's around.

I was going to write something, but I see Sozobe already said it all better.

And in answer to your question to Soz, jp, I think its pretty much order of occurrence yeah...

Oh, and those in group 2) can switch to 1) (sans big fonts and unwillingness to admit fault) not just when they're baited but also when they're bored and/or here to procrastinate rather than learn ...

<whistles, looks at wall>

Actually, thats more like an in-between category. You're not here to specifically get a rise out of someone or even particularly provoke anybody, but not really to do some serious analysis and learning either - you're just whiling the time away, like standing on a street corner chatting with whoever happens to come along.

Thats the category I switch back and forth to from 2). I actually purposefully try to do more of that and less of 2), because I can relatively easily stop it and do something else (get back to work, go home), whereas doing 2) I get all bitten into it and find myself back feeling depleted two hours later.

OK, so that happens anyway. Procrastination's an ugly thing...

Ok, so the 1's are here for sport, but even the 2's are pretty much in-line with the party and what everybody else is saying. It seems that they would be more capable of being flexible in their discussions and open to other points of view, but it still almost always deteriorates over time with very hard lines drawn in the sand.

Is this just due to very firmly held but opposing beliefs or is it more of a huhman condition of not wanting to admit that the other side might have a point?

Most of the true #2's I have in mind (nimh would be a shining example) DO often admit that someone who is typically "on the other side" (though, again, I think the whole "side" business is more of a #1 thing) has a point... when they do.

I dont know that thats true, beyond where there are simply "very firmly held but opposing beliefs" at stake.

I mean, it certainly seems to have something to do with how very polarised American political views are - how far they are apart from each other, respectively from the beliefs held elsewhere. It strikes me, in any case, that discussions on EU, British or German politics, events in Eastern Europe or Latin America, rarely ever suffer from the patterns you describe. When not just amiably chatting, the 2)s pretty much stay 2)-ish in those threads.

Thats mostly, I'm sure, because the 1)s rarely show up there (without a fray to join). But also because there is probably simply a greater degree of consensus, of common ground. Whereas regarding American politics, it's just hard to not fall back into blanket rejection when you're faced with people whose views are just totally anathethingical to you.

Mind you, the consensus / common ground I mention on non-American politics derives largely from the Western bias in the subscriber base. Its the same common ground you often find among those reasoned delegates of OSCE, Council of Europe, OSCE, etc. If you'd add enough Russians and Balts, Serbs and Croats, or a dose of communists and nationalists from various Eastern and Southern countries, the politely consensual tone would be gone quickly enough on those threads too.

<also takes a moment to recognize the irony in arguing against them-vs-us thinking by categorising posters into 1)s and 2)s>

Heh!

I hope I fall more into group 2, but others can be the judge of that.

I think a lot of the back and forth is due to strongly held beliefs, but there is also a strong sense of being "wronged" and wanting to make it right, whether it's misquotes or new info that wipes out original reporting and wanting to set the record straight. The obvious start of that would be the 2000 election. From there, IMO, it's been downhill.

For me it's also total disgust with the realization that politics is so... political. I have a difficult time accepting that people aren't able to comprehend when they are taking a detrimental party line stand rather than what is in the best interest of them personally, their country or the world.

Could you expand on this satement.




Well the obvious answer is that there are differing beliefs as to what exactly is best for the country. An example that comes to mind is the current state of wellfare. Some think it is ruining the country by creating dependency and enititlement attitudes while others think we aren't nearly giving enough. Illegal aliens is another example. Some feel they are ruining the country by sucking up tax dollars that could and should be spent on actual citezens and causing crimes while others feel they have just as much a right to be here as you or I and actually contributte to the economy. Which is right?

That's a very familiar sentiment. I do this to if I'm not in the mood to follow through or if I just don't have time.

In your opinion what causes American politics to be so polarized? Also, there seems to be less and less agreement and compromise between the two parties which makes me think it really has become an us against them attitude. Could it possibily just be opposing views or as it become more of a "we can't let them win" frame of mind? It always amazes me how often the same people hold the same exact views on every single topic. You would think that once in awhile there would at least be some difference of opinion within groups.

other than the obvious interest in the country heading in the direction that i believe is best, i just have a fascination with how things and people work.

i find that, unlike my days in school, i really like to exercise my mind. since i have a lifelong interest in politics, that's where i take most of my walks.

unlike music, where i tend to focus mainly on the professional aspects, politics is something where anyone can form an interesting pov without years of training.

but again, like music, it's interesting to see how people get labeled, label themselves or pick a label cause they think it's cool and become that. at least for a while.

so really, for me, while i know that it's highly unlikely that i'm going to change anyone's mind in a big way, the jousting provides an opportunity to challenge myself as well as others in a philosophical way.

I'd put myself at a 3.) It's not because I don't have strong opinions, I'm probably as opinated as any of the regular 1s and 2s but I don't like to argue. I like to read other people's opinions and I'll come in when I have a point to make, or ask a question like I did the other night on the Bush thread, and then fall back onto the sidelines when things start to get nasty. I don't like nasty.

Phew, thats a thread of its own!

Some systemic reasons.

Having a two-party system that automatically conditions people to express allegiance to one party, the other, or none, leaves little experience with a multipolar world view.

The two parties' eternal quest for the defeat of the other (there's no other way to power but through the defeat of 'the other side', coalition government and its requirement of compromises doesn't exist) necessitates both sides to every four years close ranks, sideline dissent.

In a country as big as America, in politics as money-suffused as America's, victory can no longer be reached just through grassroots activism and quality platforms. You need a well-oiled, centralised, controlled machine of a party campaign. Critical reflection and intra-party discussion then become dangerous kinks in the machine, and have to be whipped into submission and conformation.

Not just is there a two-party system, there's a very powerful executive. The President is elected on personal title, and then gets to choose his administration team. Lot more leeway than in Europe. That means less deadlock and stagnation, but also more radical, personalised agendas. The Reagan revolution. Bush's militant conservatism. Britain's two-party system has a modicum of it too: there was nothing as radical as Thatcherism on the continent.

All in all, there is less need and fewer rewards for cautious compromise, more of a bonus for messianism. Reagan and Roosevelt, who made a strong personal, ideological stamp on the country, are held in high esteem, compromisers like Ford and Clinton are popular or impopular, but rarely considered great presidents.

Dunno, lots like that comes to mind.


Definitely seems to have gotten worse. From my vantage point, I blame GWB and those around him for much of it. I wish I could approach your question in a more impartisan way, but I simply believe that both style and ideology of the Bush Jr administrations are key to the development you sketch.

He has consistently framed his Presidency in the language of 'for us or against us', us against them. As a battle for America. His administration has been exceptionally unkind to dissidents from within, who were reviled and smeared as well as swiftly fired. He has shown little taste or skill in engaging in public debate or dialogue, giving few and unprecedently orchestrated press conferences, and avoided unscripted encounters with the public. He never admits mistakes. Its "you do it my way or we'll get you" all the way.


Hear, hear. Thats the thing that baffles me most.

Again, I partly blame the two-party system. In my country, a Green like me spends as much time defining and arguing his views vis-a-vis the Labour and Socialist parties, setting markers of difference between the various leftwing strands, as versus the right-wing parties. In America, there is little practical need and no strategic premium on discovering and articulating differences of opinion within one's 'own' half of the spectrum.

But continuing on the point about the Bush administration above, what also plays a role is the fragmentation of public space by ideological lines, when it comes to news and debate.

People used to all watch more or less the same news, and then, discussing it in the pub, relate their own respective opinions to a common frame of reference. Now, people have much more retreated into their respective echo chambers of opinion making.

Part of that is the consequence of having more freedom of choice. Ten news stations instead of two, with a hundred further ones at your fingertips on the net. That can be an enriching experience; no more paternalistic preformatting of the news we all get by a narrow cabal of authoratative anchors and journalists.

But it also allows partisans to filter their news intake closely according to ideological news. Hear only what they want to hear, find confirmation of their views and prejudices again and again. Handpick channels of information that are guaranteed to tell you what everybody else in your camp hears, and nothing else. A kind of Big-Brother by popular demand.

A particularly strong (and IMO, pernicious) effect has been had by the targeted discrediting of mainstream journalism. A real or perceived bias in the standard news media has triggered (or been used to create) a parallel, conservative news space. The problem here IMO is not, per se, that there is a news station with a far-right slant alongside to one with a [mainstream/liberal] slant. It's that those who rail against the "MSM" have targeted the notion of there being a mainstream journalism as well as the mainstream media themselves.

It's not just the NYT or the WaPo that was "exposed", but the entire concept of there being a kind of 'straight' news reporting, focused on narrating the basic facts and events of a story. All of that so-called straight news, say the conservative critics, all has a bias too, so whats the difference - and on Fox, the Washington Times or talk radio proceed to mix up opinions, facts, ideological fervour and news reporting in a kind of propagandistic brew.

On the left, Michael Moore does exactly the same thing - but he doesnt own a nationwide TV-station; all he's lobbed us is a rabble-rousing film or two. Which is bad enough and certainly had the same effect, just on a smaller scale.

BBB
bm