The Future Of Political Rhetoric

[Doomed_hero]

I thought thisdebate was kinda overwhelming the thread on the shooting so thought the debate could continue here.

My 2 cents is that the man was crazy and did it cause he was crazy. Hoever even before the shooting I was worried about the rhetoric of certain people on both sides and find it has no place in a political debate. As I say tha lets try to have a civil debate about it here.

 

[StorminNorman]

The quality of political rhetoric in this country is deplorable on both sides of the spectrum, but this is a natural consequence of Democracy.

As was demonstrated when America first made a move to Democracy during the 1820's, the quality of politician goes down as the quality of voter comes down (which is not to say that a layman voter with no knowledge of economics or philosophy is "beneath" his more informed neighbor as a human being, just as a voter. The Jacksonian Revolution ended the "Golden Age" of American Statesmen. Lets look at the men that followed Jackson (whose campaign was based purely on his War-Hero status and not his political philosophy):

Martin VanBuren, the VP and heir of the Jacksonian administration.

William Henry Harrison, the father of the modern political campaign whose election was based on a false narrative depicting the wealthy Harrison as a man of the people.

John Tyler, the VP of the deceased Harrison.

James Polk, a man who promised to annex Texas and provide more land to Americans. He defeated Henry Clay, the Senior Statesmen.

Zachary Taylor, the war hero of the Mexican-American war. A political novice.

Millard Fillmore, the VP of the deceased Taylor.

Franklin Pierce, a President viewed as one of the worst Presidents in history by modern historians (though the quality of the modern historian renders this distinction less-than-decisive), who served to only increase tensions in the country over slavery after coming out against the Missouri Compromise.

James Buchanan, an underrated President whose election was the product of the slavery issue. He was seen as the candidate of moderation on the issue - an attempt to avoid Civil War.

Then came in Lincoln, where the government changed forever.

None of these men were in the league of Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and Madison. That is not to say that such men did not exist, they simply held political ideologies to complex for the average American to comprehend. Why? For the same reason that the average American doesn't understand how to fix a car, or how to make a pencil, or how to make a latte, or how to run a bar, or how to teach a history class, or how to sell a vacuum.

Democracy rests upon the notion that all opinions are equal - that it is beneficial to the country for Paris Hilton and Perez Hilton to have as much say in the goings on in this country as Marx or Kel.

This inherent weakness of Democracy, however, is magnified exponentially by the deplorable state of modern social sciences. Since those most qualified to instruct others in these important sciences are typically rather successful, the appeal to teach for less money is rather low. This leads to Universities being filled with bad professors. This leads to poorly trained Political and Economic Scientists. Which leads to poorly educated Politicians and Economic Advisers. Which leads to them necessarily relying upon emotion instead of reason to win votes.

Sarah Palin can't defend her political ideology, so she has to rely upon scaring you away from the Left.

George Bush can't defend his political ideology, so he has to rely upon winning your trust by being a guy you want to have a (non-alcoholic) beer with.

Bill Clinton can't defend his political ideology, so he has to rely upon his hip saxophone skills.

Etc.

 

[DACrowe]

He is crazy and to blame a politician or a media network is naive and stupid. However, there is no denying that our current political culture could have contributed to hiding this whackjob or or feeding his paranoia.

I posted part of this in the other thread, but I wanted to carry it over though to demonstrate our current mess:

The rhetoric may not have caused this, but it certainly helps cultivate these feelings of hatred. Over on politico there is an article about the mother of the little girl who died pleading for the hatred to stop. All the comments below? People on the right saying that she doesn't know what she is talking about because the gave her interview to MSNBC "the most hateful network" or that it is President Obama's fault, or this is his Manchurian Candidate moment in another article.

It's ****ing ridiculous. That's what the sheriff and Roxanna Green meant. And people are trying to make excuses for the hateful rhetoric that hides and aides wackos like Loughner.

And that is sickening. Not my opinion, but the obvious.

 

[DACrowe]

I wanted to add that. It says it way better than anybody else and is even more timely than ever.

 

[AG1973]

The quality of political rhetoric in this country is deplorable on both sides of the spectrum, but this is a natural consequence of Democracy.

As was demonstrated when America first made a move to Democracy during the 1820's, the quality of politician goes down as the quality of voter comes down (which is not to say that a layman voter with no knowledge of economics or philosophy is "beneath" his more informed neighbor as a human being, just as a voter. The Jacksonian Revolution ended the "Golden Age" of American Statesmen. Lets look at the men that followed Jackson (whose campaign was based purely on his War-Hero status and not his political philosophy):

Martin VanBuren, the VP and heir of the Jacksonian administration.

William Henry Harrison, the father of the modern political campaign whose election was based on a false narrative depicting the wealthy Harrison as a man of the people.

John Tyler, the VP of the deceased Harrison.

James Polk, a man who promised to annex Texas and provide more land to Americans. He defeated Henry Clay, the Senior Statesmen.

Zachary Taylor, the war hero of the Mexican-American war. A political novice.

Millard Fillmore, the VP of the deceased Taylor.

Franklin Pierce, a President viewed as one of the worst Presidents in history by modern historians (though the quality of the modern historian renders this distinction less-than-decisive), who served to only increase tensions in the country over slavery after coming out against the Missouri Compromise.

James Buchanan, an underrated President whose election was the product of the slavery issue. He was seen as the candidate of moderation on the issue - an attempt to avoid Civil War.

Then came in Lincoln, where the government changed forever.

None of these men were in the league of Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and Madison. That is not to say that such men did not exist, they simply held political ideologies to complex for the average American to comprehend. Why? For the same reason that the average American doesn't understand how to fix a car, or how to make a pencil, or how to make a latte, or how to run a bar, or how to teach a history class, or how to sell a vacuum.

Democracy rests upon the notion that all opinions are equal - that it is beneficial to the country for Paris Hilton and Perez Hilton to have as much say in the goings on in this country as Marx or Kel.

This inherent weakness of Democracy, however, is magnified exponentially by the deplorable state of modern social sciences. Since those most qualified to instruct others in these important sciences are typically rather successful, the appeal to teach for less money is rather low. This leads to Universities being filled with bad professors. This leads to poorly trained Political and Economic Scientists. Which leads to poorly educated Politicians and Economic Advisers. Which leads to them necessarily relying upon emotion instead of reason to win votes.

Sarah Palin can't defend her political ideology, so she has to rely upon scaring you away from the Left.

George Bush can't defend his political ideology, so he has to rely upon winning your trust by being a guy you want to have a (non-alcoholic) beer with.

Bill Clinton can't defend his political ideology, so he has to rely upon his hip saxophone skills.

Etc.

Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and Madison were not saints and they were not uber-geniuses or altruist. If they were slavery and numerous other social injustices would have never blighted the history of this nation.

If you are so versed in political philosophy akin to the likes of Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and Madison Norman, then run for President in 2012. work to improve the problems we now face as a nation. Protect us from Obama, Palin, Gingrich, Bachman, and Romney.

Whether you like it or not we are in this together and that means even though I may disagree with you I have to consider your view point and on some issues be willing to compromise. I have to value you as a person and I deserve the same from you. At present our political interaction as a nation devoid of civiolity and respect in many regards. We are in this together we have to do better.

 

[StorminNorman]

Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams and Madison were geniuses. I don't judge altruism as a measure of the quality of a person. I don't believe selflessness is an inherently good quality.

Hamilton and Adams were hardcore abolitionists. So were Jefferson and Madison in their hypocritical way.

It is only the Constitutional requirements that prevents me from considering throwing my hat in the ring That being said, Gary Johnson of New Mexico is a great choice in the GOP crowd. If I know what I am talking about, he will have success in the primaries, in spite of being unknown right now.

 

[AG1973]

Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams and Madison were geniuses. I don't judge altruism as a measure of the quality of a person. I don't believe selflessness is an inherently good quality.

Hamilton and Adams were hardcore abolitionists. So were Jefferson and Madison in their hypocritical way.

It is only the Constitutional requirements that prevents me from considering throwing my hat in the ring That being said, Gary Johnson of New Mexico is a great choice in the GOP crowd. If I know what I am talking about, he will have success in the primaries, in spite of being unknown right now.

I disagree with you on what I have in bold; but that is another discussion

On another note even though you are a bit of a nut t:; you are thoughtful and when it comes to politics that is a quality of a potentially good public official. There are other political offices out there throw your hat in give it a shot.

 

[StorminNorman]

Just wait till you see the state of Florida attempt to nullify Obamacare like it's 1832 led by some brash young rookie State Rep from the Panhandle.

 

[AG1973]

Just wait till you see the state of Florida attempt to nullify Obamacare like it's 1832 led by some brash young rookie State Rep from the Panhandle.

I'll be watching

 

[samsnee]

It'll never change

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...p-blames-leftist-for-giffords-shooting/69153/

Tea Party Group Blames 'Leftist' for Giffords Shooting

By Garance Franke-Ruta Jan 9 2011, 1:49 PM ET 35
Showing no sign of tamping down on divisive political rhetoric in the wake of the shooting of 20 people that left six dead in Tuscon Saturday, the Tea Party Nation group e-mailed its members Sunday warning them they would be called upon to fight leftists in the days ahead and defend their movement. TPN founder Judson Phillips, in an article linked off the e-mail "The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the left's attack on the Tea Party movement," described the shooter as "a leftist lunatic" and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik as a "leftist sheriff" who "was one of the first to start in on the liberal attack." Phillips urged tea party supporters to blame liberals for the attack on centrist Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was shot through the head and is now fighting for her life, as a means of defending the tea party movement's recent electoral gains.
"The hard left is going to try and silence the Tea Party movement by blaming us for this," he wrote. Clinton used the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing to "blame conservative talk radio, especially Rush Limbaugh" and "The tactic worked then, backing conservatives off and possibly helping to ensure a second Clinton term."
"The left is coming and will hit us hard on this. We need to push back harder with the simple truth. The shooter was a liberal lunatic. Emphasis on both words," he wrote.
The Tea Party Nation is the sponsor of the Tea Party Convention at which former GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker in February 2010. "America is ready for another revolution!" Palin told the assembled at the conference, to standing ovations.
Other tea party groups took a less combative tone. Tea Party Express Chairwoman Amy Kremer said Saturday her group was "shocked and saddened" by the "terrible tragedy."
"These heinous crimes have no place in America, and they are especially grievous when committed against our elected officials. Spirited debate is desirable in our country, but it only should be the clash of ideas," Kremer said in a statement published by the New York Times. "An attack on anyone for political purposes, if that was a factor in this shooting, is an attack on the democratic process. We join with everyone in vociferously condemning it."

It's always about "Make them look worse than us" and not about looking inward.

 

[bored]

On the issue of where political rhetoric will go from here, I'd really, REALLY hope that people would tone down some of the references to violence. I know that no less than Sarah Palin has taken down a bunch of her references to "reloading", and maps with gun sights over certain Democratic Representatives, but the cynic in me doesn't think it'll stop for long.

 

[StorminNorman]

Unfortunately I don't think it will prevent those on the left from looking at Conservatism as a mental disorder either.

 

[Ponyboy]

American politics fascinates me.

 

[danoyse]

I wanted to add that. It says it way better than anybody else and is even more timely than ever.

I was there when he gave that speech...that was all I was thinking about when this stuff happened yesterday. Much more than Olberman's empty gesture, that's for sure.

 

[Matt]

Just wait till you see the state of Florida attempt to nullify Obamacare like it's 1832 led by some brash young rookie State Rep from the Panhandle.

More likely scenario: State House leadership secretly laughs at this nut job and sticks him on committees that make him useless.

Even more likely scenario: Fresh out college rookie state rep candidate suffers humiliating defeat in primaries because whether he likes it or not, Paris Hilton and Perez Hilton DO have the same rights as Marx or Kel (thank those guys you hold in such high regard for that one) and the general public will be easily turned off by a 22 year old talking down to them and vote against him.

 

[StorminNorman]

Nah, I got too much blue collar rep. Unlike the current son of a billionaire who hold the position, my background consists of working jobs in construction and food services (in a tourist town) complete with hard hats, steel toe boots and 14 hour work days. I even got the chance to work from one end of the district to the other cleaning the beaches after the oil spill. These are my people.

Also, don't blame the Founding Fathers on Democracy - they hated it.

 

[Matt]

Then we'll go with scenario one.

 

[StorminNorman]

2012 will be a fun year.

 

[Matt]

Nah, it'll just be a continuation of the cycle. Republicans will gain more power, kinda like in 2006. Then by 2014, people will be sick of them and Democrats will start gaining again. Its all a cycle.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Agreed Matt. There will never be extreme change in this country. At the end of the day, we'll just go Red when people hate Blue, and back to Blue when Red stops working.

 

[StorminNorman]

If that's the case, then the country is doomed.

Instead I smell revolution. The time is ripe. The Tea Party is slowly introducing mainstream America to Libertarianism and we possibly may be seeing a revolution in economic understanding as the Austrian School gains more clout after predicting the 2008 Housing Bubble.

If nothing happens but the advancement of the Austrian School, America can yet be saved. A fundamental transformation in our understanding of the markets is the most important thing we could do.

 

[Doomed_hero]

you talking like a rvolution of thought or a open gun revolution? Cause I think the open gun revolt is very far off and badly thought out.

As for te Tea Party changing the mainstream, the same was said when about the left when Obama was elected.

 

[Matt]

If that's the case, then the country is doomed.

Instead I smell revolution. The time is ripe. The Tea Party is slowly introducing mainstream America to Libertarianism and we possibly may be seeing a revolution in economic understanding as the Austrian School gains more clout after predicting the 2008 Housing Bubble.

If nothing happens but the advancement of the Austrian School, America can yet be saved. A fundamental transformation in our understanding of the markets is the most important thing we could do.

Honestly, no they aren't. I try to stay quiet on this topic, but if the Tea Party were so worried about fiscal responsibility and libertarian values, they would've stepped up when Bush was blowing our surplus. The fact is, the Tea Party leadership, the ones organizing it all (and I'm not saying that this applies to every or even a majority of Tea Party members, just a good portion of the leadership) are pissed because we have a black guy in the White House.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Nah, it'll just be a continuation of the cycle. Republicans will gain more power, kinda like in 2006. Then by 2014, people will be sick of them and Democrats will start gaining again. Its all a cycle.

A cycle of gridlock. Just about the only thing that gets done is spending, spending, and more spending. Thank goodness we have more nukes than the Chinese. Otherwise we'd be completely screwed based on our debt to them.

 

[DACrowe]

I don't know if it's because he's a black guy or just because he's a black guy. I think the color of his skin sadly could explain for how quickly the "populist" outrage against Obama surged in early-mid 2009. But a lot of it is because he has a D after his name and their cultural heroes (talk radio, recently Fox News, political figures like Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin) tell them the other side is evil.

This sort of far right backlash appeared during the Clinton years when he was a liberal socialist/fascist type that Limbaugh would compare to Stalin. That seems pretty silly now, but by 1995 talk radio had convinced millions of Americans that the Clintons had a secret hit squad killing people who they didn't like by throwing them in front of trains and the like.

The Tea Party is a more vocal, organized version of this. Social media has allowed them to be organized by either grassroots or conservative groups that originally were using them (FreedomWorks), but it is more of a cultural fear that any Democrat means we're living in end times. Waco and Timothy McVeigh, anyone?

Race probably plays a role in the speed at which this backlash appeared and there probably is a sizable portion of the Tea Parties (in organizational leadership roles or in the crowds) that are motivated by racial prejudices. But I have no idea how many, so I wouldn't try to venture such a unquantifiable statistic that all or most of any are racist...though race is a factor. But the bigger factor is an irrational hatred of anyone they view as left of them. Also, it is because the rhetoric they are fed tells them that the left is evil. And then when some nutjob listens too intently they throw their hands up. Go figure.