Civility in Politics, your thoughts?

[Peguy]

Interesting remarks about how we conduct politics today from a moral standpoint.

Fr. Jeffrey on civility in politics

Your thoughts? My main beef is not necessarily the attack ads or partisanship per se, but rather that it all concentrates on trival shit that doesn't even really matter. If they actually dealt with the real issues at hand, well then it'd be far more interesting.

[Lateralus]

Actually, I think political campaigns are more civil than they used to be, thanks to mass media, not that there isn't room for improvement.

[ajblaise]

These attack ads and trivial narratives are only there to sway idiot undecided voters, who respond better to these sorts of things rather than taking a look at where they stand policy wise.

[Peguy]

Actually, I think political campaigns are more civil than they used to be, thanks to mass media, not that there isn't room for improvement.

True, compared to how it was during the days of the Founding Fathers. However, at least there were some serious political issues at play in regards to the nature of Constitution(Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists) and so on.

Now it's just a matter of disagreement over specific adjustments on how to maintain the same grand strategy for both domestic and especially foreign affairs.

[Edahn]

I find a lot of the criticism to be hypocritical (blasting politicians for having ties to corporations, for instance) and distracting (relationship problems). There doesn't seem any integrity left in politics. The tricky thing, I think, is how to change things. If you try to take the moral high ground, it seems pretty inevitable that you'd get buried by all the character tarnishing. Reminds me of what I learned in negotiations: hard bargaining will always dominate soft bargaining; if you try to be fair and civil with someone who lays dirty, you're going to lose.

[Peguy]

These attack ads and trivial narratives are only there to sway idiot undecided voters, who respond better to these sorts of things rather than taking a look at where they stand policy wise.

This is largely the result of various factors: namely the over-concentration of power at the Federal level plus the rise of mass society. If we operated on a more direct-democracy basis and geniune federalism, this would be contained to a considerable extent.

We also need to address the social issue of seeing ourselves as just a bunch of random individuals with 'rights' who lack any real connection with each other. In such a situation, it's necessary for governments to step in and maintain order.

If we operated on a community-based foundation, we could more effectively limit government's involvment through the independent self-governing means of such communities. And this will do more to secure individual rights in the long term as well.

[ajblaise]

This is largely the result of various factors: namely the over-concentration of power at the Federal level plus the rise of mass society. If we operated on a more direct-democracy basis and geniune federalism(which is built upon the foundation of people operating in strong communities), this would be contained to a considerable extent.

Yeah I see mainstream TV media as the main cause. Soundbites and 30 second commercials dominate. If we just had print media instead of TV media concerning presidential politics, the debate would be a lot more substantive with less appeal to emotion perhaps.

[Peguy]

I find a lot of the criticism to be hypocritical (blasting politicians for having ties to corporations, for instance) and distracting (relationship problems). There doesn't seem any integrity left in politics. The tricky thing, I think, is how to change things. If you try to take the moral high ground, it seems pretty inevitable that you'd get buried by all the character tarnishing.

That's certainly what happened to Ron Paul. Nevertheless, it does need to be done on some level.

When running for MP, Hilaire Belloc overtly declared the fact he was a devout Catholic, and if the electors rejected him because of that fact he'd thank God for sparring him the indignity of being their represenative. He won the election.

Same thing with Harry Truman when he basically told it how it was.

We're littered with plenty of pandering politicians, people will actually respect a guy who has true conviction. The image commonly presented of Obama shows this to be true to an extent.

[Peguy]

Yeah I see mainstream TV media as the main cause. Soundbites and 30 second commercials dominate. If we just had print media instead of TV media concerning presidential politics, the debate would be a lot more substantive with less appeal to emotion perhaps.

The media is but one factor in the equation. The media is but a tool. It's mainly the marriage between big government and big business that's causing all this.

The media actually has great potential to educate the public. But as you stated, not in the manner in which operates now. British politics aren't much better IMO, but you can clearly see a difference between discussions on BBC and those that take place on CNN.

[heart]

I think the focus on trivia is intentional by both sides and it's all of our collective fault as society for allowing it to continue and allowing them to steer the course of debtate and to set the dialectics that we do debate. There are limitless avenues for human imagination to follow and yet we allow the media to keep us stuck in certain grooves.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

These attack ads and trivial narratives are only there to sway idiot undecided voters, who respond better to these sorts of things rather than taking a look at where they stand policy wise.

Policy is really not a good criteria for an independent voter to choose a President. If policy were most important, then they would pick a party and wouldn't be independent.

Also policy is more important in voting for legislators who deal solely with the creation of laws. The executive branch has impact on policy as well, but they also are responsible for other things which have little to do with party affiliaion such as diplomacy, warfare, or responding to an emergency. I don't agree with how Bush has handled situations like Iraq or Katrina, but I don't think it has to do with him being Republican. I think he is simply incompetent regardless of party affiliation.

[booyalab]

Policy is really not a good criteria for an independent voter to choose a President.
What on earth is better criteria for choosing a president than his plan of action?

I don't usually agree with ajblaise on politics but this seems like common sense.

[Enyo]

These attack ads and trivial narratives are only there to sway idiot undecided voters, who respond better to these sorts of things rather than taking a look at where they stand policy wise.

I think this is the first time that I've ever agreed with you.

Seriously, I find the nastiness of attack ads to be a turn-off. I don't use commercials to make my decisions about politics. I'd kinda rather look at the positions. And then try to pick the one that's the least contrary to my beliefs. :P

Too bad that I don't want either of our current candidates equally.

[Enyo]

Policy is really not a good criteria for an independent voter to choose a President. If policy were most important, then they would pick a party and wouldn't be independent.

Also policy is more important in voting for legislators who deal solely with the creation of laws. The executive branch has impact on policy as well, but they also are responsible for other things which have little to do with party affiliaion such as diplomacy, warfare, or responding to an emergency. I don't agree with how Bush has handled situations like Iraq or Katrina, but I don't think it has to do with him being Republican. I think he is simply incompetent regardless of party affiliation.

What else would you use? Seriously, I don't care about party affiliation, myself. But the parties are (in theory) representative of certain core beliefs.

You are right, though, Bush is incompetent, period. Party aside. The same thing could have been said about Carter, from what I understand. (I wasn't around at the time, so I don't have first-hand knowledge.)

[Peguy]

Policy is really not a good criteria for an independent voter to choose a President. If policy were most important, then they would pick a party and wouldn't be independent.

Also policy is more important in voting for legislators who deal solely with the creation of laws. The executive branch has impact on policy as well, but they also are responsible for other things which have little to do with party affiliaion such as diplomacy, warfare, or responding to an emergency. I don't agree with how Bush has handled situations like Iraq or Katrina, but I don't think it has to do with him being Republican. I think he is simply incompetent regardless of party affiliation.

This raises some interesting questions here. It seems you're arguing for an Executive that acts very much in a monarchial-type role. The monarch stands above petty inter-party disputes concerning policies, and guides the nation through a grand vision of how it should conduct itself in the world. Because of the a-political nature of the monarch's office, everybody can rally around his leadership.

One English writer actually spoke with much praise about the American presidency being a perfect example of a monarchy in the modern world.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

What on earth is better criteria for choosing a president than his plan of action?

I don't usually agree with ajblaise on politics but this seems like common sense.

If you look at history you will see that most presidents are defined by how they responded to the events around them rather than what their preelection plan was. For example the first event that comes to most people's mind about Jefferson's presidency is the Lousiana Purchase, which was mostly taking advantage of an opportunity (one that was inconsistent with his general anti-Federalist philosophy). Madison's presidency was dominated by the war of 1812.

I mention these two since there is no doubt they understood law and policy like no one else (being the most influencial contributers to the constitution). However those things are not as important as how they responded to what what going on in the world around them. In fact most presidents are remembered for how they responded to events rather than if they ennacted their preelection plan. Polk is not honored like Lincoln, even though Polk was excellent at enacting his preelection plan.

Being the Chief Executive has more responsibility associated with it than simply setting policy. Furthermore there are many legislators that will be involved in any lawmaking process, while the ability to respond to crisis mostly relies on the competence of the Executive Branch and its president.

Also I want to point out that I am mostly talking about independent voters. Partisan voters have already decided that issues are more important to them, and that is why they vote with their party. Independent voters either share views from both parties or don't care much about issues. That is why they are independent. Furthermore they have good reason to look beyond policy when choosing a president, since the president's job involves more than simply setting policy. However for legislators I largely agree that issues should be the deciding factor on who to vote for.