The Demonization of the Opposition
POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2004 20:50
VIEWED: 35776
PAGE 1 of 20
Okay. These thoughts have been rolling around in my head for a while but I’ve never put them down in print. I’ve been inspired by reading message boards over the past many years and seeing the level of discourse on the topic of politics quickly degenerate into a pissing match. This community (fireflyfans) oftentimes rises above that. But I’m painting with a broad brush here, so allow me a little leeway. And a quick note for context since there are Browncoats all over the world: I’m restricting my remarks to the United States.
I might be naïve, but I firmly believe that one of the strengths of our political system is the self correcting mechanism of having two dominant political parties staking out the extremes. [Ignoring for the moment the question of how well our two major parties stake out those extremes or whether or not more than two viable nationwide parties would be more desirable]. The population as a whole seems to fall in the middle of these parties. One party may be ascendant, but this should not last forever. When our country is running smoothly, it is equivalent to a critically damped system: any deviation from equilibrium produces a return to equilibrium. I may not agree with the party in power, but I trust that they are as patriotic as I am, love this country as much as I do, and won’t do any long term damage while they are in power. And eventually, when they move the country in a direction too far towards their side of the spectrum, the moderates will swing the balance of power back in the other direction. So while I may not agree with the tactics they are using I trust that their strategy is consistent with mine.
But I’ve seen more and more rhetoric demonizing those who are from a different party. I get the feeling that people think it would be the end of the world if the other political party gained power. Those who support the other party are traitors. They should all be shot or, at the very least, forced to leave the country. I’ve seen these statements made with higher frequency over the past few years. It seems that people have turned politics into a sporting event where the only thing that matters is for their team to win the championship. There is no trust that the other side want what is best for this country but may have a different way of going about it. Maybe this has always been present and I’m only now beginning to notice. Maybe this is a new phenomenon. It’s only been over the past decade that I’ve really started to pay attention to politics and form my own opinions. One thing I am convinced of: it is unhealthy for this country to have one party dominating all aspects of government for an extended period of time.
So this is something in the nature of a plea. When political discussions arise, let’s do it with class. We may be on the bottom of the pile when it comes to influence. The only thing we may be able to do is vote – but that’s a pretty powerful weapon. Let’s trust that the person whose view point we disagree with has the best possible motives. Let’s talk, rather than yell. And if I’ve resorted to name calling in any of these threads, I apologize.
But here comes the cynic… Am I convinced that those elected on the federal level have the best interests of the country at heart? Am I convinced that most politicians haven’t sold out to special interest groups? Am I convinced that it’s a good thing that only people with huge stockpiles of campaign cash can get elected? Well, those are all topics open for debate. But on the “normal person” level, which is the category I think we all fall into, I’m willing to stand behind my belief that we’re all really after the same thing, we just have different ways of going about it.
And apologies in advance for the rambling nature of all of this 
.
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"America has a one party system," asserted the late African leader Julius Nyerere. "With your usual exuberance, you have two of them," he said
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I might be naïve, but I firmly believe that one of the strengths of our political system is the self correcting mechanism of having two dominant political parties staking out the extremes.
Uhh, they stake out THE MIDDLE. They TALK about the extremes, but at election time they BOTH move to the center in a ploy to steal support from the other. This is the major WEAKNESS of our system; the net result is that we are ALWAYS moving in the same direction, just at greater or lesser speed. This leaves the fundamentally dissatisfied with no alternative.
And each party demonizes the other, to empasize the virtually non-existent differences.
I'd be happier with a proportional representation system, frankly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Politicians: they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their
clothing - and if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
An analysis I heard many years ago:
There is no Constitutional requirement for two, and only two, major parties in the US. The US has a two-party system, not to mention lots of pre-election rhetoric followed by a dearth of post-election follow-through, and an incompetent electorate, b/c it elects a king who can't be removed for four years. (Not only is the electorate sharply divided, it is, strangely, cynical and not very likely to vote.)
Other countries where the government can be voted-out of office at any time have parties that are less likely to make promises they can't/won't keep, and more likely to depend on coalitions to rule. That makes third, fourth (and beyond )parties more valuable, allowing for representation across the spectrum. It also keeps voters interested and makes for sharp memories, unlike in the US where the collective memory (and thus accountability expected of the politicos) seems to last about 6 weeks.
It made sense to me. I haven't found a better explanation for the dysfunctional US two-party system.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you're looking for the two extremes, you're looking in the wrong places--as mentioned above, both Republican and Democrat run somewhere toward the conservative side of the middle, perhaps Democrats less so than Republicans. There is a two party system in place mostly because the democratic system that is used in the United States makes it too hard to go against the grain, and the abuse of the media by both parties just makes things worse. It's clear that most politicians ignored the advice given in their college English courses on logical fallacies, and they tend to boil things down to black and white when the only color that exists is grey.
I know a lot of people are going to argue with me on this, but it's my belief that the democratic system used in the US is not sufficient for a society of our size, diversity (of both culture and opinion), or technological advancement, and it also seems more and more that our country's leaders are unqualified for their jobs, no matter how educated they are. I certainly wouldn't take my $3000 laptop to my lawyer if I needed it repaired, no matter how good of a lawyer he is. Why would we have an MBA making decisions involving scientific advancement? It don't seem right, is all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We have a two party system for a number of reasons. First all, as memetic entities, if any third party starts stealing too many votes away from one of the two dominant ones, those in the dominant party start thinking "Hey maybe these guys have a point. Maybe we should adopt some of their platforms." And thereby regain lost votes, and undercut any potential third party.
Second, in a lot of cases, it is a binary choice. Should taxes go up, or down? Should guns be banned or not? Should abortion be legal or illegal? Is this idea right or wrong? Or even is this idea more right (correct, consistent with reality, functional) than that one.
Life or death, the two positions are mutually exclusive. Happiness and misery is the same. If you are one, that automatically rules out the other. And lets face it, this is what life is all about. Life and happiness and how to increase both.
Demonization, I hate to say I see primarily coming from the minority party. Not exclusively, but primarily. And I have to admit that makes me all the more glad they are the minority party. Because what that does to me is indicate a lack of logical argument. If you cannot argue logically, or even civilly, then I see that as a big indicator that your ideas are not consistent with reality nor will function as you expect. At best, that you do not understand your arguments sufficiently to explain them, defend them and have to use less rational and more emotional means of winning.
Take one meme that is out there. Bush = Hitler. There is a major bug with this statement in that such is considered an insult. People who insult dictators usually end up disappeared, dead, tortured, or worse. If the statement were true, such people who say it, would find themselves in a world of hurt, and quickly. Yet they don't. Therefore the statement is untrue, and provable by the fact that people actually say it.
There are many facets of our democratic process that upon further study, I find brillant. I know many want to change it, and lets be frank, almost all of them are out of power because they could not convince enough voters of the rightness of their ideas. The electoral college system especially is a brillant idea, born of comprimise, that ensures the voices of the farmers, the miners, and ranchers, get listened to almost as much as that of the urban office worker. Without it, the election would be decided by New York, California, and Texas, while the rest of the nation can go suck eggs.
The lack of minority party representation is not a bug, its a feature. With the first cross the post kind of elections we have, minority parties don't stand much of a chance. But then, does anyone ever consider that possibly the reason they are minority parties is that so few people disagree with them? Perhaps just maybe the people know better than so called self appointed elites, about what is best for this country and themselves.
What you have with our system is a reduced signal to noise ratio. Minority parties do not have much pull here. While in other countries, such minority parties can decide whether the government is viable, whether its minority positions (again, aren't they a minority for a reason?) get enacted and whether the government gets dissolved or not.
I know some people do not like the thought of not being listened to. Who does. But I think our system shows more faith in the electorate than many others. Our system, especially in Presidental elections, ensure that the candidates have to appeal to a broader base than only urban elites, or rural folk. It ensures that the people who create the food, mine the metals for the factories, cut the lumber, get a say in how this nation is run. Considering that city life would be impossible without the rural contribution, I don't see this as a problem.
If you are in a minority or third party, perhaps you are in a minority not because you are not being heard, but because you have been heard and folks have simply rejected your positions and politics. Perhaps its simply a matter of being wrong. Its not that they
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
We have a two party system for a number of reasons. First all, as memetic entities, if any third party starts stealing too many votes away from one of the two dominant ones, those in the dominant party start thinking "Hey maybe these guys have a point. Maybe we should adopt some of their platforms." And thereby regain lost votes, and undercut any potential third party.
I agree that this is exactly how the system works today - it is how so many socialist and communist ideals have become mainstream today. However, this is also exactly what leads to the demonization politics Soupcatcher laments in the original post.
The two major parties have no underlying philosophical purpose other than victory. They scoop up random issues and special interests in the hopes of cobbling together a successful plurality. The purpose is to further themselves, not their ideas, because their ideas are constantly changing. Demonization is an inevitability when the only consistent distinction between the two parties is 'us vs. them'.
I would prefer a system where, if parties exist at all, they exist solely to further specific issues and ideals. Instead of building a coalition within a party, a coalition would have to be built between parties. Once the issues and ideals the parties are formed around are realized, the party would simply fade into obsolescence. In this type of system, people would be fighting for a shared belief, rather than against a shared perceived enemy.
Quote:
Second, in a lot of cases, it is a binary choice. Should taxes go up, or down? Should guns be banned or not? Should abortion be legal or illegal? Is this idea right or wrong? Or even is this idea more right (correct, consistent with reality, functional) than that one.
Binary choices are a construct. By presenting an issue in an either/or manner, any other equally legitimate possibilities have already been discounted. That does not mean they do not exist, simply that they have been ignored in order to further the presenter's needs.
For instance, "Should taxes go up or down?" presupposes that taxation is legitimate in the first place. It also presupposes that people have a right to property in the first place that a portion of it may be taken by the state.
Even if, as within our society, the vast majority do share presuppositions of any of the given examples of binary choices, the binary nature of the choices are only relevant if the range of choices themselves line up consistently and predictably on opposite sides. That is to say, those who believe that taxes should go down must also only think that guns should not be banned and that abortion should be illegal.
The fact that this is not necessarily the case, at least on an individual level, illuminates the prism of the liberal-conservative axis through which issues are so typically viewed.
If these issues are viewed along a different axis, for example a libertarian-authoritarian axis, the line up is decidedly different, and the necessarily "binary" nature of the issues, as well as that of the two party system as a whole, is apparent as an illusion.
Quote:
If you are in a minority or third party, perhaps you are in a minority not because you are not being heard, but because you have been heard and folks have simply rejected your positions and politics. Perhaps its simply a matter of being wrong.
Yes, and perhaps this little TV show I like so much got cancelled because it sucked.
Within the paradigm of the two party system, I don't think you can lump the minority party (better described as the 'opposition') with dismissively described "third" parties. The two major parties are different sides of the same coin and have indeed both had a chance to be heard.
The same cannot possibly be said for "third" parties, who get ignored by the press, excluded from debates with major party participants, and legislated into obscurity by both of the parties in power via prohi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by splibertarian:
... it is how so many socialist and communist ideals have become mainstream today.
...
I'm from the outside looking in, but, what?!?
Quote:
Originally posted by splibertarian:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Constitution may not be perfect, but it's better than what we've got now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LOL
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your points are well made and I too am proud that this board maintains civility better than any other board I've seen.
I want to interject a few observations on the subject. I'll also take this opportunity to soap my own box, thank you very much.
First of all, it seems to me that many people use hyperbole in an effort to point out the seriousness of the subject, whether it be politics or who left the dirty towel on the floor. It doesn't work very well as an arguing stance, but it is a very common tactic nonetheless.
Demonizing the opposition is just another example of this. By definition, anyone who takes any strong stance must care deeply about it. However, the problem with hyperbole is that facts and rationality tend to fly out the window in it's presence and the only thing that's left is strong emotions. But sometimes the facts themselves are almost too horrible to contemplate, even without the hyperbole.
Here's one such debate and my take on it:
On the one hand, we've got a group in power who are taking away a lot of the little freedoms we've grown up with -- like the right to privacy -- and they are using tactics that set our hackles up, like torture, denying due process, etc. to our enemies and even to some of our citizens -- and they are trying to put our highest law enforcement agency, the FBI under the aegis of the CIA, an organization that openly bragged in front of the Senate hearings (9/11) about operating with impunity against the laws of other countries. (How ironic and scary is that?) All of the above are facts. So, what's next? Are they gonna accuse me of terrorist ties, take away my bank account, hold me incommunicado and deny me habeus corpus, send me to another country to be tortured until I 'confess'? Yup, it's scary, and it would be way too easy to demonize them by saying they are using the situation to grab power. Someone on the opposite side might devalue such fears by saying that what they are doing is a small price to pay for 'the greater good'.
The fellows in the White House say they are doing all this to protect us from a potential terrorist attack like the ones we endured on 9/11. That was a terrible day and none of us ever want to see a repeat. We wonder, "Will some terrorist plant a dirty nuke in my office building tomorrow unless I support these guys in office? Am I going to say goodbye to my loved one in the morning and hear about his death from a terrorist attack in the afternoon unless they torture those guys until they spills all the beans?" Very scary. And no matter how many 'terrorist' plots are foiled, there is no way to know if there isn't another one we haven't uncovered yet. So shouldn't we take every measure at our disposal, even if it means giving up some rights, or using torture or the services of nations who use torture, if there is even the smallest chance that another plot will be foiled? Again it would be easy to demonize anyone who is too 'squeamish' to countenance such measures, if it is believe that personal safety depends on it. But someone in opposition to this stance would say that torture very rarely elicits useful factual information and such tactics may very well incite more terrorist attacks. They also might say that once our rights are taken away, it will be very difficult to get them back, and we fought hard for them in the first place. Our rights are what make us the civilized nation that we are, and they protect us from the very abuses that we condemn in other nations. And WE DON'T TORTURE PEOPLE!
Having said all that, I'll leave a fact to 'chew' on: Every evil human act makes it easier to act more evilly the next time and every humane act makes it easier to act more humanely the next time, both as a human and as a nation. So what are we doing to these people who are our enemies, and what are we doing to ourselves? Are we making it easier to dehumanize, humiliate, and torture other people as standard operating procedure? Will taking such a road make us 'safer' when other countries see us as willing to dehumanize,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME