12 ms·
Was there a time when politics wasn't full of poison? By the end Thomas Jefferson hated George Washington so much he refused to attend his funeral. And that's
by ordinaryperson 8y ago
Was there a time when politics wasn't full of poison? By the end Thomas Jefferson hated George Washington so much he refused to attend his funeral.
And that's just 242-year history of America, you can go back to Rome, Greece or Ancient Egypt and see thousands of years of vitriol inside any large human collective.
Modern tools could do a better job, sure. Twitter, FB, YouTube and the rest could use some kind of reputation systems, which at least provide a gradient of user interaction instead of just blacklisting.
But politics have never been pure, it's a myth. Don't blame communication platforms (although again, they can do better), blame the humans that use them.
- Natsu 8y agoNo, there's a very long history of political assassinations, civil wars, etc. all of which predate Twitter. Everything is just more public now.
- naravara 8y agoI love how every example of "It was always this bad" involves people reaching back to before the '60s and, in some cases, before The New Deal. In most cases, reversing several decades of stability and progress would have been considered a very troubling development.
- Chinjut 8y agoYou think the examples are all before the 60s? There were some very prominent political assassinations during the 60s, Watergate happened during the 70s, etc.
- moorhosj 8y agoThe 70s were over 40 years ago.
- Natsu 8y agoI posted above, but I see no reason to limit things to the USA and I see no reason to limit assassinations to only the successful ones. Just because politicians have better security and actually thwart more assassination attempts, that doesn't mean that the underlying willingness to murder people over politics has gone anywhere. There are plenty of close calls to show that the schemes were serious: Bolsonaro was stabbed, Reagan was shot, etc.
- dredmorbius 8y agoThe lesson isn't "this should be normal" or "don't worry about it", but that the underlying dynamics -- political, social, economic, media -- are so damned consistent. The dynamics are systemic. Which means it's quite helpful to see where and when the dager signs are reappearing. For me, the watershed moment was reading the opening paragraphs of A.H.M. Joness, Augustus. The politicaal divides and platforms of 40 BCE look exactly like those of the 1960s (when Jones waas writing0 or 2010s, when I read his words. https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i2h0e/ahm_jones_augustus_the_breakdown_of_the_republic/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i2h0e/ahm_jon...
- Natsu 8y agoBolsonaro was stabbed in Brazil just months ago. Congressional Republicans had someone come to their baseball game and shoot at them. There have been all those assassinations involving Russia, as well. There was that relative of NK dictator Kim's that was poisoned. And that's just recent news, if I actually researched it we'd have a long list. You don't have to go that far back to remember things like President Reagan being shot. I suppose you might say those are just attempts, but that's more a reflection of better security details. The underlying willingness of people to murder others over politics is still evident from the attempts. Regarding civil wars, I would think you'd know about Syria at least. Wikipedia gives me 17 civil wars since 2000. We could roughly triple that if you want me to cut off anything from the 60s or before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars If the only political assassination you're aware of is JFK and the only civil war is the US civil war, which is the only way I can come up with those cutoff dates, then I submit that you might want to look at more world news.
- gassed 8y agoProb with social networks is that they bring vitriol to the masses, and uncover deeply-seated vulnerabilities in democracy.
- someguydave 8y agoMass-democracy was well-known to be a terrible idea by many wise people in history, for the precise reasons that Twitter is revealing.
- dphack 8y agoLol, the Orville had an episode called 'Majority Rule' that is a funny take at a total democracy.
- Nasrudith 8y agoWeren't many of those speakers essentially paid propagandists for monarchs, oligarchs and strongmen?
- someguydave 8y agoNo, they were speakers who essentially made the US Constitution into a republic instead of a mass-democracy
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sharpshadow 8y agoDuring the time of Alexandria they 'hated' each other so much they burned everything down and we had 1000 years dark ages. I hope humanity will not be that stupid again.
- abtinf 8y ago> Was there a time when politics wasn't full of poison? No. Reason made this short video about the political attacks from the election of 1800 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI
- ntsplnkv2 8y agoThe US fought a civil war over politics. But there are times where it is better/worse than others.
- pjc50 8y agoHard to imagine a civil war being apolitical...
- chiefalchemist 8y ago> "Was there a time when politics wasn't full of poison?" Short answer: Nope. A couple years ago I read "Freedom for the Thoughts That We Hate." Aside from the history of the 1st Amendment, my #1 takeaway was: "politics has always been ugly and dirty." That said, I think what's difference now is more and more people are less and less aware of history, as well as the fact that the MSM has finally figured out how to make money in the internet age (i.e., a "news" cycle based on controversy). Editorial: Say what you want about Trump (I'm not a fan either) but even at his worst he's no where near as dangerous as Dick Cheney. To believe otherwise is only a sign of not understanding Cheney's nastiness. Even if you compare DJT to BHO, BHO was no saint either (e.g., Wall Street was "pardoned" but Snowden was a Most Wanted). However, the MSM's narrative of BHO was one that over-glorified the upside and completely ignored the darkside. Unfortunately, playing to that manufactured extreme contrast today is good for profits in the DJT era. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_for_the_Thought_That_We_Hate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_for_the_Thought_That_W...
- zapita 8y agoWhat is “the MSM”?
- Staxitix 8y agoMain Stream Media is the term. I guess your top channels such as CNN, Fox, MSNBC, BBC, etc...
- dkubb 8y agoI think he means Mainstream Media. It's the first time I've seen that abbreviation too.
- chiefalchemist 8y agoSorry. I thought it was the common abbreviation. Maybe MsM then>?
- 8y ago
- PhasmaFelis 8y agoAmerica wasn't like this 20 years ago. Politics has always been bad, and there's times it's been even worse, but that doesn't mean it's not trending downward right now.
- eric_h 8y ago> America wasn't like this 20 years ago. 20 years ago was 1998, the year Clinton was impeached - the politics were just as slimy 20 years ago, the reality of it was just not as readily at our fingertips as it is today.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoAll right, lets go back just a bit further - to Watergate. The House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach Nixon. One member called his wife, said that they had voted to impeach, and then started crying. This was one of the Representatives who voted in favor of impeachment, crying (I believe) because it was a tragedy for the country as a whole that it had come to this. I can't imagine that, if the Democrats win the election next month, if they vote to impeach Trump, that any of them will cry about it, ever. I can't imagine that the Republicans shed any tears over voting to impeach Clinton, either.
- crooked-v 8y agoNo one in Washington would cry about Trump being impeached because Trump has done literally nothing with the Presidency that would earn respect from anyone. Even his own party sees him as little but a seat-filler who's only useful because he picks appointees along party lines.
- genericone 8y agoLiterally nothing that would earn respect? If something that Trump did that was good was considered revenue, and something he did that was bad was considered costs, you're saying that it has all been costs? Or do you mean that in your view his profits = revenue - costs has been negative? I'm sure you can go around the country and DC and find plenty of people who think Trump has earned revenue, so to speak, even if they think he's a net negative. Anyway, the points are all subjective, so no-one can balance the books but each individual voter.
- cheeseomlit 8y agoMany have a justified distrust of any 'reputation systems', just look how the concept is used in China. Whoever controls the system has great potential for social engineering
- fjsolwmv 8y agoMob brigading and SEO techniques aren't better. Distributed, personalized reputation systems give democratic control.
- antishatter 8y agoWho was the presidential candidate who traveled around by train telling everyone his opponent had died? I always laugh when people try to claim politics is only slimy and dirty now.
- Udik 8y agoNo, but that is not the point. The point is how media change the way politics is made and ultimately shape the society. For example, I think it could be argued that mass media (newspapers, radio) heavily contributed to the totalitarian drift of the first half of the twentieth century in Europe: pervasive communication without proper balances can be effectively used to hammer slogans into people's heads. I think we are now in a similar situation: we have an entirely new media and we haven't had time yet to adjust to it and to find its rules and limits. And I think this is very dangerous.
- slg 8y agoPolitics may never have been pure and things today aren't as bad as they were at certain points in human history, but I am honestly surprised that people here aren't recognizing that there has been a pretty stark change in how politics have been progressing in the last decade versus the several previous decades. The polarization has increased drastically and the civility of political discourse and faith in institutions has dropped considerably. A prime example is that the US is on the verge of confirming a man on to the supposedly apolitical Supreme Court that says under oath that his political opponents have created a vast conspiracy to bring him personally down. If that man is telling the truth, that is an awful moment in political history. If that man is lying, that is an awful moment in political history. It doesn't matter which side of that issue you are on, but something is happening here that would be unthinkable a couple decades ago.
- bliblah 8y agoI think this is the issue; at least in the U.S. EVERYTHING is becoming more politicized no matter how inane. You are also EXPECTED to have a binary opinion on all these issues with no room for differing opinions. Look at the NFL protests during the anthem. Kneel and you are a bleeding heart liberal that hates the cops. Stand and you are a red hat conservative promoting police brutality and the Private Prison Complex. Every day there's a new outrage that somehow splits up the community down party lines.
- clairity 8y agothen just say no. stop falling for the partisan trap and assert your right to have an opinion disconnected from a political identity (even if that opinion more-or-less falls in line with one of those parties).
- hnruss 8y agoIt's classic divide and conquer. The ultra rich have framed politics as red vs. blue, when in reality it has always been (and always will be): them vs. the rest of us.
- 8y ago
- clairity 8y ago> "Was there a time when politics wasn't full of poison?" no. politics, by definition, is the exertion of power, and that is "poisonous", in the sense that someone will not like it, and will, if possible, resist and potentially counter-attack. it's an interesting mental exercise to consider whether or not all unhappiness stems from the application of power.
- rexpop 8y agoInteresting ontology. If politics is exertion, what do you call the passive observance or determination of extant power balances?
- clairity 8y agowell, my definition is admittedly a little bit of an extrapolation from the greek root (city affairs), but it's common in writings about government and power. that's because you can't govern a group of people without the exertion of power (making people do things they may otherwise not do, like throwing trash on the ground as a benign example). so you don't necessarily need a separate word or phrase for the observance of political parties and other governmental actors as they exert power--that's just "watching politics".
- arwhatever 8y agoNo doubt politics has always been dirty, but the existence now of a system which, by design, automates the amplification of the most obnoxious of its millions of users, has to have had some effect.
- arwhatever 8y agoSee Scott Alexander's "toxoplasma of rage" article, or cgp grey's "this video will make you angry" video on YouTube for some good analysis.
- kermittd 8y agoCompletely agree. People put to much blame on social media networks. Though I like Twitter and dislike Facebook they are not the core problem. Great historical references as well. The Founding Fathers, though incredible people, were extremely partisan.
- michaelbuckbee 8y agoI think there are two real structural changes to how the political system is configured that have led to an increase in partisanship. First: Gerrymandering [1] - as districts have become more and more solid for either party it naturally results in candidates with a less centrist view. A couple decades ago the candidates being elected often to win voters from both sides to get elected. Now that we have many more situations where it's 80%+ party dominance in a district we get more extreme people representing us. Second: Demographic shifts in apportionment [2]. We sort of take for granted that we have a fixed number (435) of representatives spread across the states and 2 senators per state. But this wasn't always the case, originally it was 1 representative per 30,000. If we followed this through to today we'd have 10,000 representatives. This plus the growing urban vs rural divide (which was the reason we halted the growth in representatives anyway) all contribute to the greater divide. I point this out because structural issues like this are fixable in a way that throwing up our hands and saying: "politics always has been bad" does not. 1- https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-primer-on-gerrymandering-and-political-polarization/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-pr... 2 - https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/history.html https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/histor...
- village-idiot 8y agoNever forget the Gracchi brothers. Populist reformers who were both executed by the Senate because of the threat they represented to patrician power. The older of the two was killed in an area of Rome where weapons were not permitted, by senators, while he was Tribune and technically sacrosanct. When politics goes bad, it goes really bad.
- nindalf 8y agoA word on the Gracchis. The Gracchis were radical reformers by the standards of their time - they wanted to take lands from large landowners and give it back to landless peasants. Tiberius Gracchus was clubbed to death in broad daylight. Gaius committed suicide when he knew his death was inevitable. What's interesting is that when studying the fall of the Republic, it makes sense to start with these guys. Roman politics had always been high stakes and cut throat, but this was when it took a turn for the violent. Starting 130BC, it started going downhill. In the next few decades, this violence gradually became regular civil war, especially after military reforms that meant that poor people could sign up to be soldiers. By around 60BC, a politician would run up massive debts to get elected, try to make it as much money during the 1 year consulship and then try to rob whichever province they became governor of. If they lost the election, they had no hope of paying back the debts, unless they launched a civil war, overthrew the state and seized power. Catiline was one such person. Things got worse after that. The sham of democracy remained, even after Augustus cemented power. Point being, the Republic took nearly a century to die, it didn't happen overnight. The degrading of politics was a gradual process. Previously unthinkable acts are normalised. Good people who are disgusted with the state of politics leave, and the horrible people remain, leading a race to the bottom.
- dredmorbius 8y agoAny reading you'd recommend?
- pvorb 8y agoAbsolutely. The only thing Twitter poisoned is journalism around politics.
- liftbigweights 8y ago> Was there a time when politics wasn't full of poison? By the end Thomas Jefferson hated George Washington so much he refused to attend his funeral. Don't forget the little old Hamilton-Burr incident in Weehawken. It's so odd to read journalists whining about poisoned politics. If you go back in history, there hasn't been a period where we didn't have political contention. And a lot of that was fueled by newspapers ( many times owned by politicians themselves ). One of the reasons for the Hamilton-Burr duel was because of hate Hamilton's newspaper ( NY Post ) wrote about Burr. > Twitter, FB, YouTube and the rest could use some kind of reputation systems, which at least provide a gradient of user interaction instead of just blacklisting. They should let it be a open uncensored platform to ideas and opinions. If anything limit the journalists, newspapers, etc. Twitter and the rest of social media used to be fun ( even if was offensive ). It became toxic when so many journalists/media types started getting involved. Take twitter. Who is responsible for a significant amount the toxicity? The journalists and celebrities with the blue check mark.