Will The Villification Ever End? From Paul Waldman...March 21, 2011 It's natural to vilify one's political opponents, whether they're in power or not. You may have had this experience...

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

From Paul Waldman...March 21, 2011

It's natural to vilify one's political opponents, whether they're in power or not.

You may have had this experience recently: As you watch someone from the opposing party on television saying something you know isn't true or holding fast to some plainly immoral position, you ask yourself, "Just what is wrong with them? Are they stupid, or do they just not care?"

"Happy families," Tolstoy wrote, "are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." And people who agree with us politically are all alike as well: They're right. We don't concern ourselves much with their psychology, their motives, or their intelligence. Was their reasoning sound, did they rationally evaluate the evidence, were their conclusions based too much on emotion? To these questions, we're likely to answer: Who cares? Once they've arrived at the right destination, their journey is beside the point. Our opponents, on the other hand, provide much richer ground for analysis. Why are they so wrong? Are they i***ts, are they liars, do they hold different values than we do? Are they mentally ill or actually evil? You could wonder about it for hours, and many of us do.

The most generous conclusion one could draw about one's opponents -- that they are people of good will who have merely come to some mistaken conclusions for essentially benign reasons -- can be awfully hard to sustain when you have to hear them express their awful beliefs day after day. If you care about politics, you think policy positions matter to people's lives, and that makes it even harder to think well of those who disagree with you. The choices we make about policy are freighted with practical and moral import. Some are truly complex and involve uncertain predictions about the future, but many involve a simple moral calculus. For example, if I believe that the fact that there are more than 50 million Americans without health insurance is a moral outrage and you don't, it means, in ways that are hardly trivial, that we are different kinds of people.

It's always the case that a Democratic president means good times for conservatives who are mad as hell and that the opposite is true when the White House is in Republican hands. Angry books move up the best-seller list, the audiences grow for radio shows and magazines that represent the opposition, and we pay more attention to those who shake their fists. And for some time now, people on both the right and the left have dev**ed time to explaining why the other side is not merely wrong but spit from the very fires of hell to lead us to our destruction.

There are two key differences, however. First, the rage on the right was only slightly lower when Republicans held all the levers of government power. Even when George W. Bush was president and Republicans held both houses of Congress, one could go into any bookstore and find a dozen tomes about how liberals were destroying America. Second, those making this argument on the right have vastly higher profiles and positions of greater influence within the party than those on the left saying something similar. They are officeholders, guests on television shows, and people with nationally syndicated radio programs.

In the early 1960s, Marshall McLuhan argued that modern media were creating a "global village" in which we would all share a common culture. Though he was right in some ways, tribalism remains as powerful a force as ever. We may all see the same movies, but we have more ways than ever of defining who counts as "us" and who counts as "them," even as we hold on to the old standbys of nationality, race, and religion. And one of the central arguments many conservatives make about liberals, and in particular about Barack Obama, is that they are not truly American (perhaps literally) or at the very least are in the grip of foreign ideas.

But are things any worse now than they have been in the past? We certainly have more access to the noxious bile simmering in others' hearts. The anonymity provided by the Internet removes the social cost of bad behavior, giving people permission to be cruel or vulgar -- an opportunity some take with gusto. As someone who offers my political opinions to the public, I've gotten plenty of h**e mail, particularly on those occasions when I have appeared on, or been mentioned on, a conservative talk show. (Some of it is quite creative: During the 2004 p**********l campaign, I appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and defended John Kerry from the Swift Boat attacks, whereupon a gentleman e-mailed to let me know that he and his buddies had downloaded a picture of me and printed out copies, which they placed in the urinals at the Veterans of Foreign Wars hall so they could piss on my face.) I've always found the psychology of the act curious. How does "I disagree strongly with what that person said" make the leap to "I will write that person an e-mail to tell him what a jerk I think he is?"

The venom can itself lead one to conclude that those with whom we disagree are beyond help and reason. But that doesn't offer proof that one should get meaner in response. It's possible to believe that one's opponents are a horrifying band of moral monsters and simultaneously believe that calling them that out loud and refusing ever to compromise with them doesn't do your side much good. There's little evidence that the nastiest line or the most unrestrained questioning of motives produces more political victories.
And no matter how much you h**e the other side, they aren't going anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

P.S. "The rule is perfect: In matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane."---Mark Twain

Liberty Tree

slatten49 wrote:

From Paul Waldman...March 21, 2011

It's natural to vilify one's political opponents, whether they're in power or not.

You may have had this experience recently: As you watch someone from the opposing party on television saying something you know isn't true or holding fast to some plainly immoral position, you ask yourself, "Just what is wrong with them? Are they stupid, or do they just not care?"

"Happy families," Tolstoy wrote, "are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." And people who agree with us politically are all alike as well: They're right. We don't concern ourselves much with their psychology, their motives, or their intelligence. Was their reasoning sound, did they rationally evaluate the evidence, were their conclusions based too much on emotion? To these questions, we're likely to answer: Who cares? Once they've arrived at the right destination, their journey is beside the point. Our opponents, on the other hand, provide much richer ground for analysis. Why are they so wrong? Are they i***ts, are they liars, do they hold different values than we do? Are they mentally ill or actually evil? You could wonder about it for hours, and many of us do.

The most generous conclusion one could draw about one's opponents -- that they are people of good will who have merely come to some mistaken conclusions for essentially benign reasons -- can be awfully hard to sustain when you have to hear them express their awful beliefs day after day. If you care about politics, you think policy positions matter to people's lives, and that makes it even harder to think well of those who disagree with you. The choices we make about policy are freighted with practical and moral import. Some are truly complex and involve uncertain predictions about the future, but many involve a simple moral calculus. For example, if I believe that the fact that there are more than 50 million Americans without health insurance is a moral outrage and you don't, it means, in ways that are hardly trivial, that we are different kinds of people.

It's always the case that a Democratic president means good times for conservatives who are mad as hell and that the opposite is true when the White House is in Republican hands. Angry books move up the best-seller list, the audiences grow for radio shows and magazines that represent the opposition, and we pay more attention to those who shake their fists. And for some time now, people on both the right and the left have dev**ed time to explaining why the other side is not merely wrong but spit from the very fires of hell to lead us to our destruction.

There are two key differences, however. First, the rage on the right was only slightly lower when Republicans held all the levers of government power. Even when George W. Bush was president and Republicans held both houses of Congress, one could go into any bookstore and find a dozen tomes about how liberals were destroying America. Second, those making this argument on the right have vastly higher profiles and positions of greater influence within the party than those on the left saying something similar. They are officeholders, guests on television shows, and people with nationally syndicated radio programs.

In the early 1960s, Marshall McLuhan argued that modern media were creating a "global village" in which we would all share a common culture. Though he was right in some ways, tribalism remains as powerful a force as ever. We may all see the same movies, but we have more ways than ever of defining who counts as "us" and who counts as "them," even as we hold on to the old standbys of nationality, race, and religion. And one of the central arguments many conservatives make about liberals, and in particular about Barack Obama, is that they are not truly American (perhaps literally) or at the very least are in the grip of foreign ideas.

But are things any worse now than they have been in the past? We certainly have more access to the noxious bile simmering in others' hearts. The anonymity provided by the Internet removes the social cost of bad behavior, giving people permission to be cruel or vulgar -- an opportunity some take with gusto. As someone who offers my political opinions to the public, I've gotten plenty of h**e mail, particularly on those occasions when I have appeared on, or been mentioned on, a conservative talk show. (Some of it is quite creative: During the 2004 p**********l campaign, I appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and defended John Kerry from the Swift Boat attacks, whereupon a gentleman e-mailed to let me know that he and his buddies had downloaded a picture of me and printed out copies, which they placed in the urinals at the Veterans of Foreign Wars hall so they could piss on my face.) I've always found the psychology of the act curious. How does "I disagree strongly with what that person said" make the leap to "I will write that person an e-mail to tell him what a jerk I think he is?"

The venom can itself lead one to conclude that those with whom we disagree are beyond help and reason. But that doesn't offer proof that one should get meaner in response. It's possible to believe that one's opponents are a horrifying band of moral monsters and simultaneously believe that calling them that out loud and refusing ever to compromise with them doesn't do your side much good. There's little evidence that the nastiest line or the most unrestrained questioning of motives produces more political victories.
And no matter how much you h**e the other side, they aren't going anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

P.S. "The rule is perfect: In matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane."---Mark Twain

From Paul Waldman...March 21, 2011 br br It's nat... (show quote)

So according to this writer the vast majority of vilification is on the Republican side. Just another partisan.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Liberty Tree wrote:

So according to this writer the vast majority of vilification is on the Republican side. Just another partisan.

Similar, perhaps I suggest, to the partisan take you have or put on everything, L-T.

Liberty Tree

slatten49 wrote:

Similar, perhaps I suggest, to the partisan take you have on everything, L-T.

I admit that I am partisan to those who hold conservative truly Constitutional principles. What I cannot stand are those who are blatantly liberal partisans who try to present themselves as fair minded objective people.

Rose42

Good article except there are sound reasons for villifying both sides in various matters. I don’t mean to the extent that they’re all stupid or they’re all t*****rs but both have issues worth a good smashing.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Rose42 wrote:

Good article except there are sound reasons for villifying both sides in various matters. I don’t mean to the extent that they’re all stupid or they’re all t*****rs but both have issues worth a good smashing.

Yep...

And I don't feel that those on the other side are stupid (unless they prove otherwise

like our new ball) but simply have different views from myself...
They often have good reasons for their views... But that doesn't mean I have bad reasons for mine....

It is too bad when we need to start villifying those who disagree with us....

Disclaimer: For the life of me I can't understand the reasoning behind some of the stuff politicians do (with support)..Baby Trudeau drives me insane... BTDS

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

slatten49 wrote:

From Paul Waldman...March 21, 2011 br br It's nat... (show quote)

We're in a different time. This is not politics as usual.

Quote:

The most generous conclusion one could draw about ... (show quote)

This is NOT the conclusion I'm drawing.

Quote:

It's always the case that

This is where you're wrong Slatt. As I previously mentioned...we are not in a "like always" time. Forget that...it's a trap. This isn't politics as usual. This is an appointed time and things will happen that don't fit in your box. You'll see.

Quote:

a Democratic president means good times for conservatives

"Democrat" is meaningless. "Conservative" is meaningless at this time.

Just suppose I'm right for a minute...how would that affect the "narrative" about who is opposing who?

Quote:

who are mad as hell and that the opposite is true when the White House is in Republican hands. Angry books move up the best-seller list, the audiences grow for radio shows and magazines that represent the opposition, and we pay more attention to those who shake their fists. And for some time now, people on both the right and the left have dev**ed time to explaining why the other side is not merely wrong but spit from the very fires of hell to lead us to our destruction.

I'm not mad and the House is irrelevant to me in the sense this article suggests. Who the hell are they to put words in my mouth or any other "conservative's", wh**ever the hell that means? Screw them! they can speak for their own damn selves.

Quote:

There are two key differences, however. First, the... (show quote)

Hmmm...can't wait for dime-store psychology lesson...

Quote:

In the early 1960s, Marshall McLuhan argued that modern media were creating a "global village" in which we would all share a common culture.

Really? The fkn perverted media thought they'd brainwash everyone into believing their sht if they just did it by increment. So! Where do they begin?

Quote:

Though he was right in some ways, tribalism remains as powerful a force as ever.

Tribalism? WTF does that mean to people whose political agenda is dividing people into as many warring groups as possible and promising to befriend them all? What does "tribalism mean to people who seem to be INTENT on k*****g as many babies and breaking up as many families as possible. I smell rat sht, bro...and I don't buy the implications of this article AT ALL.

Quote:

We may all see the same movies, but we have more ways than ever of defining who counts as "us" and who counts as "them,"

Not so much until recently, it seems. I think this is bullsht too.

Quote:

even as we hold on to the old standbys of nationality, race, and religion. And one of the central arguments many conservatives make about liberals, and in particular about Barack Obama, is that they are not truly American (perhaps literally) or at the very least are in the grip of foreign ideas.

Oooold, ancient, decrepit, moldy, jive-ass standbys...

OK...what the hell is a standby?

Quote:

But are things any worse now than they have been in the past?

Yes...I've said so twice, which is why I find the progression of this article irritating and amateurish at the same time.

Quote:

We certainly have more access to the noxious bile ... (show quote)

Right now some folks are trying to screw the Republic. Either you get it or you don't. Whichever...we aren't going to let them and that's about it..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Quote:

P.S. "The rule is perfect: In matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane."---Mark Twain

Twain was wise in some things and blind as a bat in others if you read ALL of his writings.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

slatten49 wrote:

Similar, perhaps I suggest, to the partisan take you have or put on everything, L-T.

I think the lid is going to blow off and you'll see the tip of the iceberg I see just a little more than the tip of.

This is going to be CRAZY bro...just watch.

And I'll be right as usual.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Yep... br br And I don't feel that those on the o... (show quote)

A reasonable post.

We all think differently about things. That's why marriage is difficult sometimes.
We think differently, but come to a compromise. It isn't so with government.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

archie bunker wrote:

A reasonable post.

We all think differently about things. That's why marriage is difficult sometimes.
We think differently, but come to a compromise. It isn't so with government.

Reasonable...yesss Preciousss….

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

archie bunker wrote:

A reasonable post.

We all think differently about things. That's why marriage is difficult sometimes.
We think differently, but come to a compromise. It isn't so with government.

Yes, Arch, CD is generally reasonable...as are you.

The key word you mention here is 'compromise,' rather than the usual vilification of opposing views. Unfortunately, it is rarer than ever that compromise enters into governmental reasoning. Compromise or negotiation should be as important in governing as it is to marriage.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

BigMike wrote:

Twain was wise in some things and blind as a bat in others if you read ALL of his writings.

"I don't (always) understand your specific kind'a crazy, but I appreciate your total commitment to it."

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Rose42 wrote:

Good article except there are sound reasons for villifying both sides in various matters. I don’t mean to the extent that they’re all stupid or they’re all t*****rs but both have issues worth a good smashing.

Rose, I've come to expect no less from you.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Yep... br br And I don't feel that those on the o... (show quote)

Ahh, CD, my friend. Your generally spot-on comments are always worth the reading.

"It is too bad when we need to start vilifying those who disagree with us"...exactly the intended point.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

slatten49 wrote:

Yes, Arch, CD is generally reasonable...as are you.

The key word you mention here is 'compromise,' rather than the usual vilification of opposing views. Unfortunately, it is rarer than ever that compromise enters into governmental reasoning. Compromise or negotiation should be as important in governing as it is to marriage.

Unfortunately, we seem to have no compromise now.
Which means I don't get my riding mower, and tablesaw.
But, I still must live with this person of twisted thought processes.

I'll carry on as usual, and life will be good!