Anger, Political Loyalty, and Democracy

[Sunstone]

Excellent thread! Thanks for this!

Two thoughts. First, I think we should be realistic -- rather than idealistic -- about anger. Everyone gets angry at times, and everyone at times lashes out. So, I think we need to cut people a little slack in the sense we should not demonize those who lash out any more than we should demonize each other. At the same time, I think our society and democracy would benefit greatly if we could ratchet down lashing out to the point it was the exception, rather than the new norm.

Second, I think most of us can do very little to change things unless we are willing to become activists. You or me being nicer to people is going to have almost zero effect on our country if the president, a significant portion of the news and opinion media, and virtually all of the social media are hotbeds for lashing out, demonizing others, etc. Think of it this way, in your best week, you might come into meaningful contact with two or three score people who you can do something to calm them down. But during the same period, a prominent news anchor with an axe to grind can incite tens of millions of people to anger. What is really needed here is not isolated individuals trying their best to control their tongues, but collective action. Want to have an effect on, say, Tucker Carlson? Use the internet to organize a campaign targeted at companies that advertise on his program. It takes a huge effort, but average people have done such things in the past, and succeeded in either getting noticed, or -- in some cases -- having shows cancelled. What I'm saying is, if you want to take back your country and your democracy from the people who would pit us against each other in a vicious quasi civil war, you must create or join a movement.

 

[Sunstone]

I know this would also never fly in the US, but what's your opinion on mandatory voting as a way of somewhat encouraging things in this direction?

Definitely. But neither party wants it anymore than they want a genuinely well-educated and well-informed electorate.

The last time in America that the primary goal of public education in a significant portion of the country was to create good citizens was the late 1880s. After that, the primary goal of public education became to create an industrial labor force. Over the decades, creating good citizens fell further and further out of the picture, until by the 1990s, most high schools no longer taught civics at all. After all, they reasoned, what does civics have to do with jobs, jobs, jobs?

 

[crossfire]

I wonder how many people won't vote if they are not angry about something.

Of course there are folks who vote on the issues but maybe it's the angry voter that wins you the election. Got to motivate all of those folks who are otherwise satisfied with life.

It's difficult to motivate people to vote if their votes are discounted by the electoral college. Why would those whose votes are discounted want to unify with those who discount their votes?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Definitely. But neither party wants it anymore than they want a genuinely well-educated and well-informed electorate.

The last time in America that the primary goal of public education in a significant portion of the country was to create good citizens was the late 1880s. After that, the primary goal of public education became to create an industrial labor force. Over the decades, creating good citizens fell further and further out of the picture, until by the 1990s, most high schools no longer taught civics at all. After all, they reasoned, what does civics have to do with jobs, jobs, jobs?

Education is definitely seen by many as a means to an end, now, rather than an end in and of itself.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I know this would also never fly in the US, but what's your opinion on mandatory voting as a way of somewhat encouraging things in this direction?

I'd prefer an end to special interest and mandate term limits to every political office held.

Imagine if you dont like any candidate and are told you must vote. I would consider it a rigged process.

Edit: I would also like to see an end to political funding as well. Each election every candidate gets equal air time and the same monetary expenses to conduct their campaign with reasonable exposure to say their piece on the issues at hand.

 

[Valjean]

How about public funding of elections, so rich special interests don't buy the elections, and the candidates don't pander to them?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'd prefer an end to special interest and mandate term limits to every political office held.

Imagine if you dont like any candidate and are told you must vote. I would consider it a rigged process.

Edit: I would also like to see an end to political funding as well. Each election every candidate gets equal air time and the same monetary expenses to conduct their campaign with reasonable exposure to say their piece on the issues at hand.

I like some of your ideas.
Just on the mandatory voting...conceptually it would be mandatory to put in a voting slip (be it in person or via mail, etc. Whatever the agreed options are).

There is no need to select a candidate on that ballot. It can be returned blank (for example) where you don't like any of the options, or you can write in something like 'I'm not voting for any of these idiots. I'd sooner have Happy Gilmore running things.'

The point is that be forcing people to return a voting slip, there becomes less of a need to galvanise the base to vote. There tends to be a higher level of representation and voting.
Now, of course there are arguments as to whether that is a good thing. I mean, I clearly think it is, but I get that people may disagree, and can see some rational reasons for that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How about public funding of elections, so rich special interests don't buy the elections, and the candidates don't pander to them?

This has merit, I think, and is along the lines of what @Twilight Hue was advocating. Whether it's public funds, strict upper limits on spending, or whatever else, I can see the thinking.

 

[Tambourine]

Is there anything we can do to stop casting our political opponents as "the enemy" and quench the flames of anger? Can we encourage solutions to challenges that transcend political identities for the common good of us all? If your own political will is motivated by anger, how can you channel that into something more productive and less demonizing of others?

In Austria, it took a civil war, a fascist dictatorship, and the Nazi era (where politicians from both sides sat eye-to-eye in Nazi concentration camps as they were brutally forced to do back-breaking labor) to convince the two major opposing parties to work together as equals. This only lasted for a few decades, but I still don't think Austrian political discourse has lowered to toxic US levels yet.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Is there anything we can do to stop casting our political opponents as "the enemy" and quench the flames of anger? Can we encourage solutions to challenges that transcend political identities for the common good of us all?

There are two standards : the standards we hold to the government, and the standards we hold to the public. Now in my opinion, it seems that the Government is the offspring of the Public, and so how can we expect a better government without holding the public to a higher standard? This appeal to the consciousness of the mob, to oversimplified memes, to the wants of a public in need of instant gratification, (as I think Socrates alluded to) is what molds a government that can't supply their needs. What the public needs is the dialectal mind, and it needs to be taught to have this from an early age. I am in the middle of a work by Seneca for example, but why wasn't this taught to me in the 3rd grade? Instead, the public has the mind of ravenous locust, basically, putting no staircase between itself and Gratification. It does not contemplate that perhaps a bird needs two Wings , because perhaps the heading requires a turn this way and that. The mind of grasshopper, so far as I know, is not contemplative

 

[exchemist]

Yes, I agree with this. Other than refusing to vote for candidates whose rhetorical style is toxic even if we support their platform, what could we do on an individual level to blunt this effect or help play down anger?

I think we simply need to make the effort to understand what makes some people support politicians, political parties and ideologies that we ourselves hold in deep contempt.

We are going through this now in the UK, over Brexit. What made the so-called Red Wall of Northern Labour constituencies vote for Bozo to get Brexit through, even though it will take their jobs away? It does no good to just write them off as all idiots. For decades, they have seen the economic centre of the country gravitate to London and the South East, close to the Continent, while their local economies have stagnated. So they feel, I suppose, that the EU doesn't do anything for them and therefore begin to hanker for an earlier time when their local industries, now defunct, were a source of pride and status. Hence economic nationalism, hence the appeal of an undeliverable nostalgic return to the days of empire. Bozo, with his deliberately antiquated upper class accent, his unfounded self-confidence and his arrogance towards other nations, personifies this nostalgia. So Brexit is in part a disaster that we have brought on by putting too much faith, Thatcher-style, in laissez faire: that "the market" on its own, would distribute the proceeds of economic growth among our citizens, when in fact it has done so very unevenly. By all accounts, rather similar drivers apply to the Trump phenomenon.

We should try, I think, to discuss political differences in this sort of mindset and get away from the soundbites and the personalities. But you do have a particular problem in the USA at the moment because your president is a troll: someone who thrives on sowing discord and being as objectionable as possible. It must be very hard not to get angry and/or disgusted with him and his supporters, but that anger and disgust is exactly what he wants, because he then profits from casting his opponents as extreme, out-of-touch urban liberals with contempt for "ordinary" people.

Trump is the first internet president and has mastered the art of trolling. One has, I think, to be aware of this and then apply the old adage Don't Feed the Troll.

 

[Quintessence]

Perhaps controlling the “News”? Slap big penalties on those claiming to be factual “News” who then go ahead and lie/spin.
Freedom of the Press, Yes, always.
Freedom of what gets to be called “News”, No. Not without regulation.

Hmm. While disinformation masquerading as news is certainly a problem, in the context of the topic I think we can reframe this as a question of presentation. It has been a long time since I have watched cable news (other than local news and public television, that is) but I recall some stations being more or less prone to talking heads yelling at each other than others. Put another way, attempts to sensationalize news and add conflict where there is none, or overblow the level of conflict feed into the rage mythology that hurts our democracy.

 

[metis]

Is there anything we can do to stop casting our political opponents as "the enemy" and quench the flames of anger?

That's hard to say, but even though people say they don't like "negative ads", the reality is that they do work.

What I especially don't like about them is that by putting these ads out, what their own candidate may believe and want doesn't much come out. So, it's "The other candidate is really rotten, but I hafta move on ".

 

[icehorse]

Is there anything we can do to stop casting our political opponents as "the enemy" and quench the flames of anger?

Once again, my meta-context is that oligarchs poison everything. In this case, oligarchs have poisoned our education system. I think that if people are taught critical thinking skills, they will be far less apt to let this sort of "us vs. them" nonsense sway them. Not a 100% cure to be sure, but a big step in the right direction.

 

[Tambourine]

Education is definitely seen by many as a means to an end, now, rather than an end in and of itself.

Before education became affordable for the masses, it was as a marker of status and profession.
So it never really was an end in and for itself.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Before education became affordable for the masses, it was as a marker of status and profession.
So it never really was an end in and for itself.

I'm not necessarily talking about it purely from a modern western viewpoint, but your point is taken.

 

[Tambourine]

I'm not necessarily talking about it purely from a modern western viewpoint, but your point is taken.

It's arguably even more pronounced in premodern times, as higher education brought a considerable expense of resources that poorer families simply wouldn't have been able to afford.