This approach to selling politics pretty much sums up why I despise the current iteration of electoral politics, in a nutshell:
I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face...Did I just read that? Yeah, I guess I did. Thing is, you get in my grill and start arguing with me - not discussing your thoughts on issues and at least pretending to give me an opportunity to state my case, but arguing and getting in my face - my patience will be sorely tested and I don't think you'd like me much when I lose patience. I don't care if you're to the right or the left of the guy linked above; I'm not making a point about his policy positions, just about that screaming and infantile Olberman/Coulter style of politics. It's sad because I have accomplished, brilliant friends who I'm not going to be able to talk to between now and election time because they take that kind of advice to heart. God forbid their side loses the election - they'll need a six month cooling off period after that before I can deal with their baggage. This includes people who agree with me, by the way, as well as friends with whom I have profound differences. Being around them is just intolerable because they either need to be proselytizing for their cause, or getting reinforcement for their beliefs by preaching to a rapt choir. I'm considering giving up ever even discussing politics - people tend to ask "what do you think" which apparently is actually an opening for "whatever you say." In the past, up until quite recently, I've always taken the words at face value. All responses other than "I'm on the same sheet of music as you" are apparently interpreted as, "get in my face and argue with me."
You see this a bit in the bike community, when commentary about Freds or commuters or tri geeks or carbon v. steel goes past a little chiding, and evolves into scorn. It's got to be tough to live your life going around hating on everybody; I don't know how you can actually be content with anything. There's always somebody different to go hate on, to get into their face. Maybe it's just because I'm getting old, but I'm more critical about the details of different approaches, but less willing to treat differences in approach as grounds for having a big fight or personal condemnation; able to poke fun (including at myself) but not take it to personally. A lot of people seem to start from the point of personal affront, however, and then work their arguments out from there.
I'm making a point about manners and civility and lifestyle here; I don't want to be around anybody who thinks it's appropriate to get in my face in an attempt to force me to believe or act differently. You really feel strongly about it, discuss it rationally and we'll take a vote. Or produce a better bike to your way of thinking, and see if we'll buy it.
Used to be, this was a free country.
15 comments:
Yes, the louder you are, the more right you are. When are the ignorant ever going to figure that out?
As far as getting old makes you less tolerant, but less willing to fight about it, I agree. I just let it go in one ear and out the other. I won't let it sink in. Me thinks that hatred is what makes one older, not the calender. Good, thought provoking post today. Thanks.
Keep in mind this was said at a Rally, which is where Howard Dean let out his famed scream that ultimately tanked his campaign.
Anything said at a rally is bound to have more bite, to be sharper and more aggressive. Take it with a grain of salt.
...and don't even get me started on the door-to-door campaign volunteers who seem to be showing up at my dinner hour on what seems like a weekly basis these days. For some reason, I'm not sure why I should spend time listening to a jobless, spouseless, childless, mortgage-less youth telling me what's the right thing for me to do through a series of platitudes. If my dogs were a little more fierce, I would yell "Release the Hounds!"
I just want it to end already but it never does. One thing I have noticed is that when I'm on a ride, if I start thinking about all of it (Politics) from every angle I can think of, the miles and hours disappear. What a pathetic waste of beautiful countryside I just missed.
I couldn't believe it when I heard that either; no matter what your side that is no way to convince anyone. Sounds more like playground bullying then campaigning. That said, I think I agree with crispy, it's all relative to the context it came in. It was said to fire people up about the campaign and about spreading the message not to cause street fights.
Kevin, it's Community Organizing 101.
Crispy, I agree with your fundamental point that context is relevant...though no one seemed to pay attention to that point when Reagan made his "evil empire" speech to an evangelical group.
I think local and state politics are a lot more important. Placing undue importance on something - national issues for instance - only encourages people to fight really hard over it, you seem to wind up in a rhetorical battle of the Somme, where both sides are pouring in troops and money over ever smaller pieces of ground, convinced it's important mainly because the other side seems to think it's important ground. Every so often Pew does attitude polling and finds that on 80% or more of national issues, Americans are fundamentally in agreement. That means we spend 100% of the time arguing about the last 20%. It's like workplace politics - it's only so vicious because the stakes are so small. Ultimately the only thing it seems to do is build a grandiose vision of what the FedGov actuallly is - the generals are encouraged to think a 10 foot ridgeline on the Somme is much more important than it is. Consequently, it sucks up enormous resources, for reasons nobody can really articulate - but for which they are still willing to fight.
There are a lot of weird things in nature but human social behavior may be one of the oddest.
Crispy,
Rally's are what turn into mobs when you have a leader who is willing to take the low road.
Our world is fragile right now and I do agree that more people need to stand up and let their voice be heard but but the tough guy "get in your face approach" isn't going to help.
If enough good people do nothing than the bad people win.
It's time to stand up and be heard and support our freedoms.
Militant dogmatism and partisanship are what gets me. Jim you have it spot on with the Olberman/Coulter thing - when every choir in the country has a tv channel to preach exactly what each choir wants to hear, reason and the rational exchange of ideas pretty much take the express train out of town. That, plus all the red herring crap about tertiary (at best) wedge issues that divide and obfuscate.
I've always considered myself fortunate that when I get into the Abe Simpson stage of life, I will be able to take out my teeth and rant to the great grandkids about how the world was back in the aughts. It is the fortunate generation that gets to use that phrase in old age.
Jim,
You're right about our seemingly odd focus on the 20% (though I would argue that's always been what the system's been designed to produce and it's not such a bad thing). You want to debate fundamental philosophical choices? Try Italy's system, or perhaps that of modern day Ukraine, for stability.
But that begs the question of why our debate over the small sliver is so intense. The answer is simple: it's a fight over the pot of money. Like the filthy peasant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I used to (and still) think that the CLS scholars were FOS in trying to explain all law and politics by reference to class and social warfare, BUT there's a kernel of truth in their thought that law and politics have become little more than a fight about money. Ideas have largely become stalking horses in that fight (case in point: the abortion debate, where comparatively little actually happens from a legislative perspective, but it gets trotted out every four years by both parties). What surprising, particularly when you get outside of the beltway, is how few people actually realize that.
Anon, 12:53, you write a lot, but say nothing. You also misuse "begs the question". Telling people to try the government of Italy or the Ukraine begs the question of "Can you actually just try the government of another nation?" It may bring up the topic that you rambled incoherently on, but it does not beg the question.
As for me- Best. Election. Ever. I think this is great political drama. It's like The West Wing, but real life. I think there are fundamental questions at play here, about how to run the country, and how to manage the USA's place in the world. Some stuff that matters, but mostly doesn't. You can't claim it is not exciting. Palin has injected comedy and drama into this election like no one could have imagined. MCain is picking up moderates as conservatives leave in droves. Obama isn't exciting his base, and is losing white women. Great stuff.
The getting in your face thing is a personality defect. The guy who will do that tailgates, cuts in line and talks loudly on his cell phone in restaurants.
Hah, I just read the article. The "arguing" Obama was talking about is his way of combating untruths about his views. I am constantly surprised at what people are willing to believe. Two weeks ago, a guy told me his problem with Obama was that he was sworn in on the Koran. Who believes that? If peopel understand McCains ideas, and understand Obama's ideas then we can have a reasonable election. If people believe that McCain cut education funding, or that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class, it's all a sham.
SD, the more general "another nation" doesn't quite illustrate the point, because some have actually been quite stable notwithstanding multiple parties and a broad and vigorous debate over big philosophical choices as to fundamental government direction. The simple point is that unlike them, we're designed for the middle. Most extreme politicos forget that and always think that a given election is the most interesting/important in history, and that the most recent election result portends the imminent and permanent destruction of the opposition and its ideology, which of course is ludicrous as long as there remains a pot of money sitting between them to fight over.
As to this election, I think "It's like The West Wing, but real life" just about says it all. Yes, the similarity to television definitely shows that the reality is about the big ideas. As for political drama, I'm personally having a pretty hard time seeing how this tops 2000 [how soon we forget], or for that matter, 1800 [faithless electors] or 1860 [that one set off a bit of unpleasantness now, didn't it]...maybe even 1948 ["Dewey Beats Truman"] and 1960 [the Trickster sweating bullets as we enter the tv age]).
BTW, if we're venturing into the topic of editing, I believe the word is spelled "people."
Anon, I wasn't editing, I was just pointing out that you were misusing "begs the question". It's a pretty common mistake, like using literally to mean figuratively. It just shows a misunderstanding of the language.
Post a Comment