3 ms·

> There is only one rule in politics: win I strongly disagree. Politicians have always balanced their interests with others, such as those of the nation. They

> There is only one rule in politics: win I strongly disagree. Politicians have always balanced their interests with others, such as those of the nation. They have the power to destroy the country, physically (by engaging in nuclear war, as a simple example) and politically (e.g., they could impeach every president, pass destructive laws, and never confirm Supreme Court nominations). It's not at all "fair game"; their responsibility is to govern the nation to the best of their abilities and to be responsible to the rest of the world. There's a reason that the current Congress' actions are unprecedented.

marcoperaza 10y ago
Your argument assumes that everyone agrees on what the interests of the nation are, and how to achieve them. In fact, there is vicious disagreements on just that point. That is the central divide in our politics. The Republicans and Democrats both think they're doing what's best for the nation.
- rootusrootus 10y ago
  Didn't we pass some legislation a while back which cut back significantly on the amount of 'pork' allowed in a bill? I feel like that has bitten us pretty hard as a practical matter -- because if we go strictly on ideology, nothing happens because there is no incentive. Maybe little compromises and adding in some back scratching would make congress move again?
- hackuser 10y ago
  > The Republicans and Democrats both think they're doing what's best for the nation. Again, I disagree. IMHO, speaking generally, the Republicans seek only power to an unprecedented degree. Again, see my examples above. They've undermined the White House, Congress, and Supreme Court, as well as the military, and many other essential institutions. They openly deceive the public on climate change; that does nothing for the country, it puts the nation and world at great risk.
  - metiscus 10y ago
    Okay, so you disagree with their world view on a number of points, but many in the other camp would say that they are taking a principled stand in those actions and attempt to claim the same moral high ground. As an example, take what you view as "openly deceiving" the public on climate change. Right or wrong, it can be (and is) argued not entirely disingeniously that there is a totalitarian undercurrent in the course proscribed to resolve the looming crisis. The debate often devolves into name-calling and pushes back from actual meaningful communication. I feel like the phraseology and the casting of every single issue in the current political discourse into an absolute moral / ethical question is the poison that is killing our system. We now have mass media echo chambers of all sides and flavours that can reinforce and magnify the differences between any two not entirely dissimilar world views instead of focusing us on the commonalities between them and guiding us to communicate. Take climate change again, there is an entire spectrum of belief regarding what it is and how to solve it. There are people who advocate ignoring global warming as a hoax and some who want to reduce global populations and roll back industrial production, and thousands of different areas in between and elsewhere. In each of their worldviews, most of them genuinely hold their beliefs and when presented with an existential threat to those beliefs, rather than seeing it as two sides of a coin the habit is to resort to good vs evil etc. The solution IMHO is to work on improving the arguments of all sides and the art of debate in general. If a person advocates that there has been no warming at all, which contravenes quite a bit of research, holders of different views should focus on improving their presentation of fact through argument, rather than what I feel in most cases is the more typical practice of customarily calling each other kooks and crossing the street.

marcoperaza 10y ago

Your argument assumes that everyone agrees on what the interests of the nation are, and how to achieve them. In fact, there is vicious disagreements on just that point. That is the central divide in our politics. The Republicans and Democrats both think they're doing what's best for the nation.

rootusrootus 10y ago
Didn't we pass some legislation a while back which cut back significantly on the amount of 'pork' allowed in a bill? I feel like that has bitten us pretty hard as a practical matter -- because if we go strictly on ideology, nothing happens because there is no incentive. Maybe little compromises and adding in some back scratching would make congress move again?
hackuser 10y ago
> The Republicans and Democrats both think they're doing what's best for the nation. Again, I disagree. IMHO, speaking generally, the Republicans seek only power to an unprecedented degree. Again, see my examples above. They've undermined the White House, Congress, and Supreme Court, as well as the military, and many other essential institutions. They openly deceive the public on climate change; that does nothing for the country, it puts the nation and world at great risk.
- metiscus 10y ago
  Okay, so you disagree with their world view on a number of points, but many in the other camp would say that they are taking a principled stand in those actions and attempt to claim the same moral high ground. As an example, take what you view as "openly deceiving" the public on climate change. Right or wrong, it can be (and is) argued not entirely disingeniously that there is a totalitarian undercurrent in the course proscribed to resolve the looming crisis. The debate often devolves into name-calling and pushes back from actual meaningful communication. I feel like the phraseology and the casting of every single issue in the current political discourse into an absolute moral / ethical question is the poison that is killing our system. We now have mass media echo chambers of all sides and flavours that can reinforce and magnify the differences between any two not entirely dissimilar world views instead of focusing us on the commonalities between them and guiding us to communicate. Take climate change again, there is an entire spectrum of belief regarding what it is and how to solve it. There are people who advocate ignoring global warming as a hoax and some who want to reduce global populations and roll back industrial production, and thousands of different areas in between and elsewhere. In each of their worldviews, most of them genuinely hold their beliefs and when presented with an existential threat to those beliefs, rather than seeing it as two sides of a coin the habit is to resort to good vs evil etc. The solution IMHO is to work on improving the arguments of all sides and the art of debate in general. If a person advocates that there has been no warming at all, which contravenes quite a bit of research, holders of different views should focus on improving their presentation of fact through argument, rather than what I feel in most cases is the more typical practice of customarily calling each other kooks and crossing the street.