The problem with politics in America

[ZZ-Tops89]

I'm about to make a bunch of claims that might or might not prove to cause anger, or potentially a flame war. Please refrain from those.

With that out of the way, I've found in my experience that American politics is currently defined by having two main political parties with internally contradictory opinions. By this I mean that their general logic is both supported and rejected with specific issues. Specifically, the democrats seem to see government as a sort of benevolent protector of the people. In their economic policy they recommend more redistribution programs and regulation of market forces. This seems, at least to me, to contradict their foreign policy and social policy. They advocate government non-intervention in issues such as abortion and gay marriage, as well as in issues of international disputes (lean towards liberal internationalism). In other words, their view of government as an agent of popular moral change is contradicted by their refusal to become morally entangled in international policy and social issues.

In contrast the republicans seem to support a adversarial relationship between government and citizens, specifically in terms of markets and the 2nd Amendment. But at the same time they claim that government has sufficient moral legitimacy to make laws to right perceived moral wrongs (the opinion that gay marriage and abortion should be outlawed, for example). Further, they seek for the US government to actively engage abroad.

To me both sides have glaring contradictions in their set of opinions. I've noticed that in the last election cycle several candidates came closer to addressing these than most. I heard many referring to Huckabee as a sort of "modern William Jennings Bryan" i.e. a religious populist. Ron Paul took the opposite approach by arguing for all-out minimalism in government. I wanted to see whether other people agreed about the general claim here about American politics. Also, please don't make this about the views themselves if you do decide to respond.

 

[McClaud]

I'll engage you in one regard -

I don't find the Democrats being glaringly contradictory in their policies. Their present attitude is "fix things without getting entangled in external or moral affairs that aren't literally defined by the Constitution." They've always been that way. I mean, American diplomacy was not doing too well in the direction the former adminstration* was taking it (direct, in-your-face, our-way-or-no-way). So the present administration is going to try a different, less adversarial approach. They still try to do more than they are capable of, though, while expanding government.

The opposite side of that is the Republicans, who want to "fix things by regulating moral grounds while loosening economic ones." They sort of lost their fiscal conservatism and ideals of a small government somewhere during the 90's. In reality, they tried too hard to be THE party that covers all angles. They lost a lot of us ex-Republicans when they started touting the moral high ground and telling me how I need to live my life behind closed doors. What's even weirder is that they floundered on the moral high ground when several of their more prominent members were caught in strange relationships and circumstances that went against what they were rallying against.

I'm finding the present administration to be a weird anomally. It's not really Democratic, because it seems to eschew the far Left (there are times when they sound more Republican than the Republicans). It's not really Conservative, as it avoids the far Right. The parties themselves seem to have gravitated into those extremes, where the norm is taking the exact opposite stance from the other party. They tried to make things black and white. I think that's partly why Hillary Clinton didn't resonate enough - she tried to make the Democrats the pure blue to some of the the Republicans (such as your example in Huckabee, as well as people like Sam Brownback) who were making the GOP pure red. The reality is that a majority of people are somewhere in the middle.

Either way, the general opinion of one party did not shift over 5 years. It's remained at 35% since 2004. The other party has dropped to 21% and is still falling. It's obvious that the party suffering the slide is going to have to either come back to the middle or disband if they want to regain any popularity. You know which party I speak of - the GOP. However, this rebranding of the Republicans seems to be even more sensationalist and farther right than before, so I'm not sure that it will recover.

Of course, now that I've said that, I expect people to come in and go nuts on me. I'm just expressing my opinion, having been once a member of the Republican party for 10+ years.

* Note that when I say administration, I mean the entire administration and not just Bush. Bush had his good moments and his bad moments. Unfortunately, one of his bad moments was picking the people to advise him and run his administration. Part of that stems from blind party loyalty and doing what less popular (but influential) people in his party told him to do. I feel sorry that the Bush we now see isn't the Bush we could have had during the last 4 years. The agreeable, more intellectually intent, listening GW Bush.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

I'll engage you in one regard -

I don't find the Democrats being glaringly contradictory in their policies. Their present attitude is "fix things without getting entangled in external or moral affairs that aren't literally defined by the Constitution." They've always been that way. I mean, American diplomacy was not doing too well in the direction the former adminstration* was taking it (direct, in-your-face, our-way-or-no-way). So the present administration is going to try a different, less adversarial approach. They still try to do more than they are capable of, though, while expanding government.

The opposite side of that is the Republicans, who want to "fix things by regulating moral grounds while loosening economic ones." They sort of lost their fiscal conservatism and ideals of a small government somewhere during the 90's. In reality, they tried too hard to be THE party that covers all angles. They lost a lot of us ex-Republicans when they started touting the moral high ground and telling me how I need to live my life behind closed doors. What's even weirder is that they floundered on the moral high ground when several of their more prominent members were caught in strange relationships and circumstances that went against what they were rallying against.

I'm finding the present administration to be a weird anomally. It's not really Democratic, because it seems to eschew the far Left (there are times when they sound more Republican than the Republicans). It's not really Conservative, as it avoids the far Right. The parties themselves seem to have gravitated into those extremes, where the norm is taking the exact opposite stance from the other party. They tried to make things black and white. I think that's partly why Hillary Clinton didn't resonate enough - she tried to make the Democrats the pure blue to some of the the Republicans (such as your example in Huckabee, as well as people like Sam Brownback) who were making the GOP pure red. The reality is that a majority of people are somewhere in the middle.

Either way, the general opinion of one party did not shift over 5 years. It's remained at 35% since 2004. The other party has dropped to 21% and is still falling. It's obvious that the party suffering the slide is going to have to either come back to the middle or disband if they want to regain any popularity. You know which party I speak of - the GOP. However, this rebranding of the Republicans seems to be even more sensationalist and farther right than before, so I'm not sure that it will recover.

Of course, now that I've said that, I expect people to come in and go nuts on me. I'm just expressing my opinion, having been once a member of the Republican party for 10+ years.

* Note that when I say administration, I mean the entire administration and not just Bush. Bush had his good moments and his bad moments. Unfortunately, one of his bad moments was picking the people to advise him and run his administration. Part of that stems from blind party loyalty and doing what less popular (but influential) people in his party told him to do. I feel sorry that the Bush we now see isn't the Bush we could have had during the last 4 years. The agreeable, more intellectually intent, listening GW Bush.

Obama is an anomaly, and you have me there, but the democratic party as a whole is towards the economic left. My big question here is: Why are the modern American populists (Democratic party, presumably) trying to avoid courting the people in favor of morality regulation?

I probably should have also pointed out the 1st Amendment issues as well. It seems like specifically in their approach to individual liberty the Republican party has taken a more utilitarian approach in the past decade or so (what matters is stopping terrorists, yes we have to sacrifice), but they remain proceduralists in terms of economic policy and social policy (morality and laissez faire on principle). The democrats seem to occupy the other side of this, but it seems like the proceduralism and utilitarianism can't be present in the current way (where both parties take combinations of the two in weird ways)

 

[McClaud]

The problem with politics, period, is that it is the art of lying to the masses, promising everything and giving nothing.

Your post is too long for my poor eyes to read right now.

I agree with you. Part of politics is telling people what they want to hear without really letting go of your beliefs and agenda. Unfortunately, we've gone to extremes in that. I feel sorry for both McCain and Obama in that regard - we've come so far into this extreme of lying and propagandering that they had to play along or not survive the election.

And I lol'ed at the last sentence. Yeah, I'm wide awake cuz I'm at work, so that is a lot of words to digest at this hour. Get some sleep, come back. Our posts aren't going anywhere.

Obama is an anomaly, and you have me there, but the democratic party as a whole is towards the economic left. My big question here is: Why are the modern American populists (Democratic party, presumably) trying to avoid courting the people in favor of morality regulation?

Because they see the trap that I see in trying to morally regulate American society through Federal politics -

Once you set a precident of outwardly allowing the religion/morality of the majority to regulate morality of everyone through Federal means - if the religion/morality of the oppressed minority* or of a dangerous extremist position were to gain the majority in the future, they will take the precident all the way to the extreme and woe be the religion that once had majority. It could get seriously ugly.


*NOTE: When I say "oppressed," I'm say that when one moral group gets in power, they do put down the beliefs of the opposing group. Which is similar to oppression. And that builds resentment, anger and momentum for the opposing group.

 

[Horned Rat]

The problem with politics, period, is that it is the art of lying to the masses, promising everything and giving nothing.

Your post is too long for my poor eyes to read right now.

Pretty much this. Voted in by the people not for the people.

 

[McClaud]

the main problem is that the fat americans were think enough to vote in Bush (both of them I mean really if a contractor cocks up you don't ask if the apprentice can come over and try again you find someone NEW!)

I'd feed you, Troll, but I'm all out of goats at this hour.

 

[Spinozaad]

Excuse me my possible ignorance, for I am not a resident of the United States, buuuuuuuuut...

...Isn't it somewhat normal that, in a country as populous as the USA and with only two true political parties, these political parties tend to become somewhat contradictionary? I mean, it would be a bigger surprise to see two monolithic parties, comprised of millions of voters/members/followers in which not a single deviance of idea or interpretation exists.

 

[McClaud]

Excuse me my possible ignorance, for I am not a resident of the United States, buuuuuuuuut...

...Isn't it somewhat normal that, in a country as populous as the USA and with only two true political parties, these political parties tend to become somewhat contradictionary? I mean, it would be a bigger surprise to see two monolithic parties, comprised of millions of voters/members/followers in which not a single deviance of idea or interpretation exists.

The problem being that they are so contradictory that instead of seeking a compromise or a favorable solution that falls in between, they go all out for extremes. The best example is the subject of marriage - one party believes that marriage as the concept stands should be thrown out the window entirely and the other believes that marriage cannot be anything but one man and one woman. And deviation from those stances makes them toss you under the bus, because you are a "traitor" to the party.

I had a very eye-opening experience in 2004 when I encountered one Sarah Palin at a Republican rally (my sister lives in Alaska, so we went) for Bush. Thousands of Republicans flocked to her side. She publically lauded my military service, my voting for the party in previous elections and my position towards a fiscally conservative government. Then, when I expressed my position on stem cell research, she turned on me. Violently. "You are not a Republican. You're a sorry excuse for an Independent," are her exact words to me. She said them with such venom and force that it shocked me. I realized right then and there that the party I grew up supporting had transformed into something else. I totally identified with Arlen Specter when he said, "This is not the party I ran with in the 80's."

 

[Sewblon]

No silver bullet for everything wrong with this countries politics exists. I think it all comes down to the voters, true libertarians and true absolutists both extremely few in number so neither of them could be a dependable voting block in national politics.

 

[Thanatos34]

Excuse me my possible ignorance, for I am not a resident of the United States, buuuuuuuuut...

...Isn't it somewhat normal that, in a country as populous as the USA and with only two true political parties, these political parties tend to become somewhat contradictionary? I mean, it would be a bigger surprise to see two monolithic parties, comprised of millions of voters/members/followers in which not a single deviance of idea or interpretation exists.

The problem being that they are so contradictory that instead of seeking a compromise or a favorable solution that falls in between, they go all out for extremes. The best example is the subject of marriage - one party believes that marriage as the concept stands should be thrown out the window entirely and the other believes that marriage cannot be anything but one man and one woman. And deviation from those stances makes them toss you under the bus, because you are a "traitor" to the party.

I had a very eye-opening experience in 2004 when I encountered one Sarah Palin at a Republican rally (my sister lives in Alaska, so we went) for Bush. Thousands of Republicans flocked to her side. She publically lauded my military service, my voting for the party in previous elections and my position towards a fiscally conservative government. Then, when I expressed my position on stem cell research, she turned on me. Violently. "You are not a Republican. You're a sorry excuse for an Independent," are her exact words to me. She said them with such venom and force that it shocked me. I realized right then and there that the party I grew up supporting had transformed into something else. I totally identified with Arlen Specter when he said, "This is not the party I ran with in the 80's."

I have to agree with you on Palin. The woman was a disaster. Politically naive, and ultra-conservative. I almost agree with some of the theorists that say McCain chose her to prove a point, realizing he would lose in any case.

 

[Seldon2639]

Eh. It's a good point, but only if viewed from a certain perspective. The Democrats are only inconsistent if one believes that providing the right to gay marriage and abortion is not in and of itself intrusion, or that foreign aid isn't a form of using big government to help people.

Republicans are only inconsistent if one takes for granted that they are for completely limited government, rather than the use of government to protect basic rights. If a basic right is freedom of worship, and most people are some flavor of Christian, preventing something repugnant to the majority of Americans is protecting their rights to avoid something repulsive to them (like obscenity law). Remember, for instance, that they have focused on states' rights, while arguing for a small federal government. Preventing gay marriage at the state level is not "big government".

You're beginning from a set point of "there's no stance on gay marriage" and going from there, but that's not the situation. Republicans are attempting to maintain the status quo (preventing government from instituting a new law, much like they stopped the Equal Rights Amendment), while Democrats are trying to move forward. In fairness to your point, using the federal government to try to restrain the influence of the federal government where that influence already exists (like with abortion) can look an awful lot like just bigger government. It is an interesting testament that the debate has shifted from "Democrats want to legalize abortion and gay marriage, and the Republicans are trying to stop them" to "they claim that government has sufficient moral legitimacy to make laws to right perceived moral wrongs (the opinion that gay marriage and abortion should be outlawed, for example)". Gay marriage is already outlawed in most states, and abortion was outlawed within my father's generation.

But, don't blame the parties, blame the people. We get what we ask for, because we're all internally inconsistent. We want all the rights we can take, and all the restrictions on everyone else. We want government services for ourselves, and to take them away from people we don't think deserve/need them. We want to enforce our moral codes on the nation, without having others' moral codes enforced on us. We want to help people across the world, while at the same time not giving up any of our luxuries. We want restraint from everyone except ourselves. We want lower taxes and higher spending. We want less pork-barrel spending in general, but certainly don't mind the portion coming to us. We want to get what we work for, but make sure no one is left behind. We want universal healthcare, without rationing it. We like the deductibility of mortgage interest, and then blame the banks and government for sub-prime loans (ignore that it was public demand for more money for housing which demanded the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). We want a meritocracy, and then oppose the estate tax. Tell me when Americans start being consistent, and then complain about the parties.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

Eh. It's a good point, but only if viewed from a certain perspective. The Democrats are only inconsistent if one believes that providing the right to gay marriage and abortion is not in and of itself intrusion, or that foreign aid isn't a form of using big government to help people.

Republicans are only inconsistent if one takes for granted that they are for completely limited government, rather than the use of government to protect basic rights. If a basic right is freedom of worship, and most people are some flavor of Christian, preventing something repugnant to the majority of Americans is protecting their rights to avoid something repulsive to them (like obscenity law). Remember, for instance, that they have focused on states' rights, while arguing for a small federal government. Preventing gay marriage at the state level is not "big government".

You're beginning from a set point of "there's no stance on gay marriage" and going from there, but that's not the situation. Republicans are attempting to maintain the status quo (preventing government from instituting a new law, much like they stopped the Equal Rights Amendment), while Democrats are trying to move forward. In fairness to your point, using the federal government to try to restrain the influence of the federal government where that influence already exists (like with abortion) can look an awful lot like just bigger government. It is an interesting testament that the debate has shifted from "Democrats want to legalize abortion and gay marriage, and the Republicans are trying to stop them" to "they claim that government has sufficient moral legitimacy to make laws to right perceived moral wrongs (the opinion that gay marriage and abortion should be outlawed, for example)". Gay marriage is already outlawed in most states, and abortion was outlawed within my father's generation.

But, don't blame the parties, blame the people. We get what we ask for, because we're all internally inconsistent. We want all the rights we can take, and all the restrictions on everyone else. We want government services for ourselves, and to take them away from people we don't think deserve/need them. We want to enforce our moral codes on the nation, without having others' moral codes enforced on us. We want to help people across the world, while at the same time not giving up any of our luxuries. We want restraint from everyone except ourselves. We want lower taxes and higher spending. We want less pork-barrel spending in general, but certainly don't mind the portion coming to us. We want to get what we work for, but make sure no one is left behind. We want universal healthcare, without rationing it. We like the deductibility of mortgage interest, and then blame the banks and government for sub-prime loans (ignore that it was public demand for more money for housing which demanded the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). We want a meritocracy, and then oppose the estate tax. Tell me when Americans start being consistent, and then complain about the parties.

You win the thread.

EDIT: Wait, not quite/ I do have one or two nits to pick. Just because the republicans are defending the status quo, their opinion is that a status quo in which government has moral legitimacy is correct. This implies they feel government is a legitimate actor for making binding moral decrees. The problem (and part of my initial claim) is that this conflicts with their view that in the economy, government tends to be inefficient and generally bad.

Also, the gay marriage debate is currently being debated both federally and at the state level, so it is an example of a federal intrusiveness issue.

 

[Alex_P]

With that out of the way, I've found in my experience that American politics is currently defined by having two main political parties with internally contradictory opinions. By this I mean that their general logic is both supported and rejected with specific issues. Specifically, the democrats seem to see government as a sort of benevolent protector of the people. In their economic policy they recommend more redistribution programs and regulation of market forces. This seems, at least to me, to contradict their foreign policy and social policy. They advocate government non-intervention in issues such as abortion and gay marriage, as well as in issues of international disputes (lean towards liberal internationalism). In other words, their view of government as an agent of popular moral change is contradicted by their refusal to become morally entangled in international policy and social issues.

There's no great paradox there. They view the government as an agent of popular moral change, but their moral outlook attempts to be pluralistic. So, on issues that are seen as "individual choices" (e.g. abortion, religious beliefs), Democrats try to be permissive. On issues that are seen as "social problems" that affect everybody together rather than separately (not just economics but also potentially stuff like drug use, the media, &c.), they try to pick a big solution and implement it. I think it's a sound, internally-consistent position, although the particular details of how Democrats approach it don't universally sit well with me.

-- Alex

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

With that out of the way, I've found in my experience that American politics is currently defined by having two main political parties with internally contradictory opinions. By this I mean that their general logic is both supported and rejected with specific issues. Specifically, the democrats seem to see government as a sort of benevolent protector of the people. In their economic policy they recommend more redistribution programs and regulation of market forces. This seems, at least to me, to contradict their foreign policy and social policy. They advocate government non-intervention in issues such as abortion and gay marriage, as well as in issues of international disputes (lean towards liberal internationalism). In other words, their view of government as an agent of popular moral change is contradicted by their refusal to become morally entangled in international policy and social issues.

There's no great paradox there. They view the government as an agent of popular moral change, but their moral outlook attempts to be pluralistic. So, on issues that are seen as "individual choices" (e.g. abortion, religious beliefs), Democrats try to be permissive. On issues that are seen as "social problems" that affect everybody together rather than separately (not just economics but also potentially stuff like drug use, the media, &c.), they try to pick a big solution and implement it. I think it's a sound, internally-consistent position, although the particular details of how Democrats approach it don't universally sit well with me.

-- Alex

Right, but the problem is that just because the democrats say these are social/individual issues doesn't mean they necessarily are. The right is arguing that gay marriage and abortion ARE social issues. How do we arbitrate whether they are?

Further, which part comes first; do we define the democratic party by their socially oriented (utilitarian) economic policy and therefore conclude that their social policy is based on a utilitarian morality (and accept the democrats as moral relativists), or do we start with their pluralistic, non-intrusive morals that allow freedom and individual choice, and then flounder around trying to defend their economic policy as not being utilitarian? As I see it the only way to avoid the contradiction is to grant the respective political parties their own definitions of the issues, which is nothing short of saying, "both sides say they are right, therefore both sides are right". Also, we can't ave multiple definitions for the same thing.

 

[Seldon2639]

You win the thread.

EDIT: Wait, not quite/ I do have one or two nits to pick. Just because the republicans are defending the status quo, their opinion is that a status quo in which government has moral legitimacy is correct. This implies they feel government is a legitimate actor for making binding moral decrees. The problem (and part of my initial claim) is that this conflicts with their view that in the economy, government tends to be inefficient and generally bad.

Also, the gay marriage debate is currently being debated both federally and at the state level, so it is an example of a federal intrusiveness issue.

Damn, I was about to take a curtain call. The Republicans aren't holding to a status quo in which the government has any acting regarding moral decrees in this matter, which is the point. The Republican belief is that the baseline is a lack of gay marriage (the point of inaction on the part of the government), and that it's taking government intrusion to create the institution of gay marriage. It's completely dependent on where one draws the starting line. The Democrats' starting line is that gay marriage is a right, so for them the Republican response is government interference, while they're simply using government to try to protect people's rights (consistent). The Republicans' starting line is that gay marriage isn't a right, and doesn't exist in and of itself, so it takes government intervention to create it, which they want to prevent (consistent). If you start with the baseline that Judeao-Christian values control the country, anything deviating from that requires government intervention, and anything staying with those values is simply a wall against intervention.

You're viewing the issue from your own starting point, rather than the starting points of the parties and their members (to whom the parties must be consistent, or at least as consistent as they can be with the voters being as crazy as they are). That's fine, but without the ability to say one view is inherently "right", there's no more validity to your view than either of theirs, meaning that you should really view consistency from the perspective of whether it is consistent based on where they view the lines, not where you view them.

 

[scotth266]

GASP! Long, well-worded posts accurately describing peoples feelings on politics in a thread here? Surely the world has gone mad! Either that, or it's five in the morning.

Forgive me for my sarcasm. It's just that I've seen far too many posts of "BUSH CAN SUK DIX" in politics threads of late. It gives one a deep feeling of grief.

To get on topic: politics is a necessary evil, one that has become more evil in the recent history in our country. This has mostly to do with our system being mainly a two-party system, outside of which is a desolate political climate. These days, you're either a Rep or a Dem, or you're not gonna get in office otherwise unless you happen to be lucky. The main issue with this is that there are so many subdivisions of Reps and Dems these days that should be their own parties, as they cannot stick together without sounding hypocritical.

For instance, I registered myself as a Republican. That does not automatically flag me as a supporter of all things Republican though. For instance, I may say that I'm against abortion as a method of birth control, but fine with it as a medical procedure(in case of emergencies) or when rape is involved(a sticky issue in which men have no buisness being involved in). This gets me labled as... what exactly? A moderate Republican? But since there wind up being only two serious candidates up for the Presidency, one for and one against, with no room in the middle, I as a voter am left out of the loop on the issue. There needs to be more parties with more varied opinions, with an actual chance at winning elections. Sadly, this will likely never happen.

I only choose to be a Republican because I dislike the Democratic side of things more often than not. That, and they're responsible for Hillary Clinton.

 

[McClaud]

I do believe that is where the flaw comes into play on things such as gay marriage, and the Republicans trying to institute moral law vis-a-vis their stance that "the majority of Americans are Christian, so we should institute Christian values into the Federal system."

Law in this country is built on a series of precidents. Every time the Federal system move to set a precident in law, people should view the effects long-term. The Republicans openly state that marriage is an institution of religion, and the Christian viewpoint of one man and one woman should be law.

Once they move into that area, they are setting a precident for saying, "If the religion of the majority says something has to be one way, then the law will be valid." That's setting a dangerous precident should the religion of the majority ever change. Especially if that religion was one that felt particularily oppressed by the previous religion of the majority.

It's better to say that the social issue of marriage is defined by state, and the Federal government will support that decision. The precident at the Federal level is then protected. Democrats have an easy time accomplishing things that way, although their major proposition is to get the Federal government to do it. Republicans lately have it harder, because they view the Federal government as the end-all of Constitutional law. They shrink it when it's convenient to avoid tampering with their freedoms, but they expand the Federal government's power on issues of perceived morality.

That seems out of whack, because normally we perceive Democrats as big government and Republicans as smaller government. In the last 8 years, however, the reverse has become true. The Democrats have been pushing for more state control (because they found out it's easier) and the Republicans have been pushing for more Federal control.