Political Empathy and Changing of the Guard

[Richard Parker]

When a new party rises to power, many supporters also swap positions. This seems to happen on both procedural issues (e.g. propriety of filibustering) and substantive ones (e.g. importance of deficits). Observing instances of this phenomenon is fertile ground for many GD and Pit threads. The underlying assumption seems to be that this kind of switch is evidence of hypocrisy and/or extreme partisanship.

But is this always damning evidence of hypocrisy or cynical partisan posturing?

I propose that a power-swap often changes people's view of the underlying issue such that they would apply new standards to either party. This cannot be explained as hypocrisy or partisan bias, because the underlying view of the issue actually changes. In these instances, the better explanation is simply that it is easier to empathize with people in power whom you support and this political empathy leads to clearer thinking. Part of forming a well-reasoned view of certain actions and policies is really considering what it would be like to wield power on that issue. The view from the top can be quite different from the view down below. I see this as more cognitive bias than partisan bias. Or if we call it partisan bias, we have to separate it from the kind of partisan bias that involves double-standards.

At a minimum, I think good faith debate has to recognize that, at least sometimes, a change in position is not about hypocrisy or cynical partisanship. It is the natural and benign result of seeing things from a different perspective. Of course, the truly wise engage in this kind of political empathy before there is a change in power, but I don't think it's right to say that anyone incapable of that is hopelessly partisan or a hypocrite.

What do you all think?

[RitterSport]

I think it varies with the person, of course. Specter clearly switched because of a primary challenge that he was going to lose. So, that was just pure political pragmatism. Jeffords seemed to go independent for idealogical reasons, because doing so actually put the Democrats in the majority (for a short time). I can't remember the name of the Republican senator (from the South?) who spoke at the Republican National Convention -- did he actually change parties after that?

Bloomberg also changed parties for pure political pragmatism -- the Democratic field was too crowded, so he ran as a Republican.

In every one of these cases, though, what you have is more of a centrist who could have gone either way anyway. I don't think Pelosi or Hatch are switching parties any time soon.

[Richard Parker]

I think that politicians are infinitely more likely to just be cynically posturing than average voters or message board participants. I meant for the focus of my OP to be on ordinary citizens who change their views on these issues (e.g. tea party protesters, maybe, or Obama supporters changing their views on military commissions).

[Shodan]

I think it is usually just an excuse.

If one was arguing on principle before. a change in power shouldn't invalidate the principle. If the New York Times argued on principle that the filibuster was an important safeguard to prevent the majority from running roughshod over the minority, then it shouldn't matter if the minority is Democrat or Republican. If indefinite detention is a horrid violation of human rights, then it shouldn't matter if Obama does it or Bush. If we should believe the woman in matters of sexual harassment, then it shouldn't matter if the woman is Anita Hill or Juanita Broadderick (or Kathleen Wiley or Paula Jones).

But it often does.

The Left in America and the SDMB in particular seems rather desperate for a do-over, where they can claim that nothing of what they have been saying for the last eight years counts. But that's not a "different view of the matter" - it is merely confirmation of what the underlying principle was all along.

Would you accept such a notion from Republicans? Feel free to say so - eventually we will get the White House back, and I want to book mark the thread.

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Shodan

If one was arguing on principle before. a change in power shouldn't invalidate the principle.

The argument I'm making is that people are constantly changing their views on issues as a result of new perspectives, and this is one subset of that. Before you have a child, you might have certain views on parenting. But after you have a child, those views will likely change. Does that make the parent a hypocrite? I don't think so.

I think this kind of change in perspective can also happen when political power shifts. As I acknowledged, the smartest and wisest are able to shape their views on issues by putting themselves in the shoes of the ruling party or the marginalized one without actually being in the ruling or marginal parties. But that doesn't mean that those whose perspective does shift aren't actually changing their underlying views on the issues.

Originally Posted by Shodan

The Left in America and the SDMB in particular seems rather desperate for a do-over, where they can claim that nothing of what they have been saying for the last eight years counts. But that's not a "different view of the matter" - it is merely confirmation of what the underlying principle was all along.

The Left is doing this on some issues, and so is the Right. It is not a one-sided phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Shodan

Would you accept such a notion from Republicans?

As I've defined it, yes. Of course. For example, I think some Republicans' new-found skepticism about Homeland Security investigations into political radicals is probably a genuine shift on an issue resulting from a change in perspective.

[Captain Amazing]

I think it's a distinction without a difference. I think that the people who were opposed to fillibustering back in 2005 weren't opposed to the fillibuster abstractly. They were upset that the fillibuster was being used to block what they saw as qualified people with the right judicial philosophy. They're ok with the idea of fillibustering now, because they expect the people that Obama will pick will have a bad judicial philosophy. Likewise with the military commissions. The people who opposed it when Bush was doing it but don't when Obama does it don't trust Bush and do trust Obama.

The whole situation does come from seeing things from a different perspective, but the reason for the different perspective is a kind of dualistic blind partisanship that consists of seeing your side as right and good and the other side as wrong and evil.

[RitterSport]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

I think that politicians are infinitely more likely to just be cynically posturing than average voters or message board participants. I meant for the focus of my OP to be on ordinary citizens who change their views on these issues (e.g. tea party protesters, maybe, or Obama supporters changing their views on military commissions).

You know, I completely missed that. Sorry.

I think your average voter doesn't think through political issues all that closely, but instead gets opinions from popular commentators, celebrities, and so on. So, if Rush Limbaugh is suddently against big deficits, you'll have a bunch of tea parties. If Keith Olbermann is suddenly OK with indefinite detention, you'll have, what, maybe five viewers change their mind on that.

The left of the left (I have some political cartoonists in mind right now) are giving Obama a pretty hard time about his stance on indefinite detentions, releasing interrogation photos, and so on, so they seem pretty consistent, even with the change in power.

The average voter, however, seems to go more with the prevailing winds.

Did the NY Times change their stance on filibusters? I think I missed that. I think they are disappointed with Obama in other matters, so they are holding a firm line there (and all the lefties who dutifully get their marching orders from the NY Times must be holding a firm line as well, I guess).

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

At a minimum, I think good faith debate has to recognize that, at least sometimes, a change in position is not about hypocrisy or cynical partisanship. It is the natural and benign result of seeing things from a different perspective. Of course, the truly wise engage in this kind of political empathy before there is a change in power, but I don't think it's right to say that anyone incapable of that is hopelessly partisan or a hypocrite.

I increasing find all games of gotcha! politics to be a waste of time, including those relating to flip-flopping. It is entirely normal and defensible to change positions on issues at some times. In fact, it's a sign of an active and healthy mind. The way that such debates take center stage and push the issues themselves to the side is one reason why I'm also increasing finding politics to be a waste of time.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

The argument I'm making is that people are constantly changing their views on issues as a result of new perspectives, and this is one subset of that. Before you have a child, you might have certain views on parenting. But after you have a child, those views will likely change. Does that make the parent a hypocrite? I don't think so.

Then I guess it depends. If you have genuinely obtained new information based on your experiences, that's one thing. If it is just a matter of belief that rules are for others, that is another.

It would be like a person saying that "children should be seen and not heard". Then they have children. They can come to understand that it is OK for children to make a certain amount of noise, or they can say that it is OK for their children to make noise - but not anyone else's.

Likewise for politics. One can come to understand that indefinite detention is a valid choice, given the constraints on a President and so on. But simply assuming that it is OK for Obama but not for Bush is not like that.

The way you can tell which is which is twofold -

• The person recognizes that the point of view has changed. You don't necessarily need to admit you were wrong, but you do need at least to recognize that a change has occurred. If you cast around for reasons to declare that this particular Scotsman is different, then it is likely not to be a genuine conversion.
• The change is more or less permanent. If, the minute the GOP regains the White House, and instantly everyone on the SDMB goes back to screaming "he promised not to hire lobbyists! He endorsed PAYGO! Indefinite detention is a horrible crime!" etc., then it is hard to believe that it was ever more than a matter of expediency.

But that doesn't mean that those whose perspective does shift aren't actually changing their underlying views on the issues.

Maybe - but the burden of proof lies on those who have changed their tune. You need to show what is it that you have learned that caused you to change your mind.

Because we have already gone thru this to some extent. Back in 2004, being a war hero seems to have been practically definitive for a Good President. In 2008 (and 1992 and 1996), apparently not so much. Likewise with sexual harassment and deficit spending.

We'll see. Call me cynical, but it is amazing how three months of Obama has opened the eyes of the left to the virtues of what they seemed to be violently opposed to for the last eight years or so.

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Shodan

The way you can tell which is which is twofold . . . The person recognizes that the point of view has changed [and] The change is more or less permanent.

Agreed.

[begbert2]

I think that flip-flopping to align with favorable winds is a strong and reliable sign of either pragmatism or hypocracy...depending on whether the person doing it is on your side or not.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Likewise for politics. One can come to understand that indefinite detention is a valid choice, given the constraints on a President and so on. But simply assuming that it is OK for Obama but not for Bush is not like that.
...
If, the minute the GOP regains the White House, and instantly everyone on the SDMB goes back to screaming "he promised not to hire lobbyists! He endorsed PAYGO! Indefinite detention is a horrible crime!" etc., then it is hard to believe that it was ever more than a matter of expediency.[/list]Maybe - but the burden of proof lies on those who have changed their tune. You need to show what is it that you have learned that caused you to change your mind.

Because we have already gone thru this to some extent. Back in 2004, being a war hero seems to have been practically definitive for a Good President. In 2008 (and 1992 and 1996), apparently not so much. Likewise with sexual harassment and deficit spending.

We'll see. Call me cynical, but it is amazing how three months of Obama has opened the eyes of the left to the virtues of what they seemed to be violently opposed to for the last eight years or so.

Regards,
Shodan

It depends on what it is. Your example of indefinite detention without charges is one of the things I'm still against. There are those things where, it doesn't matter who is calling the shots, I will still think it is wrong.

Some people will change their minds on things. It happens, sometimes it's becoming more mature, sometimes it's the result of having more information, sometimes it's "that way didn't work, so how about this". That's good. It means they are still thinking. They may come to the wrong conclusion, but at least they aren't ossified yet.

Then there are the two opposite extremes - those who never ever change even one particle of their "opinion", and those who switch up so often and so conveniently (for them) that it's obvious what they're up to.

[smiling bandit]

Overall, however, you are choosing between Scylla and Chaybdis. The scenario presened doesn't really allow for some thoughful change of opinion. I've made those, when information or circumstances changed such that I felt my practical implementations of my principles required a change. And I recognize that a few people's principles change over time. I have little respect for this because I almost always note said change was from one unthinking, instinctive position to another, and there is almost always some gain involved. It is easy to compromise principles you only had for the sake of expediency or never gave much thought to.

But to change one's views solely because they are out of, or just in, power? That bespeaks the lowest form of intellectual cowardice: a refusal to even have principles other than power.

Originally Posted by SteveG1

It depends on what it is. Your example of indefinite detention without charges is one of the things I'm still against. There are those things where, it doesn't matter who is calling the shots, I will still think it is wrong.

I am not arguing the point here, and I am not picking on you. I am simply going to use this as an example of my point.

I dislike the idea of indefinite detention without charges. On the other hand, the individuals so held do not meet Geneva Convention standards (which I can indeed cite). As guerrillas, spies, or saboteurs, paying no allegiance to a government and paying no attention said agreements, they can be executed on the spot. As it is useful to us, and I do not like killing, I am willing to take them prisoner. As they are guilty of treason to the governments of Iraq or Afganistan, they would be executed promptly, and probably unpleasantly, if we let them stay. Moreover, I object strenuously to permitting them the use of American legal proceedings designed for civilians, which do not and cannot provide justice.

However, I would be willing to change my practical opinion in the events that the utilitarian concerns changed, or if more information changed my moral view of the events (unlikely, at this point). I do not despise my opponents, provided they return similar respect.

[Getting the point] Therefore, when Congressional Democrats quietly kill their opposition to Gitmo for the tim being (that is, delaying any close until some vague time in the future), I believe their actions are not motivated by wisdom, but stupidity. They cursed and denounced it as a terrible threat to the Republic. However, now they have to deal with it themselves. Suddenly, it seems like a very practical, wise decision, at least for now. That is damn good evidence that their opposition was not principled but solely designed to garner power, or was so insipidly brainless as to be unworthy of comment. Neither is a good comemnt on their character.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

But to change one's views solely because they are out of, or just in, power? That bespeaks the lowest form of intellectual cowardice: a refusal to even have principles other than power.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. If a man's basic fundamental principles change so quickly and so easily, then he had no principles to begin with. We are on the same page.

I dislike the idea of indefinite detention without charges.

So do I.

On the other hand, the individuals so held do not meet Geneva Convention standards (which I can indeed cite). As guerrillas, spies, or saboteurs, paying no allegiance to a government and paying no attention said agreements, they can be executed on the spot. As it is useful to us, and I do not like killing, I am willing to take them prisoner. As they are guilty of treason to the governments of Iraq or Afganistan, they would be executed promptly, and probably unpleasantly, if we let them stay.

We are suppose to treat civilians, noncombatant civilians at a certain level and in a certain way. I'm not talking about spies and saboteurs here, I am talking about civilian noncombatants. We are supposed to treat POWs a certain way. Spies and saboteurs are already covered by military law and custom - we shoot them. But first, you have to sort out the civilians and the legitimate POWs. You don't just toss them all together. You at least make the effort. I have trouble believing every single person in Gitmo is a spy or a saboteur. We signed the Geneva Convention. We should follow it. We have our own federal laws. We should follow them.

[Getting the point] Therefore, when Congressional Democrats quietly kill their opposition to Gitmo for the time being (that is, delaying any close until some vague time in the future), I believe their actions are not motivated by wisdom, but stupidity. They cursed and denounced it as a terrible threat to the Republic. However, now they have to deal with it themselves. Suddenly, it seems like a very practical, wise decision, at least for now. That is damn good evidence that their opposition was not principled but solely designed to garner power, or was so insipidly brainless as to be unworthy of comment. Neither is a good comemnt on their character.

Agree. It is hypocrisy at its "finest". If it was terrible and evil before, it is terrible and evil now.
Personally I still think it is a great wrong, and the party in charge didn't change a thing for me in that regard. Wrong is wrong.

[cckerberos]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

The argument I'm making is that people are constantly changing their views on issues as a result of new perspectives, and this is one subset of that. Before you have a child, you might have certain views on parenting. But after you have a child, those views will likely change. Does that make the parent a hypocrite? I don't think so.

I think this is true but that it also necessitates a retroactive element that is often lacking when it comes to politics. So I think that someone who opposed filibustering before their group was out of power can legitimately say "Now that I see things from the other side I realize that the filibuster actually is necessary in defending the tights of the majority," but they also have to go farther and say "and my prior criticisms of the practice were misguided and incorrect." I think that many attempt to either rationalize their prior position in some way or to just refuse to address it. These are signs to me that a position shift is based on something other than principle.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

In these instances, the better explanation is simply that it is easier to empathize with people in power whom you support and this political empathy leads to clearer thinking.

AFAICT is not a "better explanation" at all; it's exactly what people are complaining about. "Political empathy" is just a nicer way of saying partisanship; either way you're talking about basing your ideas on an affiliation rather than on a dispassionate look at the facts.

Part of forming a well-reasoned view of certain actions and policies is really considering what it would be like to wield power on that issue. The view from the top can be quite different from the view down below.

Agreed. But anyone whose opinion is worth listening to already knows this (there are quite a few GD regulars whose opinions I ignore, so take that FWIW). Anyone who sees their party in power and NOW suddenly comes to grasp that "hey, things are complicated and sometimes there's no easy solution" is a jackass ... and, to the point of the thread, a partisan jackass. That such jackassery is common does not change what it is.

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

Before you have a child, you might have certain views on parenting. But after you have a child, those views will likely change.

The difference being that parenthood is a one-time thing that transforms someone utterly and forever. The change in political power is only relative (majority/minority, not 100/0) and occurs with regularity.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by furt

"Political empathy" is just a nicer way of saying partisanship; either way you're talking about basing your ideas on an affiliation rather than on a dispassionate look at the facts.

I believe you are (unfortunately) right.

Anyone who sees their party in power and NOW suddenly comes to grasp that "hey, things are complicated and sometimes there's no easy solution" is a jackass ... and, to the point of the thread, a partisan jackass. That such jackassery is common does not change what it is.

And yet we seem to be seeing this sort of thing.

I don't give a damn if the president is George W Bush, Barack Obama, or Rufus T Firefly. Presidents come and go. Political control of Congress comes and goes. It's one thing to change because of new information and a bit of soul searching. It's a "whole nother thing" when it all revolves around being in power.

[Captain Carrot]

I think you also have to take into account that changes in the balance of power are usually the result of actual issues that change the dialog, not just statistical variation in votes. When the economy was fine for the middle few years of Bush's presidency, a lot of people on the left (and some on the right) were concerned about his deficit spending. When it went down the crapper, most people weren't terribly worried about the size of the bill, because we had more important things to discuss. Now that Obama is office with the same problem, most people on the left (and some on the right) are not too terribly concerned with the size of the budget, since we can fix it later when shit's in better shape.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by furt

The difference being that parenthood is a one-time thing that transforms someone utterly and forever. The change in political power . . . occurs with regularity.

Even if you count every change of a political party's control of the Presidency (which you might not for people left of Clinton or right of GWB), for many people an 8-year cycle means that this has happened only one or two times during their adult lives. More importantly, not every issue was present back in the Clinton Administration. The extend the parenting analogy, someone who took care of young siblings might already be familiar with the realities of potty training. We wouldn't expect becoming a parent to change their views on that. But they probably never faced issues like discussing sex with the young ones. On those issues, we might expect the changed perspective to have some effect.

On the general issue, as I noted before, you cannot describe a genuine change in beliefs as typical partisan bias. It isn't a double-standard if it is ultimately applied to both parties. And while I agree that changes in power ought not, in principle, lead to different beliefs, that kind of pure and perfect rationality just doesn't exist among humans. In my experience, the people who claim that to have perspective and bias-independent judgment, are in fact the most trenchant partisans. The ones who humbly admit that bias is real and who try to minimize it to the extent possible are the one least likely to succumb to it.

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

We are suppose to treat civilians, noncombatant civilians at a certain level and in a certain way. I'm not talking about spies and saboteurs here, I am talking about civilian noncombatants. We are supposed to treat POWs a certain way. Spies and saboteurs are already covered by military law and custom - we shoot them. But first, you have to sort out the civilians and the legitimate POWs. You don't just toss them all together. You at least make the effort. I have trouble believing every single person in Gitmo is a spy or a saboteur. We signed the Geneva Convention. We should follow it. We have our own federal laws. We should follow them.

We do follow the Geneva convention. They were taken in battle, fought without uniforms, and embraced the use of civilian-killing rather than plausible military methods.

But, and this is the key concept, it is not the place for a civilian court to decide. neither military nor civilian courts do not decide issues of fact. Furthermore, what evidence could possibly be provided? The only thing you can say is that Soldier A did capture said invidual, who was armed and not acting properly under the conventions of war. Which is why we could have pretty much blown all their brains out. The prisoners at Gitmo are those who have already been weeded out, and are let go if there's any doubt at all of their guilt. But they broke no laws of the United Sates in doing so; we have no criminal jurisdiction.

In despised the Nuremburg trials for similar reasons: victor's justice, and nothing more, no matter how pretty it's dressed up to be. Or even how fair it actually it.

[Zoe]

ShodanIf one was arguing on principle before. a change in power shouldn't invalidate the principle...If we should believe the woman in matters of sexual harassment, then it shouldn't matter if the woman is Anita Hill or Juanita Broadderick (or Kathleen Wiley or Paula Jones.

You ran out of examples of realistic principles before you got to this one.

smiling bandit: In despised the Nuremburg trials for similar reasons: victor's justice, and nothing more, no matter how pretty it's dressed up to be. Or even how fair it actually it.

Would it have be fairer still to have no justice on either side? That's a contradiction in terms.

...and embraced the use of civilian-killing rather than plausible military methods.

That hasn't been proven yet. They haven't even been charged with that. Do you think they are guilty because they've been in prison for such a long time?

Sorry, Richard. I won't hijack your thread further.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Zoe

Sorry, Richard. I won't hijack your thread further.

No problem. It wasn't quite as popular as I would have hoped. Hijack away.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

We do follow the Geneva convention. They were taken in battle, fought without uniforms, and embraced the use of civilian-killing rather than plausible military methods.

But, and this is the key concept, it is not the place for a civilian court to decide. neither military nor civilian courts do not decide issues of fact. Furthermore, what evidence could possibly be provided? The only thing you can say is that Soldier A did capture said invidual, who was armed and not acting properly under the conventions of war. Which is why we could have pretty much blown all their brains out. The prisoners at Gitmo are those who have already been weeded out, and are let go if there's any doubt at all of their guilt. But they broke no laws of the United Sates in doing so; we have no criminal jurisdiction.

In despised the Nuremburg trials for similar reasons: victor's justice, and nothing more, no matter how pretty it's dressed up to be. Or even how fair it actually it.

Are you saying no one has jurisdiction? There are civilian courts. There are military courts and tribunals. There are regulations and laws, and even customs/traditions that can determine what to do and how to do it.
If there is nothing and no one who has any jurisdiction or authority to decide, then we are all in deep shit.

As for Nuremburg, given the evils that were done, and the magnitude of it, victor's justice is still better than no justice at all. High ranking Nazis were tried, comvicted, and executed for their crimes, which were verified and proven - often from their own records and documents. It was justice. Victor's justice? Yes, but justice all the same.

[Shodan]

Rather than rehash the previous slew of arguments, perhaps a new example would help.

President Obama wants, allegedly, to end the confirmation wars over judicial nominees (cite). Traditionally, a nominee who is qualified and of high character was supposed to be confirmed. Thus, for instance, Scalia was confirmed to the Supreme Court without an opposing vote. Likewise Ginsberg and O'Connor.

Obama, however, in a speech, mentioned that he did not believe in that approach. He said that the Senate is entitled to consider judicial philosophy as well as qualifications and character. So, topic for debate -

Is it legitimate for the GOP to oppose Obama nominees based on their belief that the philosophy of those nominees is incorrect, regardless of their qualifiactaions (or lack thereof). Does that count as new experience? Or should the Senate return to the former standard - permanently?

Regards,
Shodan