Is political dialogue approaching a point of no return?

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I have noticed a trend when it comes to political debates, and I have seen it spill over into RF: It is very, very difficult to have civil discussion with people whose views are radically different from your own. And without mentioning which sides typically do what, real attempts at civilized dialogue tend to degrade into monotonously predictable rounds of dodging the question, escalating anger, childish comments, and personal insults. I can't say where things became so crazy--perhaps it was starting back in the 90s, perhaps it was well before that--but I can say that I have noticed a lot more of it in the last two years. How did we let ourselves get to this point?

Here's an example of what I am talking about: The energy debate. Liberals, how come we won't openly admit that renewable energy sources are not yet cost-competitive with fossil fuel sources? Conservatives, how come you won't openly admit that fossil fuels trash the environment, and I'm not just talking CO2? Or take the fallout over the financial regulatory reform package. Liberals, can you tell me at least two SPECIFIC things the bill does WITHOUT looking it up on the internet (setting up the Consumer Finance Board doesn't count; what will this board specifically do)? Conservatives, can you tell me exactly how the bill will hurt the economy, with references to thorough, peer-reviewed cost-benefit analyses? See, that's what I'm talking about. We've got to stop viewing compromise as a dirty word and start seeing it as a vehicle to political progress.

Now of course there are things that should never be compromised: Our waters and skies absolutely must be kept free from toxins, we should never start wars of aggression, we must preserve the rights of all humans under our jurisdiction no matter what race, color, age, sex, gender, orientation, religion or lack thereof, income level, and any other personal trait they have. But for much of the rest of it, maybe we need to loosen up a little. Case in point, my stance against "clean coal" technology has softened considerably in the last few months. I used to think it was a cheap excuse to continue polluting, but after doing some personal research I've come to realize that "clean coal" really can cause a sizable reduction in carbon emissions, and the worst part about it is the somewhat misleading name. (I'll be making some posts about this in the weeks to come--stay tuned.) And see, that's what we need to do more of, myself included: to stop, THINK, LISTEN, and THEN draw intelligent conclusions based on all the facts.

Liberals and conservatives, can we do it? I think we can. Will we? The choice is up to us.

 

[Kathryn]

 

[Revoltingest]

In general, it's always been difficult to have such discussions....it always will be. To rise above that really depends upon the individuals.
It also helps that when we take a side on an issue, we shouldn't drink the Kool-Aid.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

In general, it's always been difficult to have such discussions....it always will be. To rise above that really depends upon the individuals.
It also helps that when we take a side on an issue, we shouldn't drink the Kool-Aid.

Much of it, I think, is that when we feel that our values are violated, we treat it as an attack and respond accordingly. Perhaps part of the check needs to be whether our values are in the right place?

 

[Sunstone]

Much of it, I think, is that when we feel that our values are violated, we treat it as an attack and respond accordingly. Perhaps part of the check needs to be whether our values are in the right place?

Disagreements can be a source of excitement, drama, and entertainment. I think that must be carefully managed, and not allowed to get out of hand, for people to have genuine, intellectually honest, and fair-to-all-sides discussions. Otherwise, we behave as if we are more interested in entertaining ourselves than interested in getting at the truth of some matter and solving today's problems.

There is also another matter, which might or might not be more subtle. That is, whenever the ego is involved in something, it is inevitable that people will feel hurt at times and perhaps blame others for that hurt with all the consequences that come from blaming others. I think we need to take responsibility for our own egos and see that the hurt does not come from someone attacking our pet views, but from our ego's response to someone attacking our pet views. At least that's more or less how I see it. Your mileage may vary.

Excellent OP, Mercy. Frubals.

 

[mythical-beast]

A lot of people have a hidden financial motive for their position, and this adds to the intensity of what they say.

 

[Engyo]

The thing I try to keep in mind is that no one is trying to play the villian. People (at least in the majority of cases) truly believe in what they are espousing, no matter how crack-brained I might think their viewpoint happens to be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've been noticing the trend creep north to here as well.

[old man hat on]

I remember a time when politicians generally respected each other. They acknowledged that they had different ideas and opinions, but they also recognized that both sides had the best interests of the country in mind. They may have had different ideas about what those "best interests" were and maybe disagreed about how best to acheive them, but they could acknowledge the other side's noble motives while still disagreeing with them.

It seems to me that politics today is more about simply winning votes and holding onto power as ends in themselves, not about using them as means toward making a better country.

I'm not sure when this changed, and I'm not sure how to go back.

[old man hat off]

Here's an example of what I am talking about: The energy debate. Liberals, how come we won't openly admit that renewable energy sources are not yet cost-competitive with fossil fuel sources?

Renewable sources? Sure - I agree... with the exception of hydroelectric power: it's great in areas where it's available, but I realize it's not the solution everywhere.

However, there's a third option: nuclear. I think that nuclear can be cost-competitive and addresses a lot of the problems with fossil fuels.

Also, there are fossil fuels and then there are fossil fuels. I think it would be a big step forward if the US moved off of coal and onto other, cleaner fuels.

 

[Revoltingest]

Much of it, I think, is that when we feel that our values are violated, we treat it as an attack and respond accordingly. Perhaps part of the check needs to be whether our values are in the right place?

The worst offenders are often the ones who know their values are in the right place.
I don't think there are right or wrong values....only values we agree or disagree with.
The advantage to seeing things this way is that if no one is wrong, then no one is
looked down upon.

The thing I try to keep in mind is that no one is trying to play the villian. People (at least in the majority of cases) truly believe in what they are espousing, no matter how crack-brained I might think their viewpoint happens to be.

That's important. Nothing is more irksome than someone giving some lame-arsed rationalization
why another is dishonest or a dupe. There was once a poster who even thought I wasn't a proper
atheist. (He will remain anonymous.) Well....people who don't pay money owed me are worse.

 

[TJ73]

It probably started a little less than 200,000 years ago, when we became thee creature we are today. The only things that change are the labels we give. We get new information about how we are influenced and that will change the debate superficially but it is always has been and will be the same. Human nature.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe we returned from far worse in the 1960s and 1970s. Maybe it is unavoidable until further developments in the understanding of psychology and politics come to pass.

 

[YmirGF]

Liberals and conservatives, can we do it? I think we can. Will we? The choice is up to us.

In theory, it is possible to have frank and fruitful discussions, but I think that people are going to have to change their perspectives first. Both sides of the aisle must begin to understand that neither side has the correct answer, on every issues, all the time. I think that perhaps one reason that this seize mentality has arisen is that it is a product of the information age. We are literally swimming in data and no one has the time it takes to go through all the data on given issues. This is part of the reason why we have bills getting passed that virtually no one has read. Is it any wonder that there is bad blood on both sides of the track when people don't even know what they are talking about - or do not give credence to equally valid, alternate viewpoints.

The SOTU address is a great example. Many in the media lathered on what an incredible speech it was. So eloquent and almost Reaganesque. We had a "Sputnik moment". Meanwhile the response from Paul Ryan was mostly reported as being Apocalyptic doom and gloom.

More later... perhaps... must run...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The only people who benefit from politics, are politicians. For everyone else, it's little more than an excuse to project their personal psychological and emotional issues onto society. Not the most productive form of therapy.