Why do political people seem to demonize the opposition rather than discuss issu

1. 41

   ChristinSposted 12 years ago

   Why do political people seem to demonize the opposition rather than discuss issues?
   
   I see this on both the right and the left and it drives me batty.  Why do conservatives like to use "liberal" as a dirty word rather than debate issues on merit? It's easier to whine about liberal this or liberal that or we have to fear liberalism.
   
   It happens the other way too - people accuse conservatives of being "stupid", "ignorant", backwards and mean-spirited regularly. I don't like that either. It's not productive.
   
   How are we ever going to resolve problems with this mentality? Why cant' we disagree without attacking whole groups of people? There's bad apples in every crate!

   replyreport
2. 81

   dailytop10posted 12 years ago

   That's politics. This has been our country's problem for decades and I've come to a realization that solving it is close to impossible. As I see it, the problem is rooted at selfishness. Majority of people in office are only aiming for more power and won't give up their position at any cost. This greed is manifested by their actions to pull down opposition and use most of their time in the process, disregarding the issues that matter most. Our country already witnessed two presidential impeachment trials and knowing they spent millions just to make these unproductive events possible angers me most. Honestly, my optimism for government reform has dried out through the years.

   replyreport
   1. 41

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree the impeachment of Clinton was a joke.  All that time and energy wasted that could have been used doing something constructive and it had to be about demonizing Clinton, kind of like the birther movement with Obama demonize instead of talk.

      replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

   I believe it's often the simple fact that no one does enough of thier homework on the issues of contention .  Our two party system only allows for  "one or the other"  snyndrone  in politics and we as a people take that one step further !  Wisdom is not  a given with age , experience or political affiliation . Wi sdom only comes to a few ! This new country ,this "great experiment ", America ; has a long way to go  in wisening up , I fear !

   replyreport
   1. 41

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I totally agree - people also seem to turn any conversation political I've noticed when they just WANT to argue - you can say the sky is blue - and they'll find some political rant or diatribe against blue skies lol - it's pitiful.

      replyreport
4. 0

   Old Empresarioposted 12 years ago

   Because it's all just dramatic theatre for the press; who don't question it and simply present it to us. The difference between a hack politician and a hack Hollywood actor is that politicians are ugly, while actors are good looking.

   replyreport
   1. 41

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Very true

      replyreport
5. 75

   chef-de-jourposted 12 years ago

   I fully understand your frustration and annoyance! Political speak nowadays is often petty, shallow and full of spin and blame -  but don't forget that most democracies are built on the idea of pure opposition and counter argument and this principle to me seems a sound one.
   I know the name calling is a bit stupid at times but I think you've probably picked up on a particular issue which politicians feel passionate about and it's this that has put you off! I don't blame you. It's not very intelligent on their behalf and is a sad reflection of the political process. In an ideal world I'd get rid of the whole lot of them and start again with decent minded, roundly educated politicians but at the moment we're stuck with those we the people elected!!!
   It could be worse.
   Imagine a world full of right wing conservatives without the balance of the left wing to argue and question motives and issues. Democracy would collapse and we'd end up with a pseudo-regime run by little despots and bureaucrats. In my mind, it's better to have democratically elected politicians shouting at each other rather than one person or a few pulling the strings and wielding all the power.
   
   In the UK I sometimes watch the 'mother of parliaments' in session on TV and,yes, from time to time slanging matches and name calling occurs but in the end common sense prevails and issues are worked out. We have a coalition government at present (Conservatives plus Liberals)- rare for the UK - so it does show that these people can work together when the going gets tough. They still don't like each other but agree to disagree and just get on with the job!

   replyreport
   1. 41

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      At least they get on with the job there! Here our politicians play chicken with each other and hold each other hostage.  Even common citizens can't help but make everything a political argument.

      replyreport
6. 38

   Borsiaposted 12 years ago

   It's mostly because both sides are so weak and convoluted on the actual problems of the nation they are afraid to make statements that might later be used against them in a legitimate debate.
   Politicians today, and in the past, have nothing to offer other than meaningless platitudes.
   When you combine this with mediators who are mindless spineless dweebs who let the candidates babble on without answering questions or saying anything of value in the debates, especially as the race boils down past the primaries.
   This is another reason that the system needs to be refined to take the money out of the picture.
   The debates should include every candidate who is qualified in all the states, not just the pachyderms and jackasses.
   3rd party candidates may not stand as much chance to be elected but they force the candidates to discuss the issues in depth and make meaningful statements to be judged by.
   Ross Perot turned out to be on the wacky side but the debates in that election were the best in my lifetime simply because he was there calling out the others to say something of substance.
   As for attack adds the sad fact is that they work.
   Far more condemning of the voters than the candidates, in the end it is the public that allows these adds to be so effective.
   I seriously doubt that this is ever going to change. The voters are going to vote for the SOS until the country finally breaks down and crumbles just as the USSR did.

   replyreport
   1. 41

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I completely agree with you.  A 2 party system is just nuts and nothing is ever going to get fixed with the constant games and lunacy.

      replyreport
7. 80

   junksellerposted 12 years ago

   Our world is exceedingly complex and the reality is that most of us simply do not have the capacity to understand many of the systems in our lives (e.g. international economics, climate science). It is therefore more important than ever to have credible experts to help inform our decisions.
   
   Unfortunately it is easier to break things down than to build them up. Consider for example the amount of effort it takes to produce legitimate scientific research versus the effort it takes for a hack to simply cite a piece of research and draw from it whatever outcome reinforces their agenda. It is a form of counterfeiting. Just like some shady operator in a back alley stitching together fake Gucci bags, these hacks stitch together information in a way which looks legit but is pure rubbish. Before the internet, we at least had some system of gatekeepers (editors that filtered information we received), but now it is anything goes--one giant marketplace where these counterfeiters can sell their cheap goods at will.
   
   And like with fake Gucci bags, if people themselves don't reject the fake stuff, it's almost impossible to eliminate.
   
   When the illusion of truth is so easy, why bother working for the real thing? Why should anyone bother taking the time for proper education, or challenging the credibility of sources, or learning and practicing critical thinking skills. Why should they, when they are already strutting around like a peacock with their fake Gucci bag slung over their shoulder? Eventually it is so bad that there is almost no such thing as debate because there is absolutely no frame of reference for what is even fact vs fiction. Nobody even knows what the hell a real Gucci bag is anymore, so there is no need to try and figure it out. The only thing left to do is clobber each other over the head with them like Neanderthal Barbarians. Fake or real they both hit the same.

   replyreport
   1. 38

      Borsiaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Add to that the media being just as corrupt as the politics and you have the failed system that exists in the US today.
      The internet has given us the ability to fact check claims made by politicians but few have the interest to follow up.

      replyreport
   2. 41

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, unfortunately I do think there is value in taking time for education, critical thinking is a blessing - I can't understand why people choose to be willfully ignorant and pretend they know everything.  Boggles the mind...

      replyreport
8. 71

   Angela Blairposted 12 years ago

   Having lived three-quarters of a century I've got a lot of time to look back on and can't remember our nation, ever in my life, being as torn, divided and fragmented as we are today and I think the average citizen is scared stiff of what's to come. Consequently, as divided as we are, and no matter how aptly (or kindly) one's position is stated both sides have become so radical (driven by fear and worry) that civil discussion -- or even disagreement -- is no longer part of the picture. Fear is a monster motivator. As a good example -- I wrote a political piece a while back and immediately attracted opposition to my viewpoint. One commenter, angry and having run out of verbal ammunition finally said: "Well, I'd expect the opinion you're stating by just looking at the ugly hat you're wearing!" I found that hilariously funny and realizing there was no further good commentary to be had just ended the conversation. Unfortunately, Washington is full of guys trying to keep their jobs. I've been rather impressed with Ted Cruz from my state of Texas. I'm an independent and voted for him because he's such a wild card and a loose cannon -- and I use both terms in a complimentary sense. He's stepped right up, disagreed with most of the powers that be in Washington and has endeared himself to few -- BUT -- it's been such a great pleasure to me to see one politician at least act like he's telling the truth, stating an honest opinion, and not being driven by a political machine. Of course, I may be entirely wrong about him -- who can tell these days? Excellent question!

   replyreport
9. 80

   Nathan Orfposted 12 years ago

   In a word, the media. The media, be it liberal media, conservative media or mainstream, generally neutral media, feeds off of fear, discord, anger, tragedy and arguments that may or may not eventually lead to riots someday. And when riots occur in, say, Los Angeles, who do you think covers the event for the Next. Five. Week? The media.
   
   Bear in mind, conservatives often use the phrase "liberal media," because media is often associated with liberal Hollywood, and because media often portrays Conservatives in a way that fits in line with the description in your question (that is, stupid, backwoods, ignorant white trash, which in no way represents most conservatives). Liberals often complain about the "corporate media," because many liberals distrust anything having to do with a corporation.
   
   the real truth of the matter is that the media "exists to sell itself." (That line is in a book somewhere, see if you can guess!) They don't necessarily want to cause this level of division in public life, but that is the effect. For example, where do you think conservatives start believing unfortunate and often untrue things about liberals? The answer would be Conservative media (think Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart news, and FOX). Liberals are a little harder to place, because mainstream media, even the liberal New York Times, often does not take a particularly outlandish stand against conservatives. But liberal websites and blogs permeate the Internet, and I think that this counts as media.
   
   So, the media causes tribalism, forcing people to take sides. Unfortunately, this often means that they begin seeing those with opposing viewpoints as "the enemy," rather than just a fellow citizen with a differing view of the world. Its also important to note that, in a few cases, certain forms of media actually try to project this attitude among its viewers, and then maintain it.
   
   If we want to make political discourse more acceptable in this country, and more tolerant of opposing viewpoints, we have to try to get news and opinions from all sources of media, not just the ones that comfortably fit into our own ideologies.

   replyreport
10. 70

    larakernposted 12 years ago

    I may be completely wrong but I've always thought that having a president and a vice president that were on the same political side is a bit counter productive. I believe that if the president is a democrat that the vice president should be a republican. This is entirely so they can work out the real issues and really get a good plan that is based on compromise from both sides. No one would have the upper hand and in theory they would be able to work out the best possible solution.

    replyreport