Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
Not really. I believed it was kept mild mannered. I believe seeing other people's view can be beneficial.
-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
The Well-Mannered Politics Thread
- Thread starter usmccharles
- Start date
- Status
Not really. I believed it was kept mild mannered. I believe seeing other people's view can be beneficial.
The Raven
Veteran
Hey, I think we still agreed on just about everything but media, Hillary, and Russia. I'll chalk that up to a big win in today's climate. No worries man
RavensDFan
Veteran
Truth is there is not anywhere that isn't skewed to some extent anymore. If there are actual documents involved, I find them and read them myself rather than listen to some partisan hack try to give me his interpretation of what they say. If not, I read every angle and do the best I can to glean truth from partisan political bent.
Inqui
Pro Bowler
As an outside observer it seems that the US political discourse is more tribal and partisan these days than the discourse of a lot of other countries, even among non-Americans. Even in Australian or NZ political discussions there tends to be a lot more middle ground and openness to criticism of "their" guy (and more civility when doling out said criticism), but when an event happens in the US the gloves come off from those same people. People hated Tony Abbott, but it never got to the point of people lynching effigies of him or having props of his severed head.
If I were to guess the reasons behind it, I'd probably be looking at the two-party hegemony pushing voters into broader umbrellas than they'd like to be in; the winner-takes-all nature of the US electoral and governance system (where a lot of other countries rely on coalition governments, making certain compromises unavoidable); and that TV seems to be the main source of news over there (as opposed to the UK, for example, where newspapers are more dominant) and I'm not a fan of 24-hour news channels because the market rewards veracity and conflict as opposed to clarity. I was pretty bummed during election season waiting for someone to actually talk about the candidates' actual policies and whether they made any sense, and the only place I ever saw any discussion about that was an English newspaper. Everything else was dominated by 24-hour coverage of the outrageous things someone said or did either recently or 20 years ago.
The first two would be fixed almost overnight by an electoral reform imo - bring in a system that relies on a proportional vote and overturn rules that make it harder for newcomers to run (I know there are some areas where a Republican or a Democrat needs 5000 signatures to be allowed to run, while anyone from a different party needs 15,000 signatures - that kinda rule is completely indefensible) - but that would involve the two main powerbrokers having to agree to lose their hegemony so I can't see that happening in any of our lifetimes. Instead of Democrats and Republicans you'd have Democrats and Republicans, as well as Socialists and Libertarians, or whatever any splinter parties would call themselves (Greens, Freedom Party, whatever). People generally gravitate to the middle, and historically the moderate wings of the D and R parties have always had common ground on stuff. So the people on the more extreme wings of each party would still get a voice, but the moderates can ignore them more easily and actually govern. It's also easier to find common ground for both politicians and constituents when ideologies are a bit more focused. And there's the added bonus of being able to move along the spectrum if you get jaded with one party's direction. That's not a fanciful scenario either, it's day-to-day politics in a lot of countries.
I don't have an answer for the last one, short of outright banning 24-hour TV and radio channels, which in principle I could be brought on board with but I don't think it's viable for all kinds of reasons. In the meantime I guess it's down to the individuals to keep it civil, and that everyone needs to take an honest look at themselves and try to take a less cynical view about the "other" side and realise that it can be easy to come off as condescending. Everyone wants what's best for their country and the world and it's easy to forget that. That's not really an effective counterweight to the veracity of the 24-hour news cycle and the decades of toxicity that's built up, but I guess it's a starting point for trying to keep conversations civil.
Last edited:
The Raven
Veteran
I know I said I would avoid, but this story underscores my general idea that politicians are becoming less competent, not more corrupt, and I thought I'd share, because it's interesting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rumps-fault/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.248175e515d8
The general idea is that budget cuts have reduced staff sizes, limiting the number of research and prep staff a congressman has.
"They have been forced to rely on lobbyists and party leaders to guide them through the legislative process, and many rank-and-file members are effectively sidelined.
A lack of emphasis on knowledgeable staff is 'one of the weaknesses of the Congress in the modern era,' said former congressman Jim Leach (R-Iowa.). 'The more complicated society has become, the more complicated government becomes, and the more important it is to have professional expertise.'"
And from what I have seen, electeds rely immensely on their staff for everything. With fewer staffers, they have less knowledge. And that's how lobbyists -- especially like those in the insurance world -- come to dominate the policy debate.
The general idea is that budget cuts have reduced staff sizes, limiting the number of research and prep staff a congressman has.
"They have been forced to rely on lobbyists and party leaders to guide them through the legislative process, and many rank-and-file members are effectively sidelined.
A lack of emphasis on knowledgeable staff is 'one of the weaknesses of the Congress in the modern era,' said former congressman Jim Leach (R-Iowa.). 'The more complicated society has become, the more complicated government becomes, and the more important it is to have professional expertise.'"
And from what I have seen, electeds rely immensely on their staff for everything. With fewer staffers, they have less knowledge. And that's how lobbyists -- especially like those in the insurance world -- come to dominate the policy debate.
Tank
Hall of Famer
Rep. Rodney Davis......
"I believe that there's such a hatefulness in what we see in American politics and policy discussions right now, and in social media and the 24-hour news cycle," Davis said. "This has got to stop. We can disagree on how to govern — that's what makes our country great. I'm here because we're all Americans. And I think Republicans and Democrats need to use this day today to stand together and say stop. Let's work together, let's get things done. We can have our differences, but let's not let it lead to such hate."
"I believe that there's such a hatefulness in what we see in American politics and policy discussions right now, and in social media and the 24-hour news cycle," Davis said. "This has got to stop. We can disagree on how to govern — that's what makes our country great. I'm here because we're all Americans. And I think Republicans and Democrats need to use this day today to stand together and say stop. Let's work together, let's get things done. We can have our differences, but let's not let it lead to such hate."
The Raven
Veteran
I can't remember if it was the great philosopher Toby Keith or Voltaire who once said, "a little less talk and a lot more action." (tongue firmly in cheek, btw)
I find it ironic that a man who voted to shutdown the government in 2013 is the one telling us, "let's work together, let's get things done." I guess he and I just disagree on how to govern. I think they should pass budgets, not shut down the government.
Is anyone else tired of politicians using disasters like these as opportunities to stand up on the soapbox to talk about civility and bipartisanship, as if they actually have any intention of doing that? Getting real fuckin tired of "our prayers are with you." That means bullshit.
Last edited:
Tank
Hall of Famer
lol......I've been tired of politicians in general for years and really only used Davis' quote to illustrate the truth he speaks re; social media and the 24 hour news cycle, both of which are out of control and screwing up life as much as helping. But I will say that I didn't hear any hidden agenda in what he said. He was there on that field being shot at and even if it's only once in his political career, I think what he said was an honest statement.
Pounding hateful political discourse and partisan rhetoric into people's brains 24/7365 is not productive for anyone other than sponsors. Somehow the crap needs to be reigned in.
The Raven
Veteran
I'm not blaming social media or the 24/7 cycle for people's inability to deal with reality in a mature, reasoned, and nonviolent way. If you ask me, politicians need to tone down the rhetoric and we need media literacy classes in high school. Maybe being a part of "the machine" has desensitized me, but I think it's also put me in the position to see what the problem really is: that people -- not just politicians, but people -- aren't capable of being responsible news consumers.
If we publish a story about 1,000 school kids being homeless and those consequences (which we would put extensive effort into), and story about a politician sounding off about some hot topic like immigration (which takes a half hour tops), what do you think gets shared more? We put more effort into the first story -- the one about real problems and real policy -- and it's overall just a better story. Which gets shared? You and I both know the answer.
We get so pissed in the newsroom about how shit stories about feuding politicians get shared like wildfire, whereas the important policy stories get 10 views -- from the town lawyers and politicians. It's not the media's fault that the bullshit spreads and the quality content doesn't. People, and I'm not necessarily saying you or anyone here, but PEOPLE, the readers, the viewers, and the listeners, have a craving for bullshit, a compulsion to share it, and an inability to comprehend it.
The country's getting dumber. It's not the media's fault. We wish to God that people would read the stuff we actually put time and effort into, but they all fall for crap. Why? It's simple, it isn't nuanced, and it's easier.
I've never worked in TV news and would sell out for PR long before that point, but they are more sensationalized than the rationed and nuanced news in print/digital. However, TV news gives viewers what they want. They look at ratings, and they give people exactly what they want. Yeah, that's shitty too and TV news is at fault, but it's even more so an indictment of the people who watch TV news. They simply don't want quality journalism -- the ratings prove it, and so do declining subscriptions to print papers.
Tank
Hall of Famer
While I agree with much you are saying, I don't think people are necessarily becoming "dumber". I do think they have become lazy and are losing the ability to communicate effectively.
The Raven
Veteran
I thought that too, until the legitimate "fake news" debacle really took storm in 2012-2016. People share things willy-nilly without a second thought. Inflammatory shit, the kind of shit that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs (imagine that). You know, the "Obama really was born in Kenya" kind of bullshit. That, to me, proves that people have a reckless disregard for reality and the truth. Once had an Obama birther argument with this neanderthal who said, "well it's my opinion that he was born in Kenya. You can't say my opinion's wrong. Blah blah snowflake communist"
I'm also a journalist, so I see the absolute worst of it, up close and personal. The kind of people that think a photograph of a politician with a lawyer automatically proves collusion in some kind of elaborate scheme in the swamp. Because naturally, lawyers and politicians are evil by default.
On the topic of the swamp, why is it we our political discourse didn't come down to calling politicians corrupt and from the swamp? I don't think "career politician" began being used as an insult until the post 9/11 era. Why were past generations able to accept that they had different views, instead of calling politicians corrupt slime balls from the swamp? I have to conclude that one reason people want to "drain the swamp" is because they don't actually understand how the system works, simply because you didn't hear that kind of rhetoric until the postmodern era, and particular after the tea party revolution (led by Ted Cruz, a career politician, ironically). Not to mention half the people calling to "drain the swamp" voted for the slimiest ogre to ever live. Any one else catch the irony of that?
Last edited:
Tank
Hall of Famer
lol. Those folks were always there, "the Neanderthals". They are just much better "informed" and you are just exposed to them more through social media and such. And many have often thought of lawyers as "liars by trade" as they lump all into the defense law basket. Since many career politicians have a law background, well........
I think past generations were only exposed to what they learned in civics class and the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" view of politics. They thought as long as their man/woman had a voice they had the ability to support their position and could create change. As people became more "educated" on lobbies, "give and take", etc. and were also almost immediately informed if "Senator Blow" so much as farted, the general view on politicians has became more jaded. Seems that type of thought has now overshadowed the actual mechanics of Washington. It's my opinion that all of this fed on itself and for the obvious reasons being a politician is now less desirable. Seems that has watered down the group as many of the "good guys"(read smarter, trustworthy) that would have been there before may be choosing other career paths.
Last edited:
The Raven
Veteran
But at the same time, those past generation also had higher rates of reading newspapers and watching the evening news. The number of people watching the real evening news (not Hannity or Maddow or whoever) has dropped significantly since the 70s and 80s. Same goes for the people reading papers. They were much better informed, yet certainly had that "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" point of view.
24/7 media hasn't been at fault per se, but it has enabled people to get their news a la carte, buying the brands they like, even if it does have more fat and fewer vitamins. As much as I hate any form of censorship or limit on free speech, regulating TV news might be good, to limit the amount of opinion/commentary and focus on the goddamn reporting. If we had fewer pundits/columnists and more reporters, we'd be in a better place.
Tank
Hall of Famer
When you say past generations were "better informed", the news was of much better quality and not the 'soap opera" genre that is prevelent today. Much of what is reported now never came to mind much less being sent over the internet worldwide as it happens.
We are agreeing here even if it seems we are not. lol
The Raven
Veteran
I disagree that quality news isn't around anymore. It's just harder to find.
Quality news still exists -- it's just not on TV, unless you're watching Jake Tapper, Wolf, or Anderson Cooper. The deep dives are rarely on the front pages -- they do have to try and sell a product -- but it's there, and it's really not hard to find if you do look for it.
And again, people get what they ask for. The ratings and the front pages reflect what readers and viewers want.
Also, news is lesser today than in the past because newsrooms have less money to pay people. Less money means fewer positions -- which means fewer people doing the leg work -- and smaller salaries -- which means a lot of would-be journalists, who would be very good, leave for PR, law, politics, or who knows what else. A lot of older journalists, seasoned pros in their 30s to 50s leave for better pay. It's a young man's game these days. And when older folks leave, they take their wisdom with them. I'm pretty good at what I do, but I don't have the experiences and knowledge that older reporters would have.
It's a vicious cycle. People lost interest in journalism, so they spent less money, so the product lessened, so more people lost interest, so they spent less money, so the product lessened, etc...
The Raven
Veteran
If you were looking for a bad policy thing that the Trump admin and specifically Devos has done, the education department has decided to scale back its civil rights investigations: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/...ts-betsy-devos.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
"According to an internal memo issued by Candice E. Jackson, the acting head of the department’s office for civil rights, requirements that investigators broaden their inquiries to identify systemic issues and whole classes of victims will be scaled back. Also, regional offices will no longer be required to alert department officials in Washington of all highly sensitive complaints on issues such as the disproportionate disciplining of minority students and the mishandling of sexual assaults on college campuses."
We had this discussion earlier over whether Devos was a garbage human. Yeah, this supports it. She actually is a piece of shit.
"According to an internal memo issued by Candice E. Jackson, the acting head of the department’s office for civil rights, requirements that investigators broaden their inquiries to identify systemic issues and whole classes of victims will be scaled back. Also, regional offices will no longer be required to alert department officials in Washington of all highly sensitive complaints on issues such as the disproportionate disciplining of minority students and the mishandling of sexual assaults on college campuses."
We had this discussion earlier over whether Devos was a garbage human. Yeah, this supports it. She actually is a piece of shit.
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
So I'm hearing they gonna call CNN the Sesame St newschannel with Elmo as lead anchor.
JO_75
Hall of Famer
So the internet is freaking out over a GIF of all things that Trump tweeted. So for those wondering, basically it was a GIF of Trump clotheslining Vince McMahon at a Wrestlemania. Someone pit the CNN logo over Vince's face and Trump tweeted it as him beating up CNN.
So now the dems are resorting to getting angry over a GIF since their Russia scandal was proven to be a hoax. If Trump would spend less time tweeting he would be in a better place and getting more done doing his actual job, President. Then what would the MSM talk about if he wasn't tweeting.
So now the dems are resorting to getting angry over a GIF since their Russia scandal was proven to be a hoax. If Trump would spend less time tweeting he would be in a better place and getting more done doing his actual job, President. Then what would the MSM talk about if he wasn't tweeting.
- Status