Us and Them - The effects of political vitriol on our society

[Dr. Mechano]

As we approach another presidential election in the U.S., tension runs high and incredibly personal feelings are playing a very big role in the proceedings. Vitriolic sentiment from opposing viewpoints is routinely lobbed to and fro, as factions are formed in the name of political affiliation. I've seen examples of such from both viewpoints on this very board over the years, and I feel this topic to be all too relevant. Society has ended up with this:

"Conservatives are backwards, idiot rednecks!"

"Yeah? Well, liberals are tree-hugging, pseudo-intellectual hipsters!"

"George W. Bush has a low IQ!"

"Barrack Obama is a secret Muslim socialist (and may or may not also be the Antichrist)!"

"The people on MY side are GOOD. The people on YOUR side are BAD."

This exchange, despite its admittedly exaggerated pretense, demonstrates just how easily political supporters on either side of the spectrum can be distracted from the core issues of their beliefs, getting sidetracked instead by attacking their opponents on a personal level. At some point, the two major political parties of this country stopped viewing each other as purveyors of conflicting ideas, and began viewing one another as opposing classes of people. Gone is the sentiment that says "This individual proposes ideas that I do not agree with," as it has been supplanted with one that says, in its irrationally confrontational manner, "These people are my enemy; They're bad and will destroy me, my country, and all I stand for if I give them a chance."

Ergo, many no longer view dissenters to their political view as individuals who have arrived at different conclusions from themselves, but instead make them into antagonistic and wholly unsympathetic strawmen to represent everything they hate about whatever contradicts their views. Simply, many of us have lost the concept of respectful and tolerant discourse in order to arrive at a common end, and have instead devolved to a viewpoint of "Us and Them."

To me, this is anything but good, and I think we ought to keep a few basic principles in mind:

I. We should respect our opponents' intelligence.

How often do you hear conservatives described as racist, homophobic bigots? How often do you hear liberals written off as promiscuous, morally-degenerate potheads? Rather than meeting each other as people to discuss the issues, we create elaborate caricatures of each other to diminish the other's intelligence or value as a person.

Certainly, there are individuals in both camps that fit the stereotypes all too well. But this should give no cause for casually lumping everyone under a certain political umbrella together, declaring them too stupid or misguided to even consider a respectful dialogue with.

These people aren't stupid, misguided, or even objectively bad just because they arrived at a different political conclusion than you did. More often than not, no matter where their political alliances lie, they tend to be as informed and as genuine in their stance as their opponents. You may not agree with their position, and as such it is fine to engage them in a debate of ideas in order to defend your position against theirs, but it is not fine to shun these people- conservative or liberal- merely for their difference in affiliation.

In order to have productive dialogue, both as political leaders and as citizens, it is imperative that these social barriers fall.

II. We should stick to the issues, and not get personal.

When you do debate politically with someone, it is vital to stick to the topic(s) of discussion, and not to swerve into personal attacks. Ad hominem is the argumentative fallacy of arguing against the personal qualities or character of one's opponent, rather than arguing against their position.

For example, if Bob expresses an opinion on a political issue, and his debate opponent Jack says "What do you know? You don't even have a job!", then Jack has just commited ad hominem against Bob by arguing against him rather than his position.

This is an all-too-common fallacy in individual disagreements, but it extends to our leaders as well.

For example, there are a number of valid reasons to complain about the current president of our country; I dare say there have been a number of valid reasons to complain about any leader of any country at some time or another. But all too often, particularly in the case of our incumbent commander in chief Barrack Obama, these complaints stray curiously from the issues and into fanciful tales of the president's supposed personal life.

It's fine to disagree with Obama politically. But it's absolutely not fine to make unsubstantiated and groundless claims about the man, which have naught to do with his performance as president. The baseless conspiracy theories abuzz about our president are cited by his detractors as much as- if not more than- any relevant issues pertaining to his presidency. You've seen them; The chain messages boasting the so-called "truth" of his Kenyan birth, his purported ties to Islamic radicalism, and even claims of the man being the Antichrist. When it comes to demonization, you can't get much more literal than outright calling him the devil. What, pre tell, do any of these unsupported claims have to do with his presidency? What are these opponents actually accomplishing by straying from the real issues and into these flights of fancy?

Let us not think I'm picking on the conservatives too much. There are those on the left who fell into a similarly sensationalist and unsubstantiated frenzy in Bush's heyday. Let us not forget those who'd sooner prattle on about Bush's supposed inside involvement in the September 11th attacks rather than sticking to any real issues of merit; Forget the Iraq War, No Child Left Behind, or other relevant issues- Let's just break out the "BUSH DID 9/11" armchair theories. In the end, the "truthers" then were just as ridiculous as the "birthers" are now.

And, let us not forget, both Bush's supporters and Obama's supporters have gleefully accused the other of being personally racist. After all, why talk about the issues when you can just say the president's a bigot and leave it at that?

We simply have to focus on the issues; As in, the things our political leaders are actually doing. These wild (and usually fabricated) stories about our leaders' personal lives are the sort of thing I would expect to see in the checkout-line tabloids, not from respectable news sources or political commentary.

III. We must remember that there is more to someone than their political beliefs.

I have heard individuals on both sides, when posed with the question, "Can liberals and conservatives have a genuine and respectful friendship?", candidly answer "Not really" or- less extremely- "I think it would be very difficult."

To this, I ask "Why?" Are we so engrossed with politics that we think about it constantly? Is our political affiliation the very essence of who we are as individuals? Most would sanely answer, "Of course not. Politics is a part of my life, but I have other interests, hobbies, and pursuits outside of it."

So, my friend, do your opponents. Do you think they are meticulously devoted to their political affiliation as the very defining essence of their entire lifestyle, while you are not? Surely, some individuals on both sides can be so obsessed, but as a rule most individuals healthily balance their personal lives. The norm is a life that does not entirely revolve around one's standing, no matter where on the political spectrum it may fall.

Therein lies my point. Do the political affiliations of Bob and Jack really matter if they're out getting coffee as friends? Should this one difference in their philosophy be such an insurmountable obstacle that they cannot enjoy the other's company, independent of political topics?

For many, this is a dealbreaker; Some on both sides see their position as the good side, the people who count, the "us" in my essay's title, if you will. Ergo, they construe an individual with the opposing position to be of the bad side, a person unworthy of their association. Such an individual is one of "them."

A word about moderation

I encourage you to be passionate about your political beliefs. This post's goal is not for its readers to wane in their convictions. I do not ask you to be more accepting of the views you so vehemently oppose, but rather to be more accepting of those who uphold them.

Whether you identify as a conservative, a liberal, a moderate (such as myself), or anything in between, please remember that behind the affiliations and parties are people. These aren't soulless machines designed to obstruct your vision of "right," these are individuals pursuing their own vision of the same. You may disagree with them, and indeed should be passionate and unabashed in debating their view, but don't lose sight of the issues and delve into personal distaste for the person presenting them. It is fine to detest someone's message, but as the old adage goes, don't shoot the messenger.

My friends, no matter what we believe, let us all agree to a sense of common decency toward each other as human beings.

(I ask that you forgive the somewhat U.S.-centric examples in this post, but I hope the general spirit of my post can extend to all countries.)

[Velotix von Skruviktorrius]

What about those of us who are (as far as they can tell anyway) actually socialist?

I'd posrep you, but I appear to have to run out of rep several times over today, so instead I'm posting this half-serious question.

[Dr. Mechano]

What about those of us who are (as far as they can tell anyway) actually socialist?

That's fine, of course. It may not be an economic system that I personally support (I consider myself a moderate capitalist, while still supporting welfare programs and initiatives to help the disadvantaged), but I still respect socialists for their view, and I do generally understand their reasoning.

I wasn't trying to imply that socialism was in and of itself a worthy insult. I'm merely referring to the fact that Obama (who isn't a socialist by any stretch of the imagination) is often groundlessly labeled a socialist by his opponents as some catch-all approach to discrediting him.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Egghead

[Patticus]

There is one simple fact that a lot of Americans tend to ignore: that even the Democrats are a right-wing political party. There is no left-wing political party to speak of in this country, which makes claims of communist or socialistic agendas sound all the more groundless.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

There is one simple fact that a lot of Americans tend to ignore: that even the Democrats are a right-wing political party. There is no left-wing political party to speak of in this country, which makes claims of communist or socialistic agendas sound all the more groundless.

Really? I need more elaboration on this plz.

[Dr. Mechano]

There is one simple fact that a lot of Americans tend to ignore: that even the Democrats are a right-wing political party. There is no left-wing political party to speak of in this country, which makes claims of communist or socialistic agendas sound all the more groundless.

This is also true.

My views- while they may seem moderate or even liberal by American standards- seem rather conservative by the standards of most European nations. I'm alright with this, of course, but it really demonstrates just how relative the terms "liberal," "conservative," and even "moderate" truly are.

Though my stance in diverging viewpoints is the same across international lines; Should I discuss the merits of both economic systems with a true proponent of socialism or even communism, my personal opposition to their position needn't be a personal opposition to them as individuals.

Ultimately, I value people far more than their or my political ideologies. So I should state that while I merely dislike communism, I truly hate McCarthyism. No one should be shunned or disrespected simply for having a different economic ideology.

[turbojet]

Really? I need more elaboration on this plz.

Right. Political science hat on for the moment. I am writing a tale but I will take away from my time for me, political science extraordinaire, to explain the party system in the United States to you, inquiring individual in need of elaboration.

First, lets characterize Democrat and Republican. Today's modern Democrat is a firm proponent of Keynesian economic policy with less intrusive infringement of social rights. An american democrat would be inclined to vote for more regulation on the market and not a big fan of acts that invade their privacy such as the Patriot Act and shit similar to that. An American Republican supports economic liberal theory which entails less, if at all, regulated economy and would surrender their social rights for protection or whatever their beliefs incline them to believe. So a typical republican would tell the government to fuck off when it dares to regulate business and shit like that, but would glad approve of social regulations such as restricting gay marriage, etc.

The problem with this is...they are more of less two sides of the same fucking coin. Whether you believe both side smells of shit and there really isn't a choice because how the party system evolves over time. Parties are affected by their time periods, the issues that are present at the time, and are never drastically different from one another. So as much as Fox and MSNBC like to think they are completely different, their differences only amount to how much of something they want and how much of something they don't want. The two party system correlates a large mass of individuals i.e. us and try to divide and instill our beliefs into two parties which explains why they are similar because we are one nation with similar issues. Sure, they may be third parties who bring up different issues, but they really have no hope of winning only desire that their issues become absorbed by one of the two parties.

As of right now, we are in reaching an end of conservative minded politics which has been going on since Nixon, became inflamed during Reagan's nomination, and saw a little splurt in 9/11. Well, I hope it is an end because I am tired of this shit, but that is just me.

[Badnik Zero]

Lol, I wonder what happened to you today to have to go and write this, Mechano.

I actually believe a lot of people carry what we'd call a moderate political stance, but are forced harder to one side or the other because of the sometimes violent nature of the debate. Why would we fit neatly into any category?

I think pistol duels should be legal in this country! Is this a left or right leaning opinion?

[SuperStingray]

Very few people want to give the state absolute power or absolutely no power; as Pat and turbo pointed out, America's parties are relatively close to each other. The overwhelming majority of Americans want enough government intervention that it provides necessary assistance but not too much that it's intrusive in personal affairs or eclipses basic liberties. The real debate is over the edge cases as to what what constitutes necessary assistance and what defines intrusion; the controversial issues arise where the major political parties dissent on the subject, yet we can't have a civil discourse on them because the modern political stage is more strawman than substance. We see the opposition as being miles away where it's just a few feet, which is why we've barely made any progress towards settling any of them and Congress can hardly get a damn thing through.

Edited May 10, 2012 by SuperStingray

[Stacy]

I am going to say that sometimes politics makes me really apathetic sometimes because I just there thinking whats the fucking point?

On the one hand I don't want chaos and I want progress, but I am promised one thing and then given another.

I used have a little saying you both a right and left wing to fly a plane. But even their is a so called balance of power it never works (Just look at the coalition in the UK that seems to be a one way street).

Politics will forever be them and us, left and right, its surprising shit ever gets done. Also we are all guilty of being in one of those sides.

Edited May 10, 2012 by BW199148

[SuperStingray]

Politics will forever be them and us, left and right, its surprising shit ever gets done. Also we are all guilty of being in one of those sides.

Edited May 10, 2012 by SuperStingray

[Stacy]

My biggest grievance with the political spectrum is that we see it as just that- a spectrum. We don't acknowledge the amount of dimensions that come with an ideology which is what really makes us generalize and distance the opposing party's stances so easily. If it were up to me, I'd drop labels like "liberal" and "conservative", "socialist" and "capitalist" altogether so I could understand another person's point of view without my judgement being clouded by a single vague word. Language is supposed to simplify concepts so we can discuss conveniently and eloquently, yet the political lexicon is becoming so contorted and oversimplified that it's doing more harm than good at this point.

[SuperStingray]

There are several political figures stateside who've jumped between parties, such as John McCain and Joe Lieberman. It's entirely possible to be liberal in some ways and conservative in others, but our current system kind of pigeonholes our politicians into associating with one collective stance if they want to hold an office.

[DarkOverord]

I used have a little saying you both a right and left wing to fly a plane. But even their is a so called balance of power it never works (Just look at the coalition in the UK that seems to be a one way street).

May I ask why on this? Not because I am a LD voter, but why?

Is it because the LD's had to "give up" on things they said they'd do? (Tutition things spring to mind). Because if so, you think they could have ever formed a coaltion if both parties went "here's my manesfesto, we will only join you if you agree to everytihng".

I'd like to point out that besides the blundering AV referendum (Which Labour and Tories pulled very dirty tricks on) that almost all of the LD bills have actually been "for" the people? The Bill of Freedoms that has been approved to be signed by the queen is a good example.

Problem with politics is there's more than just "us". People may go "unions are terrible" or "companies are bad" or "I hate anything GREEN" but as a politician they have to consider these as well. If a Government was to soley dedicate itself on one group of people, you'd instantly fuck over the rest of country. That's the main reason why both Labour and Tories are actually classified as Centreist parties as opposed to purely left or right. Specifically Centre-Left and Centre-Right. And With Labour I use "left" very loosy. They're very much on the centre now as opposed to the left. The LD's aren't particually "left" either :V

[Stacy]

May I ask why on this? Not because I am a LD voter, but why?

Is it because the LD's had to "give up" on things they said they'd do? (Tutition things spring to mind). Because if so, you think they could have ever formed a coaltion if both parties went "here's my manesfesto, we will only join you if you agree to everytihng".

I'd like to point out that besides the blundering AV referendum (Which Labour and Tories pulled very dirty tricks on) that almost all of the LD bills have actually been "for" the people? The Bill of Freedoms that has been approved to be signed by the queen is a good example.

Problem with politics is there's more than just "us". People may go "unions are terrible" or "companies are bad" or "I hate anything GREEN" but as a politician they have to consider these as well. If a Government was to soley dedicate itself on one group of people, you'd instantly fuck over the rest of country. That's the main reason why both Labour and Tories are actually classified as Centreist parties as opposed to purely left or right. Specifically Centre-Left and Centre-Right. And With Labour I use "left" very loosy. They're very much on the centre now as opposed to the left. The LD's aren't particually "left" either :V

Nope.

Because LD are all the same, lying coward bastards with no spines.

Edited May 11, 2012 by BW199148

[Dr. Mechano]

Nope.

Because LD are all the same, lying coward bastards with no spines.

Y'know, this seems to sort of go against the whole spirit of the topic.

[Delta Starfire]

Its interesting because Winston Churchill was once in the Liberal party and when got older in he was in the Conservatives. Politics is never been simple and don't think it will be. Gives me a headache sometimes.

Actually, Churchill was a Conservtive from 1900 to 1904, a Liberal from 1904 to 1924, and a Conservative again from 1924 until his death in 1965. If anything, I would say that Churchill went where the power was, at least up until the rise of the Labour Party. Of course, the old Liberal Party of the early 20th century was, characteristically, much closer to the modern Conservatives than to its Liberal Democrat descendants. They were huge proponents of free market capitalism, industry, etc. What really separated them from the Conservatives, historically, was that they were generally opposed to a lot of Britain's imperial excesses and believed in political and economic reform, whereas the Conservatives were generally imperialists and traditionalists. The latter, at least, has not changed all that much.

The modern Liberal Democrats were formed in 1988 out of the the coalition of the old Liberal Party and the Social Democrats, a group who broke away from Labour because, they felt that Labour, while well intentioned, was too far to the left and too extreme in its socialist ideals. Of course, you couldn't sincerely refer to Labour today as a "socialist" party unless you really don't understand what socialism is. Then again, I think a lot of people really don't understand what socialism is, especially if they think Barrack Obama is one. But I digress. Among older Lib Dems, there is something of a divide when it comes to fiscal issues; those with a Social Democrat past (for instance, Charles Kennedy) tend to lean more to the economic right these days, whereas those with a Liberal past (like Sir Menzies Campbell) tend to lean more to the economic left. It's an interesting phenomenon, given that the Liberals were historically huge propnents of the free market and industry and that the Social Democrats originated in the (old) Labour Party. Still, it's not a huge rift in the party, and I would tend to place the Lib Dems no further to the right than the centre, generally speaking, at least when it comes to fiscal issues (and I'd say they're probably a little to the left of that).

Anyway, this is turning into a longer post than I intended, so I'll just say this...

Nope.

Because LD are all the same, lying coward bastards with no spines.

Way to demonstrate the entire point of this topic.

[Stacy]

I actually have no political affiliation

Y'know, this seems to sort of go against the whole spirit of the topic.

[Delta Starfire]

And indiscriminate hatred for all parties is better than selective hatred, how...?

In my opinion, it's equally unhelpful to civil political discourse. Arguably more so, given than that you appear unwilling to listen to any political perspective.

[Stacy]

And indiscriminate hatred for all parties is better than selective hatred, how...?

In my opinion, it's equally unhelpful to civil political discourse. Arguably more so, given than that you appear unwilling to listen to any political perspective.

Hate? I don't hate. More like let down.

Where the hell did I say was a anarchist?

I am open to political perspective if I can find one I trust and believe in but I don't right now. Its all so black and white.

[DarkOverord]

Nope.

Because LD are all the same, lying coward bastards with no spines.

Except they're a Junior Party in a Coalition with minor say in matters. No Coalition would ever form if the LD's, or Tories, or whoever stood their ground and went "We'll only form a government with you if you take our entire party manifesto".

People accuse them of being spineless, but if they joined with Labour, they'd be accused of being Spineless.

And last I checked, the LD's have made true on some of their points in the manifesto (AV referendum, House of Lords reform (Which Tories only claimed they'd do to get votes, judging by backbenchers, they had no intention) and have repeatedly stamped on things that would go against the agreements they made in the coalition agreement).

But alas, we live in a country where forming a coalition as the Junior Party makes you terrible and thus you sleep with the enemy.

[Delta Starfire]

Hate? I don't hate. More like let down.

Where the hell did I say was a anarchist?

I am open to political perspective if I can find one I trust and believe in but I don't right now. Its all so black and white.

Umm... who's calling you an anarchist...?

Except they're a Junior Party in a Coalition with minor say in matters. No Coalition would ever form if the LD's, or Tories, or whoever stood their ground and went "We'll only form a government with you if you take our entire party manifesto".

Unfortunately, most people don't quite grasp the concept of a junior party in a coalition government.

People accuse them of being spineless, but if they joined with Labour, they'd be accused of being Spineless.

And if they'd refused a coalition with either of them, they'd be blamed for Britain lacking a stable government that could respond to the current economic crisis. It wouldn't have mattered what the Lib Dems chose to do after the 2010 election; whatever bad situation arose from it would be have been blamed on them.

[TheGerkuman]

All that is very true, and I don't hold anything against the Lib Dems for that. But they really didn't have to go back on one of their major promises, and even if it was neccesary, they shouldn't have expected to do it and not be noticed. All political parties tell porkies, but the LD's rep was based on 'We're not like Labour or the Tories', and that unsurprisingly turned out to be bogus.

[DarkOverord]

All that is very true, and I don't hold anything against the Lib Dems for that. But they really didn't have to go back on one of their major promises, and even if it was neccesary, they shouldn't have expected to do it and not be noticed. All political parties tell porkies, but the LD's rep was based on 'We're not like Labour or the Tories', and that unsurprisingly turned out to be bogus.

[Speederino]

Been a very long time since I found a political topic so interesting. I tend to keep my nose out of the putrid chaos of (American) politics, and this thread details exactly why. Political discussions always devolve to pointless name calling and personal attacks. I'm unfortunately subjugated to Fox News on a regular basis thanks to my parents, who are the exact "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim" types that were mentioned in the OP. Every time I'm forced to listen to it, it's *always* about Obama and how unfit he is for Presidency because he's Kenyan. Or Hawaiin. Or a Muslim. Or an alien. Or bigfoot. You name it, they've said it.