reflections on political separatism

[jrtom]

I've expressed my dissatisfaction with the US two-party system in the past: among other things, it tends to cause almost any issue to be represented by a false dichotomization of itself.

Recently, though--and I don't claim that this is an original observation--it's occurred to me that there's another aspect to the problem. The short version: much of the political discourse in this country has become almost indistinguishable, from a motivational standpoint, from ad hominem arguments.

Megan and I don't usually consistently assert specific roles in our relationship (although for some reason I'm generally the one that gets things down off the top shelf :> ). However, when we were preparing for our move to Irvine--which neither of us were looking forward to--I noticed that not only was I always pointing out the advantages and Megan the disadvantages, but I was starting to feel as though I _couldn't_ point out any of the disadvantages. Not because I didn't want to be (or admit that I had been) wrong, but because, as the "designated optimist", I felt that anything negative that I said would have a disproportionate impact, and I didn't want Megan to be any unhappier about our move than she already was. Similarly, Megan may have felt that she couldn't point out the advantages because she didn't want me to think that there weren't real problems to be solved. We'd defined our roles, and it seemed to me that we were trapped by them. (We worked it out...but we had to realize that it was happening, first.)

A poll from a couple of days ago said that 46% of the US population approved of Bush's handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and 47% disapproved. This is, at this point, an old story. I suspect that many Democrats believe that Bush has so consistently erred, and so successfully spun the news media to deflect or eliminate the damage and disavow that any errors were made, that they feel that to give him credit for making a good policy decision is (a) too painful to contemplate and (b) too likely to be used as a defense in the context of future errors. (I, myself, find it difficult to avoid assuming that any new Bush policy or appointment is asinine at best, and hazardous or malevolent at worst.) Similarly, I would guess that many Republicans, seeing that Bush has been savagely attacked for almost every decision he's made as President, and feeling that anything that pisses those goddamn liberals off must be a good idea, believe that their only option is to give Bush their unconditional support.

Both of these perspectives are destructive. I tend to agree with the Democrats' general stance on Bush...but with the exception of some of the 2004 Democratic presidential candidates' platforms, the Democrats have generally defined themselves, during the last 5 years, merely by being (a) too spineless to oppose the Bush administration's policies openly and (b) childishly determined to prevent Bush from being able to point to a single accomplishment (insofar as this was possible).

I don't see any way out while this administration lasts. Bush has become one of the most divisive political figures of our time, and the only way that I expect the next administration--whether Republican or Democrat--can climb out of this quagmire is if it is headed by someone that makes a particular point of working with members of both major parties. The sad truth is that John McCain is probably the only likely presidential candidate that I can think of right now that I might be able to stomach voting _for_ in 2008...and having looked at his profile on Project VoteSmart, I know damned well that disagree with him on most major policy points. This should give you an idea of how hungry I am for a candidate that doesn't tear this country apart by his very nature (as, e.g., Hillary Clinton--or Condoleezza Rice, or Bill Frist, or Tom DeLay, or Nancy Pelosi--would).

There's almost always a real need for _someone_ to articulate the potential drawbacks with any plan; this is how we improve our plans. (Or, as David Brin likes to say, CITOKATE: Criticism Is The Only Known Antidote To Error.) But much as I personally enjoy the role of Devil's Advocate, it's equally important to judge peoples' policies on their merits. Or, to put it another way, reflexive rejection is as dangerous and destructive as reflexive acceptance.

Comments

False dichotomy

[fdmts.livejournal.com]

You're exactly right about the false dichotomy thing. We're so used to being on the conservative team, or the liberal team, as well as to the fact that it's zero sum (any victory for the opposing team is automatically a loss for my team) that, well, that what you said is true.

This is what Jon Stewart was talking about when he went on crossfire: Political debate has been reduced to a single dimension, and that dimension is most amenable to shouting.

There are, actually, a lot of issues where we all agree on the fundamentals. The current mode of debate prevents us from starting with those fundamental agreements and working through the details. Instead, we each try to pick some high ground, forcing the others onto the low ground. We're either a "culture of life" or "pro choice". Republicans are not explicitly "anti choice", nor are democrats a "culture of death."

I've given up on the two party system. All my political efforts will go to undermining it from now on. However much damage Bush has done, the two party system has done more ... as you point out. A third party with even 15% of the senate would force compromise on specific issues, and put the focus back on good governance rather than continuity of power ... as it should be.

hrm.

[amnesiadust.livejournal.com]

Interesting commentary about you and Megan. I've often thought that our own interactions share similar stripes, as e.g. one of your comments in a recent post of mine. Perhaps this is just because, being long-standing friends, I just end up speaking my mind and sharing various problems with you. On occasion I've felt forced to argue even more pessimistic points than usual, not because I necessarily felt that downtrodden or because I didn't think you had a point, but because I felt as though I had to defend my emotions (as impossible as it is unnecessary), as though the constant barrage of contrary arguments meant I hadn't communicated my thoughts to you clearly enough. Of course Megan no doubt shares much more with you than just the occasional doomsday prophecy, but the operating principle may be quite similar.

On the average I feel it's a better thing to say, "well, yes, you have a point there," and restate the point that the other person is making just to ensure that I understand where they're coming from, before continuing with my own points. That way the other person feels as though they have been recognized, that they share something in common with me, and although there is still some tension it makes them somewhat less argumentative than they might otherwise be. They dig into their trenches less. Of course, in American politics it seems very difficult to address your opponents as people rather than as opponents, as caricatures of their own positions -- there is just this very entrenched set of roles to play, as you and fdmts suggested. The minute you give up any ground it is seen as a sign of weakness.

The other thing that fdmts loves to point out is that it is easy to deconstruct anything, to criticize, find fault, and tear things down. What's much harder is to come up with an alternative idea to be preferred to the original, faulty idea. That takes positive thinking and positively-minded people. And a lot of energy.

Re: hrm.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's the Devil's Advocate in me speaking. I do that a lot--not to be adversarial per se, but often because taking an alternate perspective really has become somewhat reflexive. (I'd like to blame it on all the probabilistic modelling, but it predates my studies along those lines by several years at least. :> ) Reading between the lines, it sounds as though I may have occasionally made you feel as though I wasn't hearing what you had to say, and if so, I apologize, and assure you that I really do listen. :)

I do try to criticize constructively, and give alternate ways of looking at things, rather than just saying "nope, nope, wrong, won't work". But I realize that it may not always come across that way.

Re: hrm.

[fdmts.livejournal.com]

I do try to criticize constructively, and give alternate ways of looking at things, rather than just saying "nope, nope, wrong, won't work". But I realize that it may not always come across that way.

I'll actually second amnesiadust's point on this: I sometimes feel that your default response to any stated plan is "well here's a corner case where it doesn't work," or worse "but if I take an alternate and clearly unintended meaning of what you said, it's stupid."

My preference would be to give the benefit of the doubt, and try to find the most sensible interpretation of my comments, rather than wasting time disproving the least sensible (which probably wasn't what I meant anyway).

Case in point:

Not living in a parliamentary democracy, I assume that you haven't actually been voting for a party up to this point. Are you saying that you will never again vote for a candidate who is a party member? Or just candidates of the (current) two major parties? If the only candidates are those affiliated with the two major parties, will you refuse to vote for any of them?

Re: hrm.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

I sometimes feel that your default response to any stated plan is "well here's a corner case where it doesn't work," or worse "but if I take an alternate and clearly unintended meaning of what you said, it's stupid."

I do try to find flaws in plans presented to me, and for that I won't apologize. This should not be interpreted as a rejection of said plans, but as an attempt to (a) make it possible to fix the flaws (if we don't identify the flaws, we can't fix 'em), and/or (b) prepare to compensate for the flaws if they're not fixable. Apparently I need to be more clear about my intentions and motivations when I criticize. If I think that a plan is simply unworkable, I'll usually say so explicitly.

As for your example, I hope that my other response has made it clear that I really was, on the basis of your statement, sufficiently in doubt that I thought my questions warranted.

I don't think that I generally do the "worse" you referred to above. However, I will try to make more of a point of paying attention to what I say to guard against any such tendency on my part. (I will admit that I am easily frustrated by lack of clarity in language and expression, and that sometimes I do ask questions whose purpose is to get their respondent to clarify their earlier remarks. Infrequently, I'll do this for the humor value. But usually, my purpose in such cases is not to nitpick, but to point out that there really is a point of confusion, or that a statement may have been more sweeping than its author intended.)

Re: hrm.

[fdmts.livejournal.com]

I'm certainly the architect of many of my problems, since I've adopted a policy and habit of staking out my positions by stating their extremes (and a little beyond), rather than their rational and rather mundane middles. Why say "abortion should be safe, rare, and legal" when one can say "I support the right of a parent to terminate a child until the child can mount a logical defense of its own existence." Frequently, I do this to (a) get a laugh (b) shake up the conversation in the hopes that something new will fall out. This probably shares a border and some disputed territpry with your category of "annoying and inaccurate" communication.

Anyway, no offense intended, and none taken on this side.

Re: hrm.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Statements of that sort--when their intent (a good-humored effort to stir things up) is clear--I actually enjoy quite a bit. (Although I'm not sure that I could mount a logical defense of my own existence. :> ) I don't consider such things to be annoying (unless they're actually just flamebait--and often the difference is only in the speaker and/or the audience) or inaccurate (although "inaccuracy", per se, isn't generally my concern when we're talking about opinions so much as "um, is that _really_ what you meant to say"?)