4 ms·

Agreed, leading the article with that was irksome -- and rather surprising, since the rest of the article did decent job of expounding on the the policy nuances

Agreed, leading the article with that was irksome -- and rather surprising, since the rest of the article did decent job of expounding on the the policy nuances of Stephen Douglas. Too often, media characterization of politics is a blunt caricature, which paints people and the issues in an unfair and misleading light. Reading the bit about the contested nominating convention was interesting, given that we might be headed into one this year. The contrast between now and then is stark -- the incredible gravity of the situation in 1860, whereas today's campaigns seem to draw more on personality than principle. I suppose we should consider ourselves fortunate enough that we can afford to be a little embarrassed of our politics right now -- a vote one way or the other is not going to pose an existential threat to the country for the next four years.

humanrebar 11y ago
> ...whereas today's campaigns seem to draw more on personality than principle. I disagree. There are lots of principles at stake. The open Supreme Court seat, for instance, is entirely a substantive issue. And almost everyone agrees it's one of (if not the) most important issue. But what is there to debate in 30 second soundbytes? What's missing is substantive debate on our principles. In the absence of actual debate, the media covers political contests as if they were horse races or sporting events. So it looks like people vote on personality, not issues. But what, I think, people are looking for is trust that the official will break their way when the chips are down, political pressure is on, and messy facts are laid out. In that way, the controversy over Douglas isn't that foreign, really. Voters who like Trump seem to think he's head-and-shoulders over the other candidates on certain issues (immigration being an obvious one).
- jallmann 11y ago
  > The open Supreme Court seat, for instance, is entirely a substantive issue It's important, but the "issue" is also entirely because of political grandstanding, not sensible policy making. It is also one which the presidential candidates really have no control over -- either they will get to appoint a new justice, or they won't. > But what is there to debate in 30 second soundbytes Nothing, which points to the problem: the 30 second soundbites themselves. So you have to ask, is that responsible journalism, or linkbait, using bumper sticker slogans to grab on to flighty eyeballs? Maybe the problem boils down to human nature, and our willingness to exploit it. > What's missing is substantive debate on our principles. Precisely. But I'll go out on a limb here and say that, in terms of historical precedent, the principles (or "issues," to put a less moralistic bent on it) we do have to debate are fairly shallow. More on that below. > people are looking for is trust that the official will break their way Indeed -- but a vote for trust is a vote for personality. Most people don't really listen to the specific details of policy positions -- they respond to whoever resonates with them on a personal level. Why is Hillary Clinton so popular with African-Americans? She is a master of identity politics. To say nothing of Donald Trump and his connection with blue-collar America. Ted Cruz and evangelicals, and so forth. In some way, the fact we're left with "trusting" our politicians is the crux of voter apathy. Most of the "issues" on the debate stage have little to no impact on the day-to-day lives of most Americans. Immigration, for example, is an important topic... for everybody not in the country. If you're already here, it's just a vote for who you think should be allowed into the club. Likewise for foreign policy, abortion, gay marriage, and so on... in most cases, it is people making decisions about other people (usually the majority for the minority), rather than a visible, tangible, deeply divisible national issue. In many ways, that's a blessing -- politics in America is a lot less fraught than even 50 years ago.

humanrebar 11y ago

> ...whereas today's campaigns seem to draw more on personality than principle. I disagree. There are lots of principles at stake. The open Supreme Court seat, for instance, is entirely a substantive issue. And almost everyone agrees it's one of (if not the) most important issue. But what is there to debate in 30 second soundbytes? What's missing is substantive debate on our principles. In the absence of actual debate, the media covers political contests as if they were horse races or sporting events. So it looks like people vote on personality, not issues. But what, I think, people are looking for is trust that the official will break their way when the chips are down, political pressure is on, and messy facts are laid out. In that way, the controversy over Douglas isn't that foreign, really. Voters who like Trump seem to think he's head-and-shoulders over the other candidates on certain issues (immigration being an obvious one).

jallmann 11y ago
> The open Supreme Court seat, for instance, is entirely a substantive issue It's important, but the "issue" is also entirely because of political grandstanding, not sensible policy making. It is also one which the presidential candidates really have no control over -- either they will get to appoint a new justice, or they won't. > But what is there to debate in 30 second soundbytes Nothing, which points to the problem: the 30 second soundbites themselves. So you have to ask, is that responsible journalism, or linkbait, using bumper sticker slogans to grab on to flighty eyeballs? Maybe the problem boils down to human nature, and our willingness to exploit it. > What's missing is substantive debate on our principles. Precisely. But I'll go out on a limb here and say that, in terms of historical precedent, the principles (or "issues," to put a less moralistic bent on it) we do have to debate are fairly shallow. More on that below. > people are looking for is trust that the official will break their way Indeed -- but a vote for trust is a vote for personality. Most people don't really listen to the specific details of policy positions -- they respond to whoever resonates with them on a personal level. Why is Hillary Clinton so popular with African-Americans? She is a master of identity politics. To say nothing of Donald Trump and his connection with blue-collar America. Ted Cruz and evangelicals, and so forth. In some way, the fact we're left with "trusting" our politicians is the crux of voter apathy. Most of the "issues" on the debate stage have little to no impact on the day-to-day lives of most Americans. Immigration, for example, is an important topic... for everybody not in the country. If you're already here, it's just a vote for who you think should be allowed into the club. Likewise for foreign policy, abortion, gay marriage, and so on... in most cases, it is people making decisions about other people (usually the majority for the minority), rather than a visible, tangible, deeply divisible national issue. In many ways, that's a blessing -- politics in America is a lot less fraught than even 50 years ago.