I’ve been reading these boards for a few years now, but this (the past few months) is the first time I have been repelled from even attempting any form of posting (especially in GD) due to the intense level of rabid partisan bickering that is going on. It really is quite disconcerting to see.
Every thread about Bush has comments like "Well, Clinton did this too" or “*Liberals control this…”. * Every thread on Kerry has similar comments, none of which has even the smallest relevance to the OP. There is no excuse for any of it in most cases. Even politically benign threads seem somehow to become ‘infected’ with random squabbling over petty political points. It never used to be (anything) like (as bad as) this.
Is there some kind of myopic thought wave that runs through the US in an election year and fills everyone with a plethora of sound-bites that automatically gainsay the opinions of anyone who may disagree with you? Is it because every exchange must, by definition, become politicized and every happening must be used to ‘prove’ something about how your opponent ‘distorts’ facts and is “evil”, “stupid”, “hateful” or “pathetic”?
Can people not support a political viewpoint without feeling the need to demonise anyone who disagrees with them? It certainly seems, at present, that very few can. Why is this? Is it just me, or is it really getting worse at this time? Or am I merely becoming more sensitive to it and it has actually always been this way? Thoughts?
My take on the phenomenon is that the Dopers tend to be a pretty well-read, informed group of people with strong opinions that they’re willing to share and debate. Add to that a set of socio-political issues that are extraordinarily divisive and you’ve got the makings for some first-rate rancor.
I’ve mentioned before (and have seen reported in the media in several places) that very few people have a “take him or leave him” opinion of the President. His administration and its policies seem to bring out really strong opinions (either for or against). I can’t recall who wrote it, but I read an Op/Ed piece within the past six months, the gist of which was “I’ve been covering politics for 40 years and I’ve never heard so many people use the word ‘hate’ in reference to a sitting President. All rationality on the subject seems to complete evaporate on both sides of the aisle.”
I suspect that there’ll be blood in the streets come October.
I agree with plnnr. The more you know about something, the more likely you are to have a strongly held opinion. That said, it seems to me that there is more venom coming from the left toward GWB than there was from the right toward Bill Clinton. In the interest of disclosure, I loathe Clinton and tend to lean to the right. Given that, my perception may be altered a bit. After all, we tend to accept things we agree with as fact and take them for granted.
But the invective toward Bush is surprisingly strong. Could this be a result of the close election of 2000? Or are folks on the left upset with Bush’s doctrine of preemption or his ability to affect the Supreme Court for years when he is reelected? (Yes, I think he will be.)
And as I have opined before, I think the September 11th attacks have played a role in general leftward frustration as well, with GWB the defacto focal point. The fallout of the attacks include an increased willingness by the public to use the military, a larger defense budget and a stronger FBI and CIA. The further left you are, the more the prospect of any of those things horrifies you. Throw in the usual election year polarizing and you have the current invective from both sides.
I find this interesting as, personally, the more I learn on a particular issue the more this learning would increase my ability to express my opinion; but it would equally lessen the strength I would feel about the rightness of this opinion - I would learn to see things in many more shades of grey rather than living through sound-bites and snippets of arguments. Acknowledging these shades of grey allows me to understand and respect the other side of the debate and would certainly lessen my vitriol towards other people when discussing the issue. Understanding the validity of a contrary opinion is something that, for me, is impoortant to understanding why you happen to believe what you believe.
I can’t comment on this as I wasn’t about these boards at the time, but I can certainly imagine there was quite a lot to be said on both sides at the time.
Thanks for all the other comments.
