Political Schism

My neighbor two doors down has an "Impeach Obama" bumper sticker. He also has plastered a big sign on his truck that says "Our president has no integrity." Apparently this is a major issue to him. Not sure why. He seems normal and intelligent enough. But I think I won't ask him about politics.

My daughter's father-in-law included me in a broadcast e-mail he sent out Friday telling everyone he knew that Benghazi was a scandal. Not sure why. The YouTube video he linked had no new information, just the same old FNC false accusations. I don't understand it, he seems normal and intelligent enough. I guess I'd better stay away from politics with him.

I just started reading Elizabeth Warren's new book, "A Fighting Chance." So far it's excellent. Thought I'd pop over to Amazon.com and see how it's being reviewed. There were a bunch (17) of one star reviews. Reading through them, almost all of them said they hadn't read the book but wouldn't because Warren was a lying communist. They accused her of lying about her ethnic heritage, they accused her of lying about her resume, they accused her of lying about her family. Jesus, what's gotten into the country? Why do Rush's "dittoheads" feel obligated to attack every writer who espouses views contrary to those promoted by right-wing radio?

The political divisions in this country are stark, and not particularly pretty. One even hesitates to bring up the subject, since facts and balance are discounted down to no value in the dialogue. It's scary.

An inordinate number of my friends for the past forty years have been Political Science professors, but possibly the best explanation of the American political system came from a history professor. He said that the system was based on enemies.

He explained that there was always a real or contrived "enemy" which was used - most notably by the right wing - to direct the political narrative. At the time we had this conversation, the Communists were the enemy, and the narrative by the right was that the Democrats were "soft on Communism." The frightening part of the man's description and predictions for  our political system was his assertion that when there were no more valid foreign "enemies," that the right would create domestic enemies, leading to a dangerous, and possibly permanent, schism within the American population. Of course, the only reason for the real and imagined enemies was the furtherance of the political careers of the creators of these "enemies."

I think what he described all those years ago, has come to fruition - or is at least very close to it - and is what you are describing.

Democracy is divisive. I've lost a few friends in the last year just discussing politics. They didn't even ask me questions while we were discussing various issues. Perhaps we need a common enemy to unite us. Totalitarianism an option?

There was great political divisiveness in the country during the Nixon Administration. You were either for "Law & Order" or against it, for "the war of stemming the march of Communism" or against it, for "my country right or wrong" or you thought Nixon was a crook.

But I don't remember it ever being as bad as now. You LITERALLY cannot discuss politics with anybody. If you try to point out how all of the "facts" they've gotten fron Fox News are dead wrong, they accuse you of being a "liberal elite" or something.

As if "elites" shouldn't be allowed in public, because all of them "non-elites" want to make sure their guns and gods are front & center.

Politics is the one subject where I really make an effort to be agnostic.... some people don't even like that. You have to choose a side. If you dare question the wrong side, or play devils advocate, end of discussion or adhominem or its time to go home and they never want to speak with you or associate with you any more.

SAI2 wrote:

Democracy is divisive. I've lost a few friends in the last year just discussing politics. They didn't even ask me questions while we were discussing various issues. Perhaps we need a common enemy to unite us. Totalitarianism an option?

Democracy is not divisive. Politics is divisive. There is no longer a common foreign enemy to support the blather of the right; you and your friends are experiencing the new right-wing-created political enemy - yourselves.

SAI2 wrote:

Politics is the one subject where I really make an effort to be agnostic.... some people don't even like that. You have to choose a side. If you dare question the wrong side, or play devils advocate, end of discussion or adhominem or its time to go home and they never want to speak with you or associate with you any more.

Well you see there's the problem.

The Far Right has promoted the idea -- to the point where it is now quite commonly accepted -- that both sides are equally factual.

• The "debate" on climate change means the science is unsettled
  
• The state of the economy has nothing to do with trickle-down theory
  
• The military is our best option for ensuring American hegemony
  
• Persons seeking bankruptcy protection are all deadbeats
  
• Banks and hedge funds deserve taxpayer protection
  
• Guns make Americans safer
  
• Torture prevented another 9/11 from happening
  
• If you make the rich people richer it helps the economy (and poor people deserve to be poor because they're lazy)
  
• Healthcare should go back to pre-ACA days and we'd all be better off
  
• Etc. etc. etc.

The PROBLEM is, the Right has the right to their own opinions, but they do not have the right to their own facts. Most of what they espouse as their "alternate viewpoint" is demonstrably wrong. Truth is not fungible. You cannot be agnostic about reality -- there is only one reality, and Rand Paul does not have a handle on it.

Which is why I'm so baffled by the present political schism in the USA. During Nixon's reign we had a forced draft sending 56,000 boys to die in SE Asia for no apparent reason. We had a president who abused his office to spy on and try to destroy his political enemies. We had dozens and dozens of appointees and cabinet members who went to jail for flagrant lawbreaking. We had high unemployment and raging inflation.

During the Cheney Administration we had two unpopular and unnecessary wars, we provoked a terrorist attack, we legalized torture, the economy collapsed, deregulation caused rampant abuses, political enemies of the vice president were targeted for harassment, etc.

None of this has happened under Obama. Oh, he has failed to correct some of Cheney's worst mistakes and reneged on most of his campaign promises, but the economy is improving, the wars are winding down, things are generally getting better. So why is the nation torn apart now? Why is it impossible to discuss politics in polite company?

These should be the glory days of informed debate, the flowering of hope for the future. I don't get it.

_Howard wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Democracy is divisive. I've lost a few friends in the last year just discussing politics. They didn't even ask me questions while we were discussing various issues. Perhaps we need a common enemy to unite us. Totalitarianism an option?

Democracy is not divisive. Politics is divisive. There is no longer a common foreign enemy to support the blather of the right; you and your friends are experiencing the new right-wing-created political enemy - yourselves.

I don't believe you can have politics without democracy, or vice versa - they go hand in hand. By it's very nature democracy has a divisive component to it, otherwise everyone participating would be in agreement and vote for the same party/person/platform.

I don't subscribe to the notion that the "right" is some kind of unified, entity whom all think the same way or agree, as if they could all be lumped together. There are many different flavors of conservative out there, not just the ones who appear on Fox news.

There are also those like myself who swing from one end of the political spectrum to the other depending upon the specific issues discussed.

I am in no way a right-winger on most subjects, especially social ones, but on a few subjects I do see room for a more conservative approach.

Most of my friends are pretty extreme lefties. Hence their inability to even listen to an alternative viewpoint. They much prefer pretending all righties are the same caricatures of conservatives that appear on TV or speak on radio.

I do think there is room for a rational right in our political discourse, which is one reason why I try to keep adamantly neutral when discussing politics. The other reason is so I don't lose any more friends simply because I challenge their prevailing wisdom with some questions, and alternate ways of thinking about issues.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Well you see there's the problem.

... and you've just given yourself the answer to your question about the divisiveness. What you really don't understand is why everyone isn't a democrat.

NoCoPilot wrote:

The Far Right has promoted the idea -- to the point where it is now quite commonly accepted -- that both sides are equally factual.  

• The "debate" on climate change means the science is unsettled
  
• The state of the economy has nothing to do with trickle-down theory
  
• The military is our best option for ensuring American hegemony
  
• Persons seeking bankruptcy protection are all deadbeats
  
• Banks and hedge funds deserve taxpayer protection
  
• Guns make Americans safer
  
• Torture prevented another 9/11 from happening
  
• If you make the rich people richer it helps the economy (and poor people deserve to be poor because they're lazy)
  
• Healthcare should go back to pre-ACA days and we'd all be better off
  
• Etc. etc. etc.
  

The PROBLEM is, the Right has the right to their own opinions, but they do not have the right to their own facts. Most of what they espouse as their "alternate viewpoint" is demonstrably wrong.  Truth is not fungible.  You cannot be agnostic about reality -- there is only one reality, and Rand Paul does not have a handle on it.

You are correct that the right has a right to their opinions, and not their own facts. However, they also have a right to approach these subjects differently with different solutions. They also have a right to make mistakes and hopefully learn from them - if they can first acknowledge them. As I see it, the right are having difficulty formulating rational right-leaning solutions, or strategies with liberal appeal. The reason so many "popular" extreme right-wingers resort to unethical, dishonest approaches to these subjects is because they are having great difficulty finding reasonable solutions which bode well with their core values, and still agree among themselves. Their challenge as a party, a rational party, the Republicans will have to really knuckle down and dig deep into these issues and find that sweet spot that pleases both their interests and the interests of more liberal thinkers. It won't be easy and their mouth-pieces aren't making the job to win votes any easier. Obama actually understands this, but a large part of the political gamesmanship I see is brash, gall-inducing intimidation tactics and using power to stall any progress on any issue - virtually choking any progress to be made.

NoCoPilot wrote:

None of this has happened under Obama.

Thought experiment: What if Obama had run for office when Dubbya was running, but had won? Do you not think he would have done the same due to 9/11? Topic for another thread. But I have often wondered whether anyone would have done differently, given the circumstances and political climate in America at that time. I think anyone who says Obama would have taken a passive, rational, negotiating, cool and diplomatic approach to Saddam and Iraq is being unrealistic.

Obama has the advantage of looking good after the tough, unpopular (perhaps mistaken) decisions and actions had been made and then judged, in hindsight.

SAI2 wrote:

As I see it, the right are having difficulty formulating rational right-leaning solutions, or strategies with liberal appeal. The reason so many "popular" extreme right-wingers resort to unethical, dishonest approaches to these subjects is because they are having great difficulty finding reasonable solutions which bode well with their core values.

I think what you're trying to say here -- and I would agree with you if so -- is that the so-called "right-wing solutions" have been proven to not work -- in fact they fail disastrously.  THAT's why they have trouble putting them forward -- they've painted themselves into a polemic corner where what works has been demonized and what doesn't work is all they have left.  They cannot openly advocate for the 1% because it is patently obvious that what benefits the 1% harms the 99%.

And they need the 99%'s votes.

SAI2 wrote:

Thought experiment: What if Obama had run for office when Dubbya was running, but had won? Do you not think he would have done the same due to 9/11?

First of all, I seriously question if 9/11 would have happened at all if Bush/Cheney weren't in office.  

The forces behind the attacks (Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaida, Pan-Arabic nationalists) were very concerned -- and rightfully so -- that the new administration was very hostile to Arabic interests, Arabic independence, Arabic control over their oil fields.  During the campaign and first 8 months of his administration, Cheney made it very clear that he intended to insert himself into Iraqi, Libyan, Syrian oil production, anyone who he felt wasn't rolling over backwards to service the American thirst.  The attacks -- although not officially "state sponsored" -- were definitely a reflection of many state reservations about the new administration.  We have never learned the true nature of the attackers' support.

But put that aside for the moment.  Let's go with your thought experiment: if Gore/Lieberman had not conceded prematurely -- if Bush's brother had not tampered with Florida's election results -- if Ohio's mysterious "electronic ballots" had matched the straw polling of voters as they emerged from the voting booths -- if the Supreme Court hadn't exceeded their mandate and decided an Executive Branch election ... or (in an alternative universe) Obama/Biden had run & won -- and 9/11 still happened -- what would the nation's response have been?

I believe, first of all, that there would have been an investigation of who was responsible.  We would have taken a few months to determine who funded this operation (Saudi Arabia and Libya I believe) and we would have retaliated against them, economically probably more than militarily.  Iraq -- who was not involved -- and Afghanistan -- who harbored the attackers but provided no support -- would not have been invaded.  Our nation would have taken the high moral ground ("we were attacked in an unprovoked attack") and the Arab world would have offered up the guilty parties to us.  Further attacks would have been prevented at their source -- in the Middle East -- instead of making everybody take off their shoes at the airport.  Relations with the Muslim world would have been rocky for a year but would have recovered.  There would have been no disruptions in petroleum supply and future production would have been boosted to help our economy.  Gas would be $2/gal.

Of course with Gore in office alternative energy production would have been funded, and our dependence on foreign oil would have lessened.  About $4 trillion dollars wouldn't have been pissed into the sands, so the finances would have been available. Remember, Bush took office with an $86.4 billion surplus on the table.

It's all speculation but it makes sense to me.

Saddam had nothing - zero, zilch - to do with 9/11. There may well have been a similar reaction against the Taliban, for harboring the terrorists responsible. But the invasion of Iraq was inspired by profit-motive, pure and simple. Cheney and his cronies have made millions, and it only cost a few hundred thousand lives, the goodwill of the world, and the American way of life. None of which bothers him at all.

In all fairness to Dick Cheney -- I can't believe I'm saying this -- Barton Gellman's book "Angler" looked into this extensively and could find no evidence that Cheney personally profited from the no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton.

He appears to have been motivated by slightly less venal motivations: steering business to former business associates, getting contracts in place quickly with no fiscal oversight, and going with contractors he knew could get the job done without spilling the beans to Congress or the public on what they were doing. Cheney is a true believer, not a cynic, a man who sees everyone else in the world as hostile to himself and his vision of how the world should be reshaped. He saw an opportunity and seized it -- fuck democracy, fuck public opinion, fuck the naysayers.

NoCoPilot wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

As I see it, the right are having difficulty formulating rational right-leaning solutions, or strategies with liberal appeal. The reason so many "popular" extreme right-wingers resort to unethical, dishonest approaches to these subjects is because they are having great difficulty finding reasonable solutions which bode well with their core values.

I think what you're trying to say here -- and I would agree with you if so -- is that the so-called "right-wing solutions" have been proven to not work -- in fact they fail disastrously.  THAT's why they have trouble putting them forward -- they've painted themselves into a polemic corner where what works has been demonized and what doesn't work is all they have left.  They cannot openly advocate for the 1% because it is patently obvious that what benefits the 1% harms the 99%.

And they need the 99%'s votes.

No, what I am trying to say is less polemic, less bias than your description. I know you have already stated that neutrality is a problem for you with regard to politics, and it may very well be a universal truth (that there can not nor should there be a neutral political stance taken). But while facts cannot be cherry picked, how we interpret their meaning and act on them is totally up for grabs. A fact can be viewed as not holding any intrinsic meaning or value. It's just a data point. Nothing more. (I never thought I'd hear myself say that)

Of all the subjects available for human beings to discuss, politics is the only one I think requires a very hard line relativistic approach. There is so much ideology and opinion, it is a cesspool of confusion and confabulation, subjectivity and deceit.

I don't think many of the harder-lined Republicans see their "solutions" as failures. Or at least not complete failures. I don't think they are as concerned with being tidy and clean (ethically, morally and in terms of actual physical casualties) in their approach, as a liberal or left leaning mindset is to solutions generally. Offensive strategies never are. Ends justifying means is not and unreasonable principle to the right, where it seems to be anathema to anyone left of right.

Republicans do seem to be willing to be contradictory, cross into hypocrisy, and generally not play by the rules if they feel threatened. That seems clear both in business, elections, political gamesmanship, and with regard to foreign policy. Winning, or at least, surviving, is the bottom line. The left generally doesn't like competition, but is willing to tolerate it as long as the game is played fairly.

It is a curious and fascinating dichotomy, because the right also fervently believe they are morally within their rights to be so. They are willing to rationalize extreme offensive tactics for what they believe is the greater good. The end result, which again, they imagine as succeeding regardless of the cost, casualties, etc; succeeding simply because in their view there is no other alternative that would have been just or good.

In order for a politician running for office to succeed in today's political arena, he must be very knowledgable of his opponents and understand thoroughly their pov in my view. To the point of being able to argue for both sides positions successfully in debate, but to also be fully empathetic with both sides. That is not easy. Telling ones own truth from ones pov and ignoring your opponents is easy. But being a politician and appearing to be honest while at once appeasing opponents, yet not letting down supporters... that takes genius and talent and hardcore experience.

People shit on politicians alot but the more I learn and understand the game, the more I can't help but admire some of them, even the ones my absolutist moral side objects to and despises.

NoCoPilot wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Thought experiment: What if Obama had run for office when Dubbya was running, but had won? Do you not think he would have done the same due to 9/11?

First of all, I seriously question if 9/11 would have happened at all if Bush/Cheney weren't in office.  

The forces behind the attacks....

You see here I would just question every point where you put a subjective value judgement, until we got to a point where one of us got fed up with the other. I'm not trying to avoid elaborating on the hypothetical I created... I just don't want the thread to change course exploring speculation rather than staying on your original topic.

Like I suggested with your point above about not being able to cherry pick facts, we also can't just take our facts and color them to suit our ideological views of the world - not when trying to get at the facts. We can when we want to prove who is to blame and who is ultimately 'in the wrong'. Because that's what this speculative diversion would in the end be about.

I don't doubt you know a lot more facts than I about many of these behind the scenes details regarding 9/11 and what came after. Whether a lot of them were cherry picked to suit moral positions, or whether they are fully vetted, objectively investigated, thoroughly comprehensive... I'll leave that up to - hopefully - critically neutral and rigorous scholars/investigators.

Complex political situations and events are very tricky to fully grasp objectively and interpret, which is why subjects like climate change and economics, etc, are so difficult to come to any firm, rigorous conclusions on. They are in a sense, highly complex and chaotic phenomenon, vast in magnitude and scope... which is not reason to not examine them. They should be, however, they can be quite daunting and often are never susceptible to firm absolutist moral conclusion.

You could very well be correct about the premise of my thought experiment being flawed, however,there are reasons to suspect that people like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld would be and still are waiting in the wings, while those like Obama take center stage. It's not like there were no democrat leaders capable of making some hard political decisions resulting in tragedy.

SAI2 wrote:

You could very well be correct about the premise of my thought experiment being flawed, however,there are reasons to suspect that people like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld would be and still are waiting in the wings, while those like Obama take center stage. It's not like there were no democrat leaders capable of making some hard political decisions resulting in tragedy.

I'll just pick your last two sentences to respond to.

Yes, there are always "hawks" waiting in the wings to push military solutions to every geopolitical problem. That's what hawks do (especially those like the Cheney Administration, where not a single senior leader had ever served in combat).

However, invasions and bombings can only go so far to advance an agenda, and sometimes other avenues are a lot more effective. Maybe not as viscerally satisfying, but in the long run much more effective.

"Democrat leaders" are less prone to jump on a tank, which -- contrary to your characterization -- is often a lot more of a "hard political decision" than rushing to war.

I don't have a problem with hawks, or military solutions to perceived major international problems as a perceived last resort, based in fact or otherwise error, in hindsight. When possible life-threatening or nation-threatening emergencies arise, people don't have time to just sit and debate what they should or should not do in response...

With regard to the ME, oil, Iraq, Iran, Saddam, 9/11, N. Korea, anti-western prejudice, etc...

My right-leaning political sympathy is simple to understand. Oil and it's sordid history is a dirty business. Most industrialized nations are dependent on it. Once a nation becomes dependent, it stays dependent if there are no affordable alternatives and it is not politically wise to do so. There is not merely money and greed at play, but control of the market itself, and which nations have the upper hand in terms of power and access to that market.

I believe one of the reasons we can't let go of fossil fuels is partly because we are still so dependent on it, partly because it is a wealth generator, and mostly is because we can't afford to allow other non-western powers in the world to have greater access and control over it after we westerners decide to make the more environment friendly move to alternative, clean energy choices and leave what's left for the rest of the world. Fossil fuels will always be the favored heavily demanded energy source in today's and tomorrow's marketplace as long as it exists. As long as there are anti-western forces still threatening the pro-democratic forces, there can be no room for allowing the fossil fuel market to suddenly seek out anti-western customers, with a nice discount to boot. Demand and supply must be ours to manipulate to the best of our ability.

Given that rationale, sadly and tragically, I see no room for an alternative move from fossil fuels at the current time. It isn't that Big Petroleum doesn't understand the science. They understand it all too well. It also isn't that they want to just milk the oil till the last drop, just to make even more money than they already have to spend in their lifetimes, or their great grandchildren's lifetimes. They all know they don't need the money, in so far as what money means for individuals in day to day life and luxuries, etc. Big Oil in large part keeps industrialized nations powerful and gives them leverage and influence on the geopolitical stage, today, in the real world. It buys western democracies more time to try to do what needs to be done to nullify non and anti-western powers in the world.

We are hated internationally, partly because of past policies and actions in foreign countries; the mis-understandings and mistakes of diplomacy, leading to political subterfuge, etc, but also partly because our values and beliefs are antithetical and abhorrent to those very real enemies who quite clearly want us eradicated. We are materialistic, immoral, irreligious infidels deserving of nothing but Allah's wrath. For some of them negotiation and diplomacy just means biding time to develop greater technological prowess in order to gain some real leverage with real WMD power.

I think Republicans are alarmingly aware of this, and are driven to plan and act, if necessary, accordingly. Hence their ability to at once claim to be religiously moral, yet also fiercely and also seemingly, hypocritically immoral to get done what they believe needs to be done, regardless of the fallout. Democrats still think they can kiss and hug and talk their way to world peace, without converting to Islam or silencing the atheists. I'd like to think the Dems idealism is correct - but alas, I have no faith when faith is involved. I used to know some religious fundamentalists and be one myself. It is why I distrust what I see as left-wing suckling to those who would cut us down for pretending to righteous.

It's another explanation as to why I think there is a move currently by major democratic world leaders toward sympathy with anti-secularist, relativistic and extreme pluralism where religion is concerned - and to ignore or outright silence and punish with hate or blasphemy laws, any atheists or humanists who dare complain of being forced to live without a separation between church and state. To forcibly impose tolerance of state sanctioned religious values throughout the world. The current set of anti-secularist supposedly democratic leaders see the secularist movement as a threat to world peace. The way they see it, I speculate, is that if the rest of the world makes some effort to be "respectful" of all religious belief, regardless how absurd or unintelligible, or harmful, this might be more conducive to diplomacy and eventual world democratization.

But since when have theists been able to reason or agree on anything? Other than having a collective hatred of atheists and secularist policy?

That's why to some degree I sympathize with the right on certain issues - and am vehemently against them on others.

Wow, this is a dark, dark worldview you have. Do you really believe all Muslims, Hindus, Jews and atheists hate you and want to "eradicate" you? That's a tough burden to carry, man.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Wow, this is a dark, dark worldview you have. Do you really believe all Muslims, Hindus, Jews and atheists hate you and want to "eradicate" you?  That's a tough burden to carry, man.

wtf....? How did you derive that from what I said?

Btw, I just want to clarify that this so-called "world view" is only speculation based on my admittedly limited understanding of world politics as I have come to understand it from mass media over the years. It is not in any way meant as a statement of facts, just simply personal opinion and as always subject to change. Yes, it's dark, but life ain't no fairy tale.

_Howard wrote:

Enemies!

   ... too improbable an assumption to make? You think the west has no real enemies?

Hmmm... I can't for the life of me find a claim by me regarding Hindus, Jews, or Atheists considering the west enemies.

SAI2 wrote:

Democrats still think they can kiss and hug and talk their way to world peace, without converting to Islam or silencing the atheists. I'd like to think the Dems idealism is correct - but alas, I have no faith when faith is involved. I used to know some religious fundamentalists and be one myself. It is why I distrust what I see as left-wing suckling to those who would cut us down for pretending to righteous.

I tend to think everyone in the world is like me, wrapped up in our own little lives, trying to carve out a tiny sliver of happiness. I don't wanna fuck up anybody else's life unless they get really obnoxious and start stepping into my sliver of sunshine -- like by lobbing drones my way.