Politics

[davidklecha]

I don't generally talk about politics. Not really even going to talk about it now. I consider myself pretty apolitical.

But do you know what gets my blood pressure up? Naked partisanship.

Seriously. Especially when it comes to the character of politicians. I mean, I understand the psychology behind wanting to rationalize the bad behavior of One's Favorite Politico, but it's still seriously irritating to see people blasting Others for precisely the same sort of behavior.

I so hate partisan politics. Hate it hate it hate it.

Comments

[marnan.livejournal.com]

Mon ami tres bien, it grieves me to dispute you so bluntly, but I must.

I do not think you have thought this one through.

I approve of partisan politics. The more partisan the better.

They are our elected representatives, and we are a partisan people. One should have a side. One should declare it. One should defend it. Hopefully, it's a well-chosen side, but who can judge for anyone but themselves?

Think about it -- what non-partisan politics looks like. Ah, yes, let all of us in government and aspiring to be in government work together for the good of all, even when that means that we:
cover up for each other, excuse one another, consent to actions which we and our constituents consider foolish or vile... you could just go back to having a monarchy, and save all that money on elections, if you want that.

Without partisanship, elections become popularity contests, because what other basis is there for decision?

Maybe it comes from voting for the Eternal Third Party, but I didn't vote NDP so that my representatives in the provincial legislature and in Parliment could get up there and make nice with the government, nor even with Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, unless the policy or bill proposed warrants it.

I voted for them with the expectation that they would represent and fight for my interests. Which includes trying to get themselves elected, and this entails trying to take the other guys the heck down.

Character: well. Politicians are politicians. I expect to hold them to account for how they do their jobs. Their personal lives don't much concern me. If they want to campaign on them, I'll get interested, especially if they mess up, but only then. There is a difference between defending someone's actions and saying that said actions are irrelevant to the job.

And both 'character' and 'personal attack' have become overused phrases of late.

One of the local columnists defined it beautifully recently, I thought:

You can say that Mike Harris' government was cruel and dishonest. That is not a personal attack. Even if you say that Mr Harris himself was largely responsible for his government's approach.

You can say that Mike Harris in his time as premier did some cruel and dishonest things. That isn't either.

Saying that Mike Harris himself is a cruel and dishonest man is a personal attack. As well as being untrue; he is neither.

Note the second, less obvious, trap in this sort of thing, though: Actually, Mike Harris is a lovely man.

I've met him, he charmed me, he charms most people, some of his bitterest enemies will happily concede that he is a good decent man who desires only to find and accomplish the best.

But my gods and goddesses, he ran a terrible, awful, cruel nasty heinously destructive government.

Partisanship GOOD, Honestly, if a person doesn't have a side, what are they doing in politics?

Now, if you mean "nastiness", that's another thing. partisanship isn't necessarily nasty, unless you consider any enjoyment of playing and winning nasty, nastiness isn't necessarily partisan.

[daveamongus.livejournal.com]

(I thought this might generate some responses...)

I really don't have a side, in terms of politics. I'm saddened, and somewhat offended, when people assume that I do, as happens often. I'm saddened more when people, as in this nebulous instance, claim a particular principle in order to slag down a member of the Others, but that principle is nowhere to be seen when a member of their own side is guilty of the same.

And it's not so much the process of campaigning that gets my goat, because, in that respect, I understand the drive to win and to do whatever it takes (not that I really respect the attempts), but it's when the average person sees bad behavior and claims it as a sign of unfitness, when they're unwilling to apply the same standards to their own side. What makes this person's indiscretions actionable, and that person's excusable? Near as I can tell, it's just that they represent the "correct" side. And that, to me, is itself objectionable. The only consistency is a slavish devotion to the party, which in turn is something I can't understand, as a person who can't bring himself to agree wholly with either of the major parties, or any of the minor ones.

[marnan.livejournal.com]

Somewhere I'm not getting exactly what you mean.

I mean, I don't THINK you mean exactly that you 'don't have a side'. I've talked politics with you, we've discussed things, there are many things where you're very clear what side you're on.

Do you mean you don't have a party?

Or something else?

"I'm saddened more when people, as in this nebulous instance, claim a particular principle in order to slag down a member of the Others, but that principle is nowhere to be seen when a member of their own side is guilty of the same."

It's never pretty behaviour. And really, I do see it as a result of the death of (issue-driven) partisan politics per se: we've come to have this notion that "character" (by which we often mean personality) matters because really, it's getting to be all that DOES matter, all too often. Because there's very much less difference in issues and platforms, or if there is that difference, people conceal it, they don't want to be out there on a limb, they'll get ripped up.

That being said, it does depend. Take the hypothetical gay rights opponent who turns out to be gay. Think I care that he's gay? Nope.

Think anyone who opposes him cares? Nope.

About the hypocrisy, the well-it's-okay-for-me-I'm-special, I kind of care, but then, I bet I didn't like him anyway. So hey.

But you know what? It's going to KILL him with his supporters. And I, knowing this, am perfectly content to watch him go down for it. I'm not going to defend him, either. And I'm not going to cry that he CHOSE to put himself in that place, and got caught.

Of course, I also see the whole 'principle' thing as part of that particularly unhealthy drive to non-partisanship, or at least it's appearance.

Sorry to wail on that, but it _is_ the topic du jour.

Nobody wants to be mean, oh, no. Nobody wants to display any sort of naked satisfaction when an opponent takes themselves down, or makes a strategic error.

Nobody wants to own up. It's not that I want to take the guy down, they cry -- it's the PRINCIPLE!

Well, usually it isn't, which is why it's nowhere to be seen when it's their own guy.

Or at least, the principle involved is usually just: "if you want to be in politics, there are kinds of stupid you can get away with, and kinds you can't. Learn to tell the difference. "

I remember when politics were very much more openly partisan, but by Gods, they were cleaner then, too.

I think you overestimate the slavish devotion thing. I'm not slavishly devoted to the NDP. I am an NDP member. I vote NDP. I've been known to work for them. I've certainly been known to shill for them.

I'd like to see them in power. They are my chosen representatives, but I don't think they represent me perfectly. I don't expect them to. I don't expect ANYONE to, or even want it.

They aren't necessarily the 'correct side'; but they are MY side.

[daveamongus.livejournal.com]

I mean, I don't THINK you mean exactly that you 'don't have a side'. I've talked politics with you, we've discussed things, there are many things where you're very clear what side you're on.

Well, firstly, the me you've argued politics with was a younger, much more hot-headed me. He's learned a bit in the intervening years. Though, he knew enough to register "independent," which from my current perspective looks to be wise beyond his years. But I digress.

Do you mean you don't have a party?

That is, among other things, precisely what I mean. I have an opinion, when it comes to issues, and there are people with whom I agree on those issues, but I don't think I have a "side" because that, these days especially, seems to entail all the unpleasantness that I'm railing against here.

I don't want to be in the position of defending a scumbag, when I myself am decrying scumbaggish behavior. I would much rather simply vote issues, rather than people. I can't, in good conscience, support a party that I actively disagree with more than fifty percent of the time. When I was younger, it was terrible, because when I found myself identifying with a group on one issue, I'd find myself being swayed by the group's views on other issues.

I'd like to see them in power. They are my chosen representatives, but I don't think they represent me perfectly. I don't expect them to. I don't expect ANYONE to, or even want it.

It's not just that the DNP or the GOP or the Libertarians or the Greens don't represent me perfectly, it's that they hardly represent me at all.

They aren't necessarily the 'correct side'; but they are MY side.

And this is the sort of attitude I reserve for other things. I haven't the energy, in any way, shape, or form, to apply it to a political party that I find reprehensible in position and practice more often than not.

I'll defend my chosen affiliations, against all comers. I just can't make political affiliations like that. And it blows my mind that others can.

[pewtergryphon.livejournal.com]

I understand the psychology behind wanting to rationalize the bad behavior of One's Favorite Politico, but it's still seriously irritating to see people blasting Others for precisely the same sort of behavior.

If that is what you mean by "naked partisanship" then I think you've got the wrong word.

What you mean is "naked hypocrisy". As in, rationalizing One's Own Politician's unacceptable behavior at all costs, but being shocked, shocked! when the Other Fellow rationalizes his Own Politician's unacceptable behavior in exactly the same way.

If it's OK for you to do it, it's OK for the other guy to do it. And the same for "not OK". To insist on one standard for yourself and your partisans and another standard for everyone else is hypocrisy, not partisanship.

[daveamongus.livejournal.com]

My only fundamental disagreement is that this hypocritical attitude seems to be endemic of political partisanship these days. So much so that it's not just the campaigners that engage in it, but just about anyone who feels themselves particularly close to one party, or outlook, or whatever. They're so engaged with the politics of it all that they'll oppose or support someone merely because of the label, and ignore the positives or negatives of a particular politician (or talking head or affiliated group).

Not so much, of course, that it's true of everyone (lest I be accused of over-generalizing), but I find it altogether too common, and depressing that way.

[pewtergryphon.livejournal.com]

But the extreme partisanship has always been there. It's just that, until the last 10 years or so, it was mostly confined to the fringe groups in both parties.

Yes, it's common, but it always has been. And actually, I think it's becoming less common in the general population than it was before.

I knew people, growing up, who'd vote for anybody their party put up-- a sort of "My party, right or wrong" viewpoint. I don't know anybody who thinks that way nowadays. In fact, I know very few people who self-identify as being part of either party-- and the two declared-party people I know best (a Republican and his Democrat wife) are quite willing to cross party lines and vote for the other guy if they can't stomach "their" party's candidate.

ISTR reading somewhere that people who self-identify as independent voters (like me) became the majority in this country a couple of presidential elections ago. And by definition an independent isn't voting the party line.

But that means that the people left in the parties are largely of two groups-- those who see the Party as a means to power and the fanatically partisan types who used to be counterbalanced by all the people who were more moderate in their political views.

Which goes a long way towards explaining why the level of vitriol and double-standard-ing has become so high on both sides.