Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I don’t think the average human mind is quite that open, Walker… So I don’t really see how we could rise above our current “linear” political discourse.

I don’t think you’re off base by bringing this up again. It’s a message that is really needed right now.

One of the things that this site has done for me is to help me understand that I, like most everyone, am a multi-dimensional political animal. There are certain values that I hold, and the combination can’t be clearly placed in one single liberal/conservative bucket.

It’s the labels that are dangerous - even on this site. Very few people fit perfectly into a stereotypical liberal/conservative role. Rebublican does NOT equal conservative nor does Democrat equal liberal in all things.

This modern age of wedge issues has made me identify more with Democrats, not because I don’t share conservative values, but because they’ve often forced very secondary issues that I don’t agree with. Sure, I want a smaller, more fiscally conservative government where people are held responsible for their own lives and wellbeing, but not with all these “riders” that go along for the deal (abortion regulation, religion, etc).

Anyway, I’m wandering. The point is that I am encouraged by sites like this one that promote open discourse to help dispel the myth that we’re all so different. After all, we all just want the best for ourselves, our families, and our country. The sooner we can knock down the artificial walls that we’ve put up between each other, the sooner we’ll get back to being a unified country again.

Walker, as a demonstraton of how much I agree, here is a comment I left earlier in the center column in response to the subject about getting worked up about words:

Frank Herbert’s Dune trilogy, has a remarkable concept about words. I can’t quote the Bene’ Gesserit and Mentats in the book off the top of my head, but it went something very close to this:

Words have meanings, those meanings become integral to analysis. Analysis leads to conclusions and those conclusions lead to decisions and decisions lead to action. All social human action after the onset of language, therefore, can be traced directely to the words a society uses and how they are defined in the minds its citizens.

When a person buys a home built by others and then openly and in public without a second thought or twinge of apprehension states “they built it”, that person is reflecting society’s value system which puts the emphasis on wealth, and deemphasizes the value of labor. Such a value system has extremely broad and pervasive implications for how well that society performs and is shaped.

It is no accident that our nation is moving steadily away from manufacturing and headlong into service, R&D and capital lending/borrowing. Manufacturing labor is not valued in America. Manufacturing laborers are not valued in America. We are seriously short of nurses in this country and have been for two decades now. Why? Nurses are not valued, though they deliver 80% of the services provided in the health care field. Doctors get all the credit, and not surprisingly, they get 5, 10, 100 times the income of nurses.

Yes, words have meanings and those meanings reflect values and those values have consequences like interminable nursing shortages.

The specific linear spectrum words you refer to do shape our politics and policies and society. They carry values which we identify with or are repulsed by, and these words are designed, consciously by the political pundits and advisors to divide the nation, and in so doing, weaken her.

It has always been so in complex great societies regardless of whether they are communist, socialist, feudal, or democratic. And that is why great complex societies like Rome, Greece, the British Empire, etc. all sow the seeds of their own demise.

“My argument has always been that it is not how far right Bush is, but how far wrong he is.”

I agree. But I think you have a problem - the same kind of problem most Democrats have: You want your political antagonists to reason with you. You think conservatives may sometimes be right and liberals may sometimes be right. This may be true, but it is besides the point.

You want to use reason while your Republican opponents are slaughtering you with emotion, lies, smears and corruption on a level never seen before.

I am as unhappy as you are with the rotten turn politics has taken. But even those who believe in the beauty of cooperation - as I do - when faced with a violent opponent, such as the current Bush administration, must answer in kind.

Walker,

Good article. It is always healthy for people of differing backgrounds to occassionally take a step back, a deep breath, and view their surroundings.

I was deeply involved in the Republican Party for many, many years. In the last 5 or 6 years, I came to realize that neither party was presenting themselves or their views in a way I wanted to be associated with, so I left. I now consider myself vehemently independent, though my fiscal tendencies are clearly still conservative and socially moderate.

The need by some to pigeon hole people and their views has become distastful to me. My militant past bothers me because I know I contributed to the rancor, and sometimes initiated it.

But the key to this train of thought is being able to identify and agree that this is even happening. Too often, the folks who feel compelled to propogate this crap don’t even realize they are doing it, or can’t see its detrimental effect on progress. I guess I know, cause I used to be one of the blind.

Now, I espouse my beliefs. I do so whether they happen to be on the platform of the Reps or the Dems. To me, good public policy is good public policy regardless of the mouthpiece.

PS:

It might sound funny to me now, but years ago, if someone had told me I would most often agree with David R. Remer and American Pundit, I would have dropped over dead. Gee, guys, have I matured or have you gotten smarter?

Walker

You are right that left and right don’t make so much sense any more (if they ever did). If we could plot people in several dimensions and see who ends up closer to whom, I bet a lot of people would be surprised.

George Bush is a polarizing figure. I obviously don’t say this to attack him, but it is true. It seems to me that about 40% of the population hates him with a passion. Not only do they hate him, but they can’t believe that everyone else doesn’t hate him too. Another 40% think he is great. They think anyone who hates Bush must be nuts or corrupt.

I think you are right also that both (all) sides should recognize that they are probably wrong in many of the particulars. That doesn’t mean they have to stop pushing their agendas, just recognize that it is not about a struggle between light and darkness.

People just get overwrought. I was reading an article about the Patriot Act today in the (liberal) Washington Post. The article referenced opponents of the act, who seemed to think it was going to bring about the triumph of the dark side, but they couldn’t point to a single concrete case where they thought it had been misused. I understand the fear of the phantom menace, but most threats like this really never come to pass.

Chi-Chi

I can’t agree with your conclusions, although I share your sentiment.

I have never found a party that agrees with me on all my important issues. Politicians have betrayed the public trust and work to stir up emotions and conflict. This world really sucks, if you come right down to it and so do most of the people in it. That is what I think sometimes, BUT.

It is the only world we have and our country, for all its faults, offers the best options for success and happiness. Sometimes I am pleasantly surprised to find honor and goodness even among lawyers and politicians. Anyway, my duty is to make things better where I can. In politics (which is our subject here) that means choosing the best from among the realistic alternatives. My ideal guys are not available and it is irresponsible for me to just give up on those who are still standing. That would be an easier route, since it is always easy to find fault with what is when you compare it to what could be.

Think of Yeats (but don’t go mad)

That if their neighbours figured plain,
As though upon a lighted screen,
No single story would they find
Of an unbroken happy mind,
A finish worthy of the start.
Young men know nothing of this sort,
Observant old men know it well;
And when they know what old books tell
And that no better can be had,
Know why an old man should be mad.

Chi Chi, BOTH! Welcome to the Independent bandwagon. Independents will rule one day, if our nation isn’t ripped apart by the tug o war between the two major parties, first.

David R. Remer:

“Independents will rule one day, if our nation isn’t ripped apart by the tug o war between the two major parties, first.”

I hope so, but I’m afraid it won’t be in my lifetime. How do we get started? Seriously, how do we get a foothold? Where do we find a candidate?

Sometimes the task of unseating groupthink seems impossible. It gets tiresome looking at the available candidates and having to choose the lesser of two evils.

I thought for a moment things may turn with Jesse Ventura. Now hear me out. He was not my ideal guy, obviously. But what he did represent was, at least fleatingly, independent thought without spin. He spoke truth, at least as he saw it, without alterior motivation. I did not necessarily agree with the guy, but you have to respect someone who will simply tell you what’s in his gut, and stick with his convictions.

The problem occurs when any side tries to gain public consent for policy outside of a well-informed discourse, when they essentially lie to gain our assent to their agenda. It’s a dangerous game, especially when you add the obscuring effect the Conservative’s obsession with media bias gives to the situation. That’s the kicker, really. One side can claim that the articles that are inconvenient or damaging to them are a product of media bias, and then it will go unread or unwatched by the very people who most need to see it: The people of the Republican party, who have a vested interest in knowing what their party is doing in their name.

Stephen Daugherty:

“One side can claim that the articles that are inconvenient or damaging to them are a product of media bias, and then it will go unread or unwatched by the very people who most need to see it: The people of the Republican party, who have a vested interest in knowing what their party is doing in their name.”

I have witnessed this very arguement about biased press from both sides now. The Reps whine about NY Times and the Dems about the Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage conspiracy. I think, though, there is some truth to what they say. I think we have all witnessed press accounts that we think are biased from either perspective.

The shame of it is that people like Limbaugh and Hannity started out with something to say. You may not agree with it, but they argued from reasoned background. However, somewhere along the line, they became bigger than their message, they became overly agressive, they became masters of spin and self agrandising, they lost focus on their message and picked up focus on the camera.

Then, the fair and balanced people paired Hannity with Alan Combs. Not a fair match. He is weak at best.

I do still watch/listen to Bill O’Reilly. I think I identify more closely with his presentation of facts. I like the “no spin” nature of the presentation, although there are still plenty of plates on sticks. I have witnessed him chiding the prez on many occassions, and when he knocks libs, it is generally on policy, not personal.

There is plenty of pomposity to go around.

On the other side, I used to watch Bill Maher to get a feeling for the liberal slant. Then he turned into the same self-important type the others did, and wasn’t very entertaining to boot.

There are not many places left to turn for Joe Common to find truth without the rancor. As I have said before, I’m not sure I would know the truth anymore if it hit me in the face with a pie.

I think that everyone needs to take a serious look at the other parties that are out there. I agree that the linear approach to politics has many negative results, and we all need to stop trying to pick the lesser of two evils and pick a candidate who actually agress with the people. This is why everyone who reads this post should take a SERIOUS look at the Libertarian party.

Dan, the Libertarian Party? The Party with no Heart? The let the Dog eat Dog party? They can look, but, they are unlikely to buy.

Ralph Nader offered the best hope we will see for some time in the way of response government to the people, and putting an end to all the corruption in Government. But, few were interested, sad to say.

Chi Chi asked: “I hope so, but I’m afraid it won’t be in my lifetime. How do we get started? Seriously, how do we get a foothold? Where do we find a candidate?”

My guess is it can’t happen until a major calamity can be undeniably pinned to the two party system. That said, I still hold out hope for an independent Presidential candidate to come along who can tug the moderates and centrists and independents away from the two major parties long enough to get elected, and then use the bully pulpit to educate the public to the need for a two party anti-incumbency drive that smacks politicians smack dab in their political careers and sends them packing, to be replaced by freshman who have their notice served even as they are elected. That notice being, work for ALL Americans or don’t even dream of being reelected.

It’s a long shot, I know. I have better odds of living to be 200.

Dan, some of us don’t pick our parties because we think them the lesser of two evils. But even if I were, I would not take your line on things, because the linearity we speak of, the dualism of one side versus another can be manifested in Libertarian vs. Anybody else.

The true freedom from linear, dualistic thought is to consider things through study first, and party second.

Chi Chi,

“However, somewhere along the line, they became bigger than their message, they became overly agressive, they became masters of spin and self agrandising,”

I too once listened to Limbaugh, Hannity is just a hack. I feel that if you changed overly aggressive to overtly aggressive, the picture would be a little more in focus. These guys go out of their way to be insulting.

David,

Could it be possible that Nader’s message was too intellectual for the masses? If not where was the groundswell of support?
It’s a shame the American attention span can only be measured in seconds and minutes.

David-
I don’t think a viable third party can really win until it gets local and state officials elected in sufficient numbers to give people a real experience of their governance.

The Democratic and Republican parties have the advantage of clear lines of seniority, as well as local power networks. You guys are waiting for the outrage to come, I honestly think it’s come and gone, and y’all could do nothing about it, because you simply didn’t have the political presence and clout with the American people to offer the alternative.

In the end all parties have to get their start from the grassroots up. Parties that fail to do this have no support to stand on, when they field candidates for national office.

I’ve no idea if this is right, but it feels to me that you are missing a dimension of the issue. Politically speaking, republicans and democrats have never had that much difficulty talking and compromising. But what has entered in to american politics is religion and the concepts of morality and absolute truths. How do you talk to someone who truly believes they know the word of god? And behind that certainty is a notion that this country should be a christian one, after all, a majority … . I’m just saying that I’m not so sure that its linear thinking that is so much the problem as it is “moral” thinking that can brook no disagreement. Given the state of religious intolerance around the world, maybe we really are headed for another dark age where science and rational thought must take a back seat to fundamentalist religion. I said that to a lady the other day and her response was ‘why not? maybe thats the only way to stop how out of control society has become.’ mmm, whine, whimper …

don’t think the average human mind is quite that open, Walker… So I don’t really see how we could rise above our current “linear” political discourse.

The hope, of course, is that even linear discourse will result in some sort of change over time in the minds of the people really paying attention. Even against our conscious intentions, we can gain some grudging respect for the views of others. We may even be slowly changing our minds. Discourse causes a kind of internal dialectic resulting in a synthesis, to paraphrase one of those German-type philosophers.

This is, in fact, my own hope - to be educated, to evolve, and to find some peace of mind in those across the aisle with reasonable viewpoints. It doesn’t always work, of course, because most of the true believers don’t bother posting here. And even reasonable people have tribal loyalties that are unreasonable. Still, I think that maybe some of the people who post here can influence others, and this weak eddy may find its way into the mainstream, perhaps slightly shifting the river’s course.

Stephen,

I don’t think a viable third party can really win until it gets local and state officials elected in sufficient numbers to give people a real experience of their governance.

That line of thinking is likely to turn out to be correct. However, the hurdles to be jumped in getting a broad based third party ballot access across 50 states is incredibly difficult, especially when the machinery for ballot access in those states is controlled by the D’s and R’s.

The Democratic and Republican parties have the advantage of clear lines of seniority, as well as local power networks.

Not to mention the advantage of being able to block third parties through the presidential debate commission which they control, and the Federal Elections Commission which they control. Yes, clear advantages based on the rules of power, the first rule of power is to protect power, and the second rule of power is to use power to acquire more power. No wonder neither party finds the time to take care of the people’s business.

You guys are waiting for the outrage to come, I honestly think it’s come and gone

Nah! The real outrage won’t come until all this borrowing from future tax payers comes home to roost, and the pension guaranty corporation bellies up, and the housing bubble busts, and foreign investors see greener pastures in other nations bonds and treasuries. Then, the outrage will really hit the fan as millions are put out of work for years, mortgages are foreclosed, and retirement spells poverty for 10’s of millions of hard working honest parents. Yes, then, the outrage will really hit the fan. But, you know what? You wouldn’t be able to pay me enough for the responsibility of trying to fix it all then. I am sure a host of other potential candidates will feel the same way.

In the end all parties have to get their start from the grassroots up. Parties that fail to do this have no support to stand on, when they field candidates for national office.

That is likely true of parties. Not of an independent candidate for presidency however. Parties have become the most corrupt organizations in America outside organized crime, IMO. They start and end all their efforts with money and backroom deals for votes and compromises on the issues that will truly help America remain great. Perhaps one day, we will get rid of them altogether and vote for the people with the heart and message and committment the majority of Americans want representing them.

Chi Chi asked “Could it be possible that Nader’s message was too intellectual for the masses?”

You hit the nail on the head in my opinion. The man had lousy public speaking skills, and has been a lawyer so long, what seemed simple and apparent to him was confusing and uninformative to the general lay public. His ideas were right, his analysis was correct most of the time, and his motives were the best I have ever seen in a candidate. But he sure as hell was no salesman, and didn’t have the political saavy to hire speechwriters who could have translated for him.

Exactly, David… because, as I’ve said, this whole election business is just a popularity contest.

David-
You can’t expect the rise of a third party to happen that fast. Don’t try all fifty states at once. Find the friendliest states first, and make headway there. Then, with that base, bootstrap into more resistant states. With a substantial following in those states as a third party, your presence goes from wannabe contender, where people don’t respesct the noisemaking, to minor contender, where you can play the underdog. Of course the Dems and the GOP will fight to maintain control. Wouldn’t the greens, if they got the power? This system is about competition for the right to govern, and that means gaining power through elections.

As for the real outrage, you don’t hear many people expressing their outrage over the deficit that Reagan ran up. Neither will you hear that about Bush’s, unless the shit really hits the fan on the economy. Otherwise, though, people will just feel depressed about it, like so much else. Outrage takes energy, and todays world takes it out of people.

As for parties, they will exist as long as individuals do not have full power in the system, which is an indefinite period of time in a Democracy. The probability of corruption and special interest power in a government of a country like ours is inevitable. Instead of trying to purge what is essentially the human consequence of inevitably concentrated power, we should act case by case to oppose it when we see it. In the end, we lose hope because we ask for too much in terms of our victories. If we can gain small victory by small victory, the large triumphs will have better support.

Walker:

I agree with much of your post but not completely. I think you missed something big. It is nice to talk about ideology and that is important, but from the Republicans perspective, we (they) have discovered the secret of success. And it is hard to argue that it works. Here is the game plan.

1. Raise more money that Democrats.
2. Have a clear focused disciplined message. (Democrats still do not have one which baffles Republicans). Democrats really are becoming known for what they are against instead of what they are for.
3. A great big huge gigantic megaphone in Fox News and Talk Radio.
4. A truely national organizational structure that is in nearly every precinct across America.

The bottom line in the last two presidential races is that Democrats just got out campaigned. I know 2000 is big time disputable, but Gore was and incumbant who lost his own state!!!!

In addition Republicans understand Democratic (liberal?) weakness. And, Republicans know how to exploit it.

What I am trying to say, is that THE MACHINE is coming no matter what the issue or the ideology is. It is about power, and the Republicans for good or bad have figured out how to win elections, and how to increase their power. They know the formula for success and are going to use it over and over and over again until someone figures out how to stop them.!!!

Dynasties come to and end, but this one “feels” long from over.

This explains why Bush’s policies “feel” so extreme, and his tactics so harsh. It is because they feel confident that they will stay in power. They don’t feel like the Democratic party can beat them on 06. They see a large number of state houses, and governerships, and nationwide feel very secure. They believe Liberals are politically playing a loosing hand, not because of ideology, but because of their ability (or inability) to win elections.

As a Moderate Republican I wish things were a bit more bipartisen.

What is really a bit unnerving, is that the Republican leadership may just be right!!! We will see in 06.

Craig

I imagine BushCo will arrest a bunch of Iranian Crossing Guards just before the Election…

Walker,

Great article, I also love watchblog for its diverse opinions.

We may never agree politicaly IF everything is offered in large chunks, ie; purchase the entire plate, you get no choice of the foods you like, you must buy and eat it all.
That IMO is how politics and partys work and why some are working better than others.
A party can offer a great tray of food, fried chicken, tatersNgravy,corn on the cob, fresh dinner rolls, and top that with a GIANT slab of mincemeat pie!
I don’t know about you, but that is the nastyist stuff in the world, in fact I belive there is only one mincemeat pie in the world, every Christmas someone gives it to someone else!

You could exchange any nasty food on that tray, but hopefully you get my point, when you vote for someone you must buy and eat the entire platform.

The partys put the so called “wedge issues” on they’re own damn plate, if most people don’t want it they can scrape it off the plate, or keep trying to sell it untill they go out of business.

In articals here about a single issue that isn’t one of the hotbutton ones you’ll find many times that persons from all columns often agree.

Even removing(or never puting the issue in the platform) doesn’t work today when everyone can look up voteing records and find whats on the plate so to speak.

I’m not Dem. bashing, but, they have some nasty stuff on their plate right now that isn’t selling.

I’m not Dem. bashing, but, they have some nasty stuff on their plate right now that isn’t selling.

Beagle, could you list some? I suspect you’re looking at a menu from several decades ago. It sounds like you may have fallen into the “linear trap” Walker is warning us of.

How do we get out of the political trap that we are in? Good question … the media has been setting up a Hillary v. Condi scenario for awhile now and hardly ever speak of other possible candidates even from their parties.
Unless an individual with enormous name recognition decides to throw themselves to the wolves and run as an independent … we are stuck.

For once, I have actually enjoyed reading a blog post instead of wishing I had done something else. Even the comments it evoked are mostly reasoned and mature.

Thank you.

AP,

Scrapeing anti-gun, anti-hunting from the plate would be quite easy, even most Dem.’s dont agree with that.

I think what really strikes me is how “linear” thinking really detracts from a focus on the problems facing our country. The focus becomes defining your party as the “good” one, on beating the other party over the head for being “wrong,” or for claiming to be an innocent victim of a vicious attack. Being able to claim (or have the public believe) these labels becomes more important than whether something is actually done about an issue.

Steve Westby, I don’t know first hand, but, my guess is that the average voter thinks on about a 10th or 11th grade level. While that does not constrain the average voter to linear thinking about the nation’s problems, linear thinking is a short cut to what would otherwise require a lot more work and effort in order to become informed multi-dimensionally on the issues.

This is what I see as the primary justification for a republic instead of direct democracy - the limitations of education, thinking capacity, and time and energy to cast truly and empirically informed votes. Hence, the political parties which act as a substitute for all that and which are expected to tell their constituents what to think and even how to think it.

It’s a helluva way to run a democracy, but, I have yet to find a better way, save for radically increasing educational proficiency in the humanities, economics, and political studies for all who attend high school and college. But we would need a federalized educational system to accomplish that, and that is about as likely as Saddam H. being elected to replace GW Bush.

David-
No offense, but I think such estimations of the voter are part of what creates this problem. we should always aim a hair’s breadth over people’s heads. This both respects people’s intelligence, and encourages a society that uses more of it’s brains. If we go lowest common denominator, diminishing returns are a guarantee, as disappointments in communication drive a downward spiral of forced simplicity.

While reading this blog, one thing stands out pretty clear to me. Many on here feel superior to the average voter. The average voter is why President Bush won the last 2 elections. As long as you show this arrogance, it is going to turn off voters and drive them to the other party. Below are a few examples of that arrogancd that I see.
“I don’t think the average human mind is quite that open”….”One side can claim that the articles that are inconvenient or damaging to them are a product of media bias, and then it will go unread or unwatched by the very people who most need to see it: The people of the Republican party, who have a vested interest in knowing what their party is doing in their name.”….”Could it be possible that Nader’s message was too intellectual for the masses? If not where was the groundswell of support?
It’s a shame the American attention span can only be measured in seconds and minutes”….*Steve Westby, I don’t know first hand, but, my guess is that the average voter thinks on about a 10th or 11th grade level. While that does not constrain the average voter to linear thinking about the nation’s problems, linear thinking is a short cut to what would otherwise require a lot more work and effort in order to become informed multi-dimensionally on the issues.

This is what I see as the primary justification for a republic instead of direct democracy - the limitations of education, thinking capacity, and time and energy to cast truly and empirically informed votes. Hence, the political parties which act as a substitute for all that and which are expected to tell their constituents what to think and even how to think it.”….”David-
No offense, but I think such estimations of the voter are part of what creates this problem. we should always aim a hair’s breadth over people’s heads. This both respects people’s intelligence, and encourages a society that uses more of it’s brains. If we go lowest common denominator, diminishing returns are a guarantee, as disappointments in communication drive a downward spiral of forced simplicity.”

tomd wrote

As long as you show this arrogance, it is going to turn off voters and drive them to the other party. Below are a few examples of that arrogance that I see.

This anti-intellectualism I just don’t get.

I occasionally like to watch a good professional sporting event. The participants have physical abilities I can only dream of. I don’t complain that they should hire players of more average ability so that the rest of us aren’t dissed.

Likewise, it seems we should all value taking advantage of people of higher than average intelligence to help run our society. That may include frank discussions about “average intellect” because our society needs to serve everyone, including those of low intelligence. I can’t imagine how you could interpret a comment which suggests that we “respect people’s intelligence” as arrogant. Perhaps there is some arrogance embedded in some of the comments tomd has quoted, but perhaps tomd is being arrogant in asserting his ability to see that arrogance.

re linearity
To state that humans learn by building associations and that these associations are not always valid is pretty much stating the obvious. ‘Linearity’ has been a more useful concept for most of the 20th century than it is now. One important reason for this is the recent re-introduction of religion (code word: faith) into the political arena, nullifying attempts at reasonable, logical argument. Any student of history will know that this desperate act to win support for other (political) causes can have disastrous consequences.

Frankly, I think the discussion of the intellectual level of most Americans misses the point (although as a psychologist I can give you the statistical answer — the average IQ is 100, with a standard deviation on most tests of 15). I could even look up where that places “most” people in terms of abstract reasoning skills, etc. But, again, I think that misses the point.

I think that linear thinking (or what I’ve referred to in previous discussions as “drama”) occurs on a pre-rational level, occurs in areas of the brain that are more primitive than the frontal cortex (which engages in planning, reasoning, and judgment). This makes sense because this type of thinking is all about perceiving and reacting to threat, which is a basic survival skill.

For those who might have missed my previous discussions of “drama” — it’s actually a psychological theory about how people respond to a conflict or problem. One solution is to engage in problem-solving, a rational process designed to address the issue. The other solution is “drama.” Drama is an attempt to maintain some type of psychological identity. So people will enter the “persecutor” role when they are certain that their views are right, the “victim” role when they want to feel blameless, and the “rescuer” role when they want to feel like “the good guy.”

“Drama” is the fundamental force behind why people act like idiots, jerks, etc. It is also important to understand that drama always deflects attention away from actually addressing a problem. Take the example of a mother and daughter who are in ceaseless conflict. The mother complains that the duaghter is constantly disrespectful and becomes so upset that she yells at the daughter (i.e., starts in the victim role and proceeds to the persecutor role). The daughter reflects the other end of the cycle by initially complaining that the mother is constantly disciplining her for minor matters and becomes so enraged that she yells at the mother.

Hmmm…really does sound like Congress, don’t it? =)

Anyway, my point is that it doesn’t matter what level of rational ability you have if you are sucked into “drama.” When this happens, anyone acts like an idiot.

I would argue that the solution for Democrats is to rise above “drama” and start focusing on solutions for the country. As Clinton famously put it “when people think, we win.”

Steve, the theory you are talking about stems out of the growth of Eric Berne’s Transactional Analysis theory which is specifically designed to analyze person to person interaction. It is somewhat misapplied when discussing voting behavior (person’s interacting with self on a voting decision), or sociological behavior.

Also, the theory nowhere states that such defense mechanisms result in idiotic behavior. It predicts that when behavior is not rational and conscious, it CAN be inappropriate for the situation, not idiotic. There are a great many non-rational, non-conscious behaviors which are defensive in nature and result in appropriate responses. Habits to familiar situations constitute such behaviors which can be quite appropriate.

tomd, many here at WB are superior to the average voter on at least a couple measures. Let me count a couple of ways:

1) More computer saavy than the average voter

2) Better typists and spellers than the average voter

3) More involved in political discussion and debate than the average voter

4) which likely makes folks here more informed on political issues than the average voter.

5) And since a number of persons here have degrees, very likely better educated than the average voter.

David,

Actually, if you look at the newer trends in psychology — especially with regards to personality disorders theory — there is a great deal of thought about how drama contributes to very dysfunctional patterns of behavior (i.e., personality disorders). I was using the term “idiot” somewhat colloquially, perhaps, in the same sense that we talk about someone being “difficult” or “acting like a jerk.” But I’m sure if you look at the recent literature in this area, you’ll see that this is well established.

That’s not to say that defense mechanisms or drama-driven behaviors are always inappropriate. There will be situations in which they are quite appropriate or adaptive (e.g., put a person with a paranoid personality disorder into the CIA, and they’ll likely fit in fairly well…until it comes to socializing with colleagues).

I would agree that the original TA theory was designed to analyze person-to-person interactions, but I would disagree with your contention that it is inappropriate to apply the theory to politics. The kind of politics we’re discussing here has almost entirely to do with how liberals and conservatives think about and deal with each other. Besides, if my memory serves, there have been multiple writers who have discussed the relationship between TA theory and political behavior.

The point behind my post was simply that a discussion of IQ isn’t relevant to a discussion of “linearity.” Intelligent people can act “like idiots” (again, speaking colloquially) when in the throes of drama. And I think its almost undeniable that current political trends pull for this kind of thought/behavior.

Finally, I think in your last comment you strayed away from a discussion of TA. Obviously, habitual behavior can be appropriate, more efficient, etc. But that’s different from saying that responding to a contrary point of view as a “threat” (i.e., responding out of drama) is usually helpful in modern political discourse. I would argue that it isn’t.

Steve Westby,

“when people think..we win”

It would seem that many Democrats feel that if people were smarter they would be in power ?
The natural flip side of that must be that Republicans are in power because they’re not as smart as Democrats ?

Only Howard Dean would make a statement like that in a political climate.

It must be that Republican voters are just as smart, but uninformed?
But, the very poor tend to be the most uninformed about politics, yet vote solidly for Democrats?
I guess that can’t be it.

I wonder?…Perhaps Rep. and Dem. voters are equally smart as a group, but have started voting based on issues?

Beagle,

No, I’m not trying to argue that Republicans are stupid. Nor am I accusing them of being uninformed. I’m simply saying that people often make political decisions on a pre-rational basis, reacting (for example) to opposing points of view as a “threat” rather than as a difference of opinion to be rationally discussed. Or evaluating someone as “weak” on defense issues based on a negative attack ad rather than based on a rational examination of how their foriegn policy agenda would affect the nation’s security.

If you really study public opinion polls, most people agree with Democratic positions on most issues. Yet many of these same people have voted for conservative candidates. People have also been strikingly voting against their own self-interest, a phenomenon that even some conservative strategists have acknowledged. I would suggest that this means many people are making political judgments on a pre-rational basis. The gist of Clinton’s comment, I think, is that when Democrats can spur the American people to use reason (and get beyond “drama,” as discussed above) most people agree with Democratic positions on issues and we win more elections.

Mind you, I’m also not claiming that the Republicans are the only ones who use this tactic. Democrats certainly have, and Dean’s comment about Republicans being “evil” is a very good example. That’s just silly, and a good example of how “drama” takes us away from a focus on the real issues facing our country.

Anyway, again, the issue isn’t intelligence. It’s the kind of thinking people use in making decisions.

Scrapeing anti-gun, anti-hunting from the plate would be quite easy, even most Dem.’s dont agree with that.

I knew you were going to come up with that, Beagle. :)

You say yourself that most Dems don’t agree with it. You’re absolutely right. I don’t understand why you’d think that was on our plate. kctim couldn’t name a single current piece of anti-gun legislation. Maybe you can do better. :)

Seriously, if you want to get specific, then we can have an arguement. For example, no Democrat wants criminals or the insane to have guns. No Democrat is going to favor selling machine guns or high-explosives to the public - even the NRA supported the unconstitutional National Firearms Act.

Democrats have no problem with responsible, law-abiding citizens bearing arms or hunting. All my Democrat buddys own guns. Start talking specifics and you’ll see the similarities between the left & right on the issue - as well as the differences. Making a blanket statement like you did is just uninformed demagoguery.

“when people think..we win”

Damned straight. But it’s so much easier to scare the idiots into thinking a terrorist is going to come and cut their head off unless they vote Republican. Morons.

AP,

You’re a smart guy, you can look up voting records as well as I can.

Anyone can go to votesmart.com and see the ratings for everyone in congress on gun issues and many other issues. The site itself is totaly nonpartisan and the ratings come from special interest groups that rate people on issues based on how they vote on the issues they promote.

With the internet voters are relying less on 30sec soundbits on tv about how someone says they will will vote on the issues, people just look up how they DO vote on issues.
There is no place to hide anymore.

So you’re not even going to try to find a piece of recent anti-gun legislation, Beagle? You’re just giving up?

I’ll save you the trouble. There is none. Democrats aren’t trying to take away our guns or stop us from hunting.

Ap,

What happened to the so called Assult Weapons Bill ?
It died because of things that certain people in congress wanted to ADD to it, you can look up who that was as well as anyone else.

It died because nobody wanted to renew it. There were two Democrats who made a big deal about it, and the rest of us kinda sat around on our hands pretending we didn’t see anything.