Civility in Politics, your thoughts?

[Peguy]

Interesting remarks about how we conduct politics today from a moral standpoint.

+ " Fr. Jeffrey on civility in politics" via YouTube

Your thoughts? My main beef is not necessarily the attack ads or partisanship per se, but rather that it all concentrates on trival shit that doesn't even really matter. If they actually dealt with the real issues at hand, well then it'd be far more interesting.

[Lateralus]

Actually, I think political campaigns are more civil than they used to be, thanks to mass media, not that there isn't room for improvement.

[ajblaise]

These attack ads and trivial narratives are only there to sway idiot undecided voters, who respond better to these sorts of things rather than taking a look at where they stand policy wise.

[Peguy]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Actually, I think political campaigns are more civil than they used to be, thanks to mass media, not that there isn't room for improvement.

True, compared to how it was during the days of the Founding Fathers. However, at least there were some serious political issues at play in regards to the nature of Constitution(Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists) and so on.

Now it's just a matter of disagreement over specific adjustments on how to maintain the same grand strategy for both domestic and especially foreign affairs.

[Edahn]

I find a lot of the criticism to be hypocritical (blasting politicians for having ties to corporations, for instance) and distracting (relationship problems). There doesn't seem any integrity left in politics. The tricky thing, I think, is how to change things. If you try to take the moral high ground, it seems pretty inevitable that you'd get buried by all the character tarnishing. Reminds me of what I learned in negotiations: hard bargaining will always dominate soft bargaining; if you try to be fair and civil with someone who lays dirty, you're going to lose.

[Peguy]

Originally Posted by ajblaise

These attack ads and trivial narratives are only there to sway idiot undecided voters, who respond better to these sorts of things rather than taking a look at where they stand policy wise.

This is largely the result of various factors: namely the over-concentration of power at the Federal level plus the rise of mass society. If we operated on a more direct-democracy basis and geniune federalism, this would be contained to a considerable extent.

We also need to address the social issue of seeing ourselves as just a bunch of random individuals with 'rights' who lack any real connection with each other. In such a situation, it's necessary for governments to step in and maintain order.

If we operated on a community-based foundation, we could more effectively limit government's involvment through the independent self-governing means of such communities. And this will do more to secure individual rights in the long term as well.

[ajblaise]

Originally Posted by Peguy

This is largely the result of various factors: namely the over-concentration of power at the Federal level plus the rise of mass society. If we operated on a more direct-democracy basis and geniune federalism(which is built upon the foundation of people operating in strong communities), this would be contained to a considerable extent.

Yeah I see mainstream TV media as the main cause. Soundbites and 30 second commercials dominate. If we just had print media instead of TV media concerning presidential politics, the debate would be a lot more substantive with less appeal to emotion perhaps.

[Peguy]

Originally Posted by Edahn

I find a lot of the criticism to be hypocritical (blasting politicians for having ties to corporations, for instance) and distracting (relationship problems). There doesn't seem any integrity left in politics. The tricky thing, I think, is how to change things. If you try to take the moral high ground, it seems pretty inevitable that you'd get buried by all the character tarnishing.

That's certainly what happened to Ron Paul. Nevertheless, it does need to be done on some level.

When running for MP, Hilaire Belloc overtly declared the fact he was a devout Catholic, and if the electors rejected him because of that fact he'd thank God for sparring him the indignity of being their represenative. He won the election.

Same thing with Harry Truman when he basically told it how it was.

We're littered with plenty of pandering politicians, people will actually respect a guy who has true conviction. The image commonly presented of Obama shows this to be true to an extent.

[Peguy]

Originally Posted by ajblaise

Yeah I see mainstream TV media as the main cause. Soundbites and 30 second commercials dominate. If we just had print media instead of TV media concerning presidential politics, the debate would be a lot more substantive with less appeal to emotion perhaps.

The media is but one factor in the equation. The media is but a tool. It's mainly the marriage between big government and big business that's causing all this.

The media actually has great potential to educate the public. But as you stated, not in the manner in which operates now. British politics aren't much better IMO, but you can clearly see a difference between discussions on BBC and those that take place on CNN.

[heart]

I think the focus on trivia is intentional by both sides and it's all of our collective fault as society for allowing it to continue and allowing them to steer the course of debtate and to set the dialectics that we do debate. There are limitless avenues for human imagination to follow and yet we allow the media to keep us stuck in certain grooves.