The Politics Thread

[Thaurismunths]

I'm sorry, I re-read my post and it came off a little dickish. I didn't mean to jump on any bandwagon, and I see your point behind using the term "Common Sense." Also, any communality between my post and Wikipedia is purely coincidental.

[SFEley]

And if I were to try to change your mind about your beliefs, I'd have to start by convincing you you're not a good person."

Not really.  You'd just have to convince someone that they were mistaken.

But in this context, the thing they're mistaken about is fundamental to their perception of themselves as good people.  Thus, it's the same thing.

That's why it's harder to convince people to change their minds about politics or religion than it is about, say, mathematics or science fiction television trivia.  Those things aren't tied into the self-identity of most people.  To say "You voted for the wrong candidate" is to say "You support the wrong values," and to say "You support the wrong values" is to say "Everything you thought made you a good person?  It didn't."

People don't like to hear that.  Weird, huh?

Worse, trying to change their minds means that I'm starting with a postulate that I'm better than them.  That I know more about the world than they do, my perspective is broader, my politics and religion are more sensible than theirs.  That I'm a better person.

In other words, attempting to change people's minds about their politics requires me to be an asshole.

I used to do that all the time.  For fun, and because I really was convinced that I had the answers.  I felt it was my prerogative and my good deed to share those answers with people, and if you didn't see the wisdom of my position, you were just being a stubborn idiot who chose not to think about it enough.

But the older I get, the less appeal I find in being that sort of asshole. 

Occasionally I even entertain the notion that I might not be better than everyone else around me.  Again: weird, huh?

Anyway, that failure of perspective, that strange and growing disinterest in rhetorical assholishness, has begun to maladjust me for common political argument.  And that's probably just as well, as frankly I don't have the time to spend in debate that I used to have in college.  >8->

(Although I still have a strong Devil's Advocate reflex, and tend to poke at other people's strong opinions, as I did with Russell the other day.  My apologies if that, too, was too high on the asshole meter.  If I ever overdo it, please don't hesitate to report me to a moderator.  I'll let someone besides me decide.)  >8->

[Steven Saus]

It also reminded me of an interesting observation from my Sociology of Deviance class.  When one executes a violent criminal, common sense would tell you that there would be a suppressive effect.  That is: "I ain't gonna kill nobody 'cause they just killed Jesse, and I ain't gonna end up like that!" The opposite happens.  Violent crime (maybe just murder - I'm going from memory) trends upward in the period of time immediately after an execution. 

Did they supply any data to back up this claim?

My references come from the 8th edition of Deviant Behavior, pp 84-85.  He cites studies examining data from Philly during the 1930's, California between 1946 and 1955, NY between 1907 & 1963, and the 1990s in OK.  The data examined showed, at best, that a recent execution had no deterrent effect - and at worst, caused a "brutalizing effect", though hard numbers (or detailed statistical data) isn't presented.   If you really want, I can dig through the text and get you the studies that the author of the textbook cites.

[Steven Saus]

And if I were to try to change your mind about your beliefs, I'd have to start by convincing you you're not a good person."

Not really.  You'd just have to convince someone that they were mistaken.

But in this context, the thing they're mistaken about is fundamental to their perception of themselves as good people.  Thus, it's the same thing.

I have to disagree - and bear with me for a second, because I think we have the same goals (or at least, not contradictory ones).  Let me restate what I think you're saying:

It sounds like you dislike political "debate" that's centered around devaluing others.  It also sounds like you don't see a way to change someone's mind without devaluing that individual.

That's fair enough - and I have no argument with those.  What if - just if - it was possible to change someone's mind without demeaning that person? 

My mother and I are very different on the political spectrum.  I remember one particular conversation with her about welfare (I supported welfare, she did not).

Our conversation largely resembled every other one I've seen or heard about welfare.  It boiled down to this:  My fundamental value was that we should help those who need it.  Her fundamental value is that people shouldn't get a free ride.  Our insight ended up being that these things are not mutually exclusive. 

Have you ever had any experiences like that?

[Jonathan C. Gillespie]

That's fair, uriel.  I'm just pro-death penalty, so it looks like I have some reading to do.

[Steven Saus]

That's fair, uriel.  I'm just pro-death penalty, so it looks like I have some reading to do.

Note what I said, though:  The evidence (I) provided does not indicate that it would be a good deterrent of future crimes.  If that's one's reason for supporting the death penalty, then yeah, that's an issue.  If on the other hand, one's concern is punishment or retribution, then the data I provided has no relevance whatsoever.

It might seem like a semantic distinction, but I really believe it's an important one.

[Thaurismunths]

It sounds like you dislike political "debate" that's centered around devaluing others.  It also sounds like you don't see a way to change someone's mind without devaluing that individual.

I believe that has everything to do with the listener, not the speaker, and you can't do anything to change how they take what you say.
There aren't many situations where there can be a truly open and accepting exchange of ideas with out fear of reprisal or being "wrong."
You were saying that you and your mother were able to have a conversation about welfare while coming at it from very different sides. For one, you were talking with your mother not a friend, acquaintance, or stranger, so that changes the dynamics a lot. Secondly, were you trying to convince your mother to see as you do, or were you two just sharing your opinions and swapping pros and cons? The fact that you were arguing for supporting those less fortunate, and she was arguing for "a hand up, not a handout" would suggest that you were having an exchange of ideas on different topics that happened to have a lot of common components. Had you been arguing for giving free rides and her against free rides, and one of you had been successfully converted to the other's opinion, with out the convert feeling like they had been a bad person or that the converter was a better person, then there would be some grounds for comparison.

Something that I think feeds in to the ‘bad person’ problem Steve mentioned is that in our culture (and possibly others) it isn't ok to be "wrong." Being wrong, something that happens to everyone, makes you a bad person. Americans don't have any way to deal with being "wrong" other than shame or disappointment. It use to be that if you were wrong you could offer an apology, public or private, and regain your 'honor' but saying "I'm Sorry." doesn't seem to carry the weight these days. Our options seem to be A) Be wrong and hold your ground come hell or high water. B) Hedge your statements with "I think..." and "I might be wrong, but...", or C) Make a decision, be wrong, spend the rest of the day/week/life feeling like you have egg on your face.

[Steven Saus]

It sounds like you dislike political "debate" that's centered around devaluing others.  It also sounds like you don't see a way to change someone's mind without devaluing that individual.

I believe that has everything to do with the listener, not the speaker, and you can't do anything to change how they take what you say.

You're right - it has everything to do with the listener - but the speaker can do something to change how they receive the message.  You pointed it out really well here:

You were saying that you and your mother were able to have a conversation about welfare while coming at it from very different sides. For one, you were talking with your mother not a friend, acquaintance, or stranger, so that changes the dynamics a lot.

What we're talking about is infinitely harder to do with speeches, writing for mass media, and the like.  Individual communication (or even semi-individual communication, like we're doing here) is a different story.  You teased that out really well by pointing out that the way I talked to my mother (whom I don't get along with, by the by) would be very different than that of a friend, acquaintance, or stranger.  That onus of adapting largely falls on the speaker, again, as you pointed out.

There aren't many situations where there can be a truly open and accepting exchange of ideas with out fear of reprisal or being "wrong."

You're also very correct here.  There aren't a lot of spaces like that.  In fact, my original rant that started this thread kind of bemoans that fact (or at least, that was my intent) - so we agree completely here.  Our culture has largely moved away from the kind of environment where being wrong (even a little bit) is "okay".  I think that's sad - and from what I've seen you and Stephen say, I hope you'd agree.

And I hope you'd agree that the mere existence of this polite thread means that we're making progress towards reversing that.

[sorry - gotta scat, "work" calls....]

[Michael]

Putting on my Psychologist Hat... as Milton Rokeach (The Nature of Human Values) so elegantly demonstrated, and many others have replicated, there are 4 Basic Political Philosophies, which in America are crammed uncomfortably into 2 political parties. 

This makes each party inherently unstable, and puts an element that is really individually detestable into each party.  Unfortunately this is how the math works, as the winning side has to get to 51% and no single philosophy is strong enough to win such a race on its own.  Each party thus has to become a "big tent" to get enough votes to reach majority.

To review, the basic philosophies are: Facism, Socialism, Capitalism and Communism.  Of course few Americans are going to admit they are either Fascists or Communists, but if you TEST them they walk and quack like those ducks, and exist in substantial numbers.  Fascism has been a dominant world philosophy, and still exists quite happily all over South America, Africa, and the Middle East--it is more palatable to call it "Authoritarian".  Communism still rules over a good chunk of the world, from China to Venezuala, and on paper it sounds awfully good to many people.   

The Democrats are Socialists and Communists, the Republicans are Capitalsists and Fascists.  What Democrats love to hate about Republicans are the Fascists (far right).  What Republicans love to hate about the Democrats are the Communists (far left).

Most of the vitriol is thus a basic misunderstanding that most people are happy balancing the healthy economy of a Capitalist Society with the good schools and health care of a Socialist Society, and have little respect for the extremes of either party.

My personal feeling is that if the Dems had the guts to divest themselves of their PC, PETA's and Naders they would pick up enough centrist votes to rule without them,  and if the Republicans lost their Falwell's and Reids ditto.  Unfortunately, neither can truly be a centrist party as longs as the extremes of the Bell Curve are tugging them right or left.

But this does explain why we get such terrible candidates.  And why political discourse is so polarized.

You ARE:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[Bdoomed]

I think you have mistaken "Common Sense" for "Critical Thinking."
Common Sense means that if you asked a population a question, whatever answer occurs most often would be the Common, Sensible answer.

ah but what you are overlooking is that most people are complete idiots! Most people have NO common sense.  My view of common sense is when you are faced with a problem, and the answer to the problem is one that everyone seems to miss except for a few.  and to those few people, they find the answer obvious and easy, and wonder how the heck everyone else missed it.  Then when they tell everyone else the answer, everyone emits a quior of "oooooooh!"'s and wonders why they didnt reach that same conclusion themselves.
those few people who see the obvious answer have common sense.  The others REALIZE the obvious-ness of it all and hate themselves for it.

Communism still rules over a good chunk of the world, from China to Venezuala, and on paper it sounds awfully good to many people.

oh yes, it looks great on paper, one of the best ideas ever thought up i think.  But its just that, an idea.

I dont have any clear cut views on politics.  Im too inexperianced in the world and dont wanna sound like an idiot, because i dont really know what im talkin about half the time.  I lean towards the democrats because my parents are, but i really dont know... i'll probably end up an independant.  I guess its more that i think republicans are too stiff and idiotic while democrats are too loose and idiotic.  and since everyone is idiotic i think ill just move to Austrailia.

[SFEley]

ah but what you are overlooking is that most people are complete idiots! Most people have NO common sense.  My view of common sense is when you are faced with a problem, and the answer to the problem is one that everyone seems to miss except for a few.

How do you reconcile that with the word "common" in the phrase?  >8->

and to those few people, they find the answer obvious and easy, and wonder how the heck everyone else missed it.  Then when they tell everyone else the answer, everyone emits a quior of "oooooooh!"'s and wonders why they didnt reach that same conclusion themselves.  those few people who see the obvious answer have common sense.  The others REALIZE the obvious-ness of it all and hate themselves for it.

And how often in your life have you observed that actually happening?  Be honest.

What you just described is one of the fundamental problems with casual rhetoric.  The problem is that everyone knows with absolute conviction that their ideas are "common sense."  And everyone seems to expect what you just described to happen the moment they share their ideas with other people.  Then, when their audience does not react with an immediate head-slapping and an "Of course!  That's brilliant!  We'll get on that right now!" it's clearly a failure of the audience.

Another fundamental problem is that the number of people who are eager to talk about their ideas far exceeds the number of people who are genuinely eager to listen to others.  Answers to life's problems are an unstable economy: there's far too much production, far too little demand.

[Reap3r]

and to those few people, they find the answer obvious and easy, and wonder how the heck everyone else missed it.  Then when they tell everyone else the answer, everyone emits a quior of "oooooooh!"'s and wonders why they didnt reach that same conclusion themselves.  those few people who see the obvious answer have common sense.  The others REALIZE the obvious-ness of it all and hate themselves for it.

And how often in your life have you observed that actually happening?  Be honest.

Sadly, alot, but that's when I'm helping some of my classmate with algebra and geometry, and that deals with logic, not common sense.

[ClintMemo]

I'm getting into this thread late but let me throw in my two cents on some of these issues.

I view common sense as experience, as in "the last time I had this problem, I did X and it went away."  or "Jimmy had this problem and he said he did X and it went away."
The problem is that sometimes people mis-apply what they think they have learned, because they don't have a clear understanding of the problem. They don't realize that the problem isn't quite the same as the one they had last time.  They also don't try and find a better way to do something.  "We do it this way because we've always done it that way."
That isn't to say common sense is always wrong. Very often it's right. It also has the advantage of giving you an answer right now.  Sometimes you don't have time to think things out.

Anyway...
I think the main problem with politics here in the U.S. is that there are two parties, allegedly left and right, each with their own laundry list of positions, but almost no one actually believes in everything on those lists.  They are forced to pick whichever list is less awful. 
I think people have their own opinions on issues and that those opinions can either be what is considered left or what is considered right. So people could have a very leftist view one issue and a very rightest view on another.  For example, I think that we need some type of national health insurance, something considered very leftist, but I'm very much against welfare (paying people who don't work), which is very much on the right.  I am mostly anti-abortion (right), but I am mostly anti-death penalty (left).  I think we should have a flat tax (right) but we should do more to protect our environment (left).

One thing I do find ironic is that the internet (and all of other wonderful communications technology that has come about in the last 15 years) was supposed to bring us together and make the world more harmonious. Since anyone can talk to anyone, we can all learn to get along.  In fact, the result has been the exact opposite. Our country is more polarized and more divided than it has even been in my lifetime (I was born in 1964).  The internet makes it easy to find other people who share your interests (he typed onto the message board of his favorite science fiction podcasting site ) so there is always someone like you to talk to. Lots of TV channels means there is always something on that at least won't offend you. You can always find something to watch. (I remember when there was really only 5 channels on any TV - CBS, NBC, ABC, a local public television station and a local station that played reruns of old network shows)  Radio sucks, but thanks to satellite radio and the internet (mp3's), you can find more of your kind of music than you could ever listen to. 
My point is that when there was much less media to choose from, it was much more common to see something that challenged your views or hear something that offered a point of view you'd never considered or even encounter something that was totally new and outside your experience.  These days that doesn't seem to happen nearly as much. People find it much easier to just change the channel, just walk away or just set themselves up to avoid those ideas to begin with.  It has made people's ideas much more entrenched and when they find they can't escape from an alternative point of view, they are much less able to handle it and much more combative and much less willing to learn.

Anyway, me and my cane will return the soapbox now.

[Holden]

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Einstein

[Thaurismunths]

I think the main problem with politics here in the U.S. is that..

As an aside, and not to detract from the thread:
Back when Bush's presidential victory was hanging in the balance a coworker of mine, who is a Russian immigrant, shared this observation: "You, here in America, as so lucky. You don't even know! This country doesn't have a President and everyone is fighting over it, there are lawsuits and court hearings, and everyone is scream that this system doesn't work. But this system does work, so well! There are no tanks. There are no coups. There are no assassinations. This system does work!"
He has a point.

[SFEley]

Back when Bush's presidential victory was hanging in the balance a coworker of mine, who is a Russian immigrant, shared this observation: "You, here in America, as so lucky. You don't even know! This country doesn't have a President and everyone is fighting over it, there are lawsuits and court hearings, and everyone is scream that this system doesn't work. But this system does work, so well! There are no tanks. There are no coups. There are no assassinations. This system does work!"
He has a point.

Yes.  A very good point.

[Anarkey]

Back when Bush's presidential victory was hanging in the balance a coworker of mine, who is a Russian immigrant, shared this observation: "You, here in America, as so lucky. You don't even know! This country doesn't have a President and everyone is fighting over it, there are lawsuits and court hearings, and everyone is scream that this system doesn't work. But this system does work, so well! There are no tanks. There are no coups. There are no assassinations. This system does work!"
He has a point.

Yes.  A very good point.

It is a good point, but I can't help thinking that not having assassinations or tanks in the streets is a pretty low bar to overcome.  In the "could be worse" category, sure, a lawsuit over who is going to president is better than a coup, but just because things could be worse doesn't mean things are going great, either. 

[ClintMemo]

Just because no blood was spilled doesn't mean there wasn't a coup.

[ClintMemo]

Honestly, I think someday my grandchild is going read about the years from 2000 - 2008 in her history class, condensed down in two or three paragraphs of whatever they use for books in 2037 and his/her response will be "No way! Are you serious?"

[Steven Saus]

Putting on my Psychologist Hat... as Milton Rokeach (The Nature of Human Values) so elegantly demonstrated, and many others have replicated, there are 4 Basic Political Philosophies, which in America are crammed uncomfortably into 2 political parties. 

I personally like the Pournelle axes for this purpose.  More descriptive, and with less emotional baggage with the words.

The Democrats are Socialists and Communists, the Republicans are Capitalsists and Fascists.  What Democrats love to hate about Republicans are the Fascists (far right).  What Republicans love to hate about the Democrats are the Communists (far left).

Except Communism (as practiced in the USSR and China, the latter of which you cite) are facist states.  This causes futher confusion.

Most of the vitriol is thus a basic misunderstanding that most people are happy balancing the healthy economy of a Capitalist Society with the good schools and health care of a Socialist Society, and have little respect for the extremes of either party.

Until, at least, either "reasonable" alternative creates its own problems, thus creating further extremists.  Where do you deal with issues like market failures in a capitalist society?  Are education and healthcare really public goods as you imply here?  If so, what levels of each are public goods?  Why?

[Steven Saus]

ah but what you are overlooking is that most people are complete idiots! Most people have NO common sense.  My view of common sense is when you are faced with a problem, and the answer to the problem is one that everyone seems to miss except for a few.

How do you reconcile that with the word "common" in the phrase?  >8->

It seems less pretentious that way.  I think they took a good swing at describing rationalism.

and to those few people, they find the answer obvious and easy, and wonder how the heck everyone else missed it.  Then when they tell everyone else the answer, everyone emits a quior of "oooooooh!"'s and wonders why they didnt reach that same conclusion themselves.  those few people who see the obvious answer have common sense.  The others REALIZE the obvious-ness of it all and hate themselves for it.

And how often in your life have you observed that actually happening?  Be honest.

Surprisingly frequently.  In my experience, humans have a hard time looking past thier own assumptions about reality, society, etc.  This leads to illogical premises, and therefore illogical results.  An outsider (especially one who isn't particularly impressed with the society's assumptions) can more frequently cut through the BS.  And yeah, I tend to do fairly well with that and other people.

I am, however, absolutely horrible doing that with myself.  That's a major life goal, really:  Be able to examine my own assumptions rationally at will.

What you just described is one of the fundamental problems with casual rhetoric.  The problem is that everyone knows with absolute conviction that their ideas are "common sense."  And everyone seems to expect what you just described to happen the moment they share their ideas with other people.  Then, when their audience does not react with an immediate head-slapping and an "Of course!  That's brilliant!  We'll get on that right now!" it's clearly a failure of the audience.

I think we're still talking about the same thing from different angles.  If my premises are the same as yours, then we have that kind of agreement.  When people are working from different premises -- especially when those premises aren't identified -- then we get a lot of hot conflict.

For example, the death penalty discussion earlier.  If one's premise is that sentencing is for punishment, then the death penalty will make sense regardless of its effects on murder rates.  If your premise is that sentencing is to rehabilitate, then the death penalty will never make sense.  I personally go with the latter;  when I find out that someone views the punative effects as most important, I quickly agree to disagree. 

[ClintMemo]

For example, the death penalty discussion earlier.  If one's premise is that sentencing is for punishment, then the death penalty will make sense regardless of its effects on murder rates.  If your premise is that sentencing is to rehabilitate, then the death penalty will never make sense.  I personally go with the latter;  when I find out that someone views the punative effects as most important, I quickly agree to disagree. 

The way to attack punishment assumption is to ask them why you punish someone for committing a crime in the first place.  You punish someone so they learn not to repeat the crime.  (That's why you give a child a "timeout").  That sort of makes the death penalty pointless.
Now, here's third assumption.  The only time you should invoke the death penalty is for reasons of public safety - i.e. the person is too dangerous to be allowed to live - people like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahlmer (sp).  Those people are beyond our ability to rehabilitate and dangerous enough that allowing them to escape into society could be an unacceptable risk.

[Holden]

I've heard many times and many different variations of the statement, "Common sense is not common." It is striking how often this nonsensical statement is regurgitated. I've even seen a dictionary use this sentence as the example sentence in defining the term "common sense".

The problem is something cannot be common and uncommon at the same time. To accept that something is both common and uncommon undermines the meaning of both words.

If you are trying to convey that critical or logical thinking is not common, say that. To say common sense isn't common is to say there is no such thing as "common" sense, meaning that the majority of humanity has no sense at all. Surely you don't mean that.

[ClintMemo]

The problem is the term itself.  "Common" could also have these meanings
from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/common

7.   of mediocre or inferior quality; mean; low: a rough-textured suit of the most common fabric.
8.   coarse; vulgar: common manners.
9.   lacking rank, station, distinction, etc.; unexceptional; ordinary: a common soldier; common people; the common man; a common thief.

Now that's not how people think of it, and it's not what the term originally meant.

Common sense <> rational thinking.

btw, the older I get, the more I believe the majority of human beings do not practice rational thought on a regular basis.  In fact, I think the vast majority of decisions are made by non-rational means.  What happens most of the time is that decisions are made on an emotional, instinctual or "common sense" basis and then the decision maker goes out into the world to find evidence to support the validity of the decision they already made. 
Think about how many decisions have no real rational basis.  How do you rationally decide what your favorite color is? or your favorite song? or which sports team to support? or what makes a good sci-fi story?  All of these are subjective decisions and therefore require something beyond pure logic and reason.

[Anarkey]

btw, the older I get, the more I believe the majority of human beings do not practice rational thought on a regular basis.  In fact, I think the vast majority of decisions are made by non-rational means.  What happens most of the time is that decisions are made on an emotional, instinctual or "common sense" basis and then the decision maker goes out into the world to find evidence to support the validity of the decision they already made. 

Astute observation, Clint.  I believe this more and more as time goes on.  At first I thought it was just those that who cast themselves as hyper-rational that fall into the trap of making decisions without thinking things through, but then I realized that I just noticed them first because I have an acute hypocrisy detector.  It's really all of us.  We rationalize and prop ourselves up, usually well after we make the decision we intended to make all along.   

In a dreadful attempt to bring this back round to science fiction, has anyone here read "Second Person, Present Tense" by Daryl Gregory?  I found it in The Year's Best Science Fiction Twenty-third Annual Collection.  It's a fairly intriguing concept, well-executed, and I enjoyed reading it.  At any rate, without spoilers, one of the central arguments of the story is that the job of the self is to inject reason into our actions, which are not determined by the self but at a lower level.  I didn't backcheck Gregory's neuroscience research, but I certainly said to myself "Yes! Exactly!" when I read it.