This is not directed at one side or the other. It’s inspired by US electioneering, but could easily apply to all democratic countries. This isn’t meant to insult anyone, or pick on any particular individuals - I am genuinely interested in the thinking behind partisanship.
I see lots of dopers who are willing and happy to consider political views and proposed policies that are anathema to them, and to accept them or reject them on individual merit.
And then there are lots of others, who delight vehemently in victory, or are vehemently distressed at the success, of their political cause, and brand the other side as fundamentally wrong.
So I ask - if you are one of these people who truly believes the other side is evil/stupid/crazy, would you actually prefer if these political opinions were extirpated from society?
Personally, practically speaking I see the necessity in the democratic process of the existence of those who oppose my views, even though emotionally they may upset or annoy me. If you are a vehement supporter of one side or the other, do you think that things would go better for society, etc. without people of these views in the mix?
Personally I can’t get very wound up about politics for two reasons. I think that most politicians who are a part of a party political machine are self-serving and are more interested in getting and retaining power than doing what needs doing. Secondly it doesn’t matter because in any two party political system eventually each side ends up taking turns in power.
OK, I’ll stump up. I enjoy the sparring on here and NADS (I don’t think there’s a single right-winger there [including myself] but most are left-wing and statist [and I am neither]) and elsewhere, but more importantly it’s educational. Even when I’ve found myself in a minority of one, discussions have helped clarify positions.
But there is a marked lack of tolerance by certain people on certain issues - gay rights and guns to name two - and it seems to me that the Democrats are vastly more intolerant than Republicans. But this may simply be due to the political balance of the members of the SDMB. There are arseholes on both sides, and people who have particular buttons that should not be pressed.
Thank you. I have been trying to figure out… you’re qts under a new name - am I right?
I don’t want to enter into an actual political argument here, so I won’t comment on the views you’ve expressed. But, given the intolerance you have perceived, do you think society would be better if you could, say, press a magic button and remove that viewpoint from political debate?
I may not be enough of a “partisan” to count, as I don’t see the value (other than tactical or situational) in supporting a party, as opposed to causes. Unfortunately, many people do.
There are times when I’d value real distinctions between the parties on issues that matter to me – if only to force “my” side (whatever that may be) to focus on its issues and make a choice. As someone who’s got some fairly conservative views on some issues, but completely opposed the Iraq war and GWB’s approach to it, I was dismayed by the lameass Kerry position on it, which was limited to “I’d have done it all over again, except better, and with, like, some Belgian support.” I wish the Dems in Congress (or the GOP, for that matter) hadn’t chickened out, and rather than writing GWB a blank check, had fulfilled their constitutional obligation to declare (or refrain from authorizing/declaring) war. I wish that either party had a U.S. Mideast policy that differed in greater degree than fanatical support of Likud’s policies versus merely absolute support of them. I’d be interested to see if either party wants to step up to represent the substantial American constituency in favor of some immigration control, rather than both of them being pro-open-borders. Dems. have done an okay job of criticizing Bush’s completely-unconservative runaway spending, but I’m not sure, given their history, if they yet have real credibility on this issue. Maybe it’s one for them to run with.
On the other hand, some opposing opinions really are just noise. I have an aunt who believes that finding a cure for migraine headaches is not only the number one health issue in the country, but is or ought to be the number one overall public policy objective. She votes on this basis, God help us. I don’t think her views are helpful.
More to the point, she represents someone who’s opinion is not only objectively stupid, but not subject to the dialectic form of political discourse that the optimists among us believe makes differing opinions okay. Implicit in the idea that it’s okay for you to say black when I say white is our idealistic assumption that at the end of a long battle, one of us may eventually be won over to the other’s side, no matter how far apart we started. It’s not guaranteed, and we know there’ll always be irreconcilable differences, but the evolution (devolution, if you prefer) of various people we know, or public figures, from liberal to conservative, from reactionary to progressive, etc., at least inspires us that the dialectic works some of the time. With people like my aunt, there’s no hope, because she’s not trafficking in policy or reason as we recognize them.
You bet! I have always voted for the Democrat, and continue to regard the Dems as watered down wussies spinelessly wafting in the breeze, trying to weakly oppose evil and destructive programs without offending anyone. But they are as close as I can get, and I regard voting as a duty. A duty not to be shunt aside simply because the choices are repugnant. It is my duty to make the best choice I can, regardless of the poverty of options.
Should I ever be confronted with a choice wherein the Dem candidate is a Trotskyist radical and the Republican a moderate Debsian socialist, I will vote Republican. I will, of course, carry an umbrella to protect my hairdo from the pig-flop dropping from the skies.
Bah, I’ve just spotted that my sig - qts - isn’t showing.
But no, just because we disagree with a particular viewpoint doesn’t mean that that viewpoint should be excised. An opposing viewpoint provides a check against which we can measure our own viewpoint and refine and even change. Because they might just be right. And even if they’re wrong, we can still learn and perhaps try and change their viewpoint. And we’re not the Stasi or KGB or Inquisition.
I always thought it would be cow-drop (as in we’re lucky cows don’t fly), but I’ve heard that pig manure is rather, um, tough to spread around on a farm as fertilizer without getting some on you. Of course in these days of corporate farming, the days when pig manure was useful rather than an environmental hazard are behind us. But that’s another thread entirely.
If you’re talking about people who I disagree with on economic issues, fine. If you’re talking about the neoconservatives, who are just imperialist whores with no decency and no regard for human life, and the God, guns and gays crowd, who are simple fascists, forget it. They’re just wrong. Once these next four years are over and Bush has finished doing his damage, my hope is that every single one of these useless asses will be marginalized for at least a generation. Forever would be preferable, but evil has a way of surviving no matter what.
I’m not as far left as elucidator but I pretty much agree with what he says about the Democratic party. And still, I mark myself a Democratic partisan.
I enjoy sane discussions regarding political theory with conservatives. I’ve changed my mind on several subjects as a direct result of some of those discussions. I’ve even had some of those discussions on this message board.
The problem lately is the lack of honest disagreement. Some opinions just can’t be formed honestly (i.e. from an honest assessment of available information). And it should be said that there are as many liberal or “leftist” opinions expressed here which weren’t formed honestly as there are conservative ones. And that’s just the way it is.
I’m much more likely nowadays to have an openminded give and take with libertarians, communists or discordianist anarchists than I am with American conservatives. And I don’t blame this on conservatism at all; I blame the polarization brought on by the radical politics masquerading as conservatism, and the near vacuum where the loyal opposition should be.
There are still honest conservatives and strong minded liberals in American politics, of course. They’ve just been seduced by party solidity on the one hand, and by whoredom to a false idea of centrism on the other hand.
If I was an american, I would probably be labeled a democrat, and would be vocally anti-Bush. But I think political diversity is invaluable, and many of the republican viewpoints are a good way of doing things, IMO.
As soon as someone becomes a blind partisan (or anti-partisan, as the case may be) any benefit is lost on them, though. I think this is largely the direction things seem to be headed now.
I value the ideas of anyone based on what I think that idea is. If it is a Republican with a good idea, super, I’ll even help him/her do it. If it is a Democrat with a bad idea, I may likely try to stop them.
The problem is, I don’t have many opportunities to see a Republican have an idea I consider good. When one does, e-mail me or something so I can get involved.
It’s not that I’m partisan… it’s that I believe what I believe, and it happens that one side I agree with a helluva lot more than the other side.
Will I give their side equal consideration? I think I do. I read literature from all parts of the spectrum. I consider the merits of their ideas while I am considering the flaws, just as I would with my own or someone I agree with’s ideas.
For instance, libertarianism. Plan B sent me a free copy of Free to Choose, which I’ve read half of, and I just don’t agree with it. I like to think that I gave it fair, if dubious, consideration.
Should we round up the willfully ignorant and happily stupid and shoot them? Probably not. Would the world be better if people would actually think and get educated instead? Definately.
People will always disagree; but, they don’t need to disagree on nitwitted bonehead points that aren’t themselves legitimate points of disagreement.
Oh, no. The world needs a lot of different ideas. No one group has all the answers. We need to keep each other in check.
What about countries with 5 or 6 viable political parties instead of just left/right? What if the U.S. were like that? Would politics be even more chaotic, or would the absence of two giants move us away from the “good vs. evil” mindset and force us to really collaborate and find workable agreements?
The most rabid partisans are deeply beholden to their counterparts on the other side of the political divide, and would be horrified if they vanished.
For example, the devout leftists on this board would be in dire straits without Ann Coulter as someone who supposedly typifies the Right.
And if Michael Moore was to disappear the ultra-orthodox righties would have a conniption at the loss of a preferred juicy target.
Extreme partisans must have their demons.
