A plea for rational political discourse

[cutout18]

This isn't about who you vote for or an attempt to sway your vote. This is a discussion everyone needs to take part in in American politics, lest it stay broken forever. Because the fact of the matter is, it is broken. It's become a populist popularity contest, at only slightly above the maturity level of high schoolers, except instead of how much

Comments

[hallyluia]

I saw your latest post regarding Roe v. Wade and compromise, in "abortiondebate". It was wonderful how you kept on-message when multiple times you could have been drawn to a right or left argument. I am not sure which side, if any, you would side with on the abortion issue. I am impressed that I still don't know. :) - Being a religious sort, I don't have it in me to be that impartial but I certainly do applaud you for your ability to walk that fence.

I also read your latest post (the one I'm responding to). I liked all of it, especially this:
"If we value teachers in our school we need to show them that by paying them more and firing the people who interfere with their job."

[hallyluia]

"Now, assuming he can get away with either strategy, which is easier and costs less: 1. Researching in-depth policies, which may be incredibly complicated and subtle (we're talking about the Executive Branch of the USA for God's sakes), and then explaining all of these things to the public in a way to convince them that these policies will be good for them,..."

This approach would obviously be extremely helpful, especially with new young voters. There have to be countless people in this country who would like to see this happen. :/

[fair_haven]

I agree with your general topic, as well as both sides always make out their President to be much better than they are

[cutout18]

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with the last election and how things were run, or with my post. I certainly wasn't defending Obama's campaign against McCain. I will and have, but this was decidedly a nonpartisan post. A lot of the things Obama said about McCain were patently untrue, and the same with a lot of the things McCain said about Obama (the late-term abortion killings comes to mind-- an incomprehensible blindness to facts is the only explanation for McCain's interpretation). So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I really don't think either one was not-a-scumbag in this election. I happen to personally think Obama was far less harsh. (Pointedly, Obama never called McCain a terrorist or tarnished his record of service for the United States, both lowball meaningless-in-the-grand-scheme-of-it remarks.)

[fair_haven]

Quick clarification. I can't read the original post I was replying to:

I know you weren't defending Obama's campaign. In fact, the one disagreement I said I had, of one with your whole post is that the post makes it sound like Obama was just as insulting toward McCain as McCain was toward Obama, when - as you have said - isn't true, it was much less harsh. While Obama might have erred here and there in his statements about McCain, it all really paled in comparison with what McCain said about Obama, and on a few occasions he apologized for botching up. The two worst things I heard from Obama was that it was the Bush administration all over again, and parading Cheney's endorsement. But considering Cheney's endorsement, I think it was probably true if not very open.

The US History thing was because I'm taking a college US History course related to after the Civil War. It's just... on my brain.

[cutout18]

Ah. I see what you mean.

I ended up voting for Obama (there internets, are you happy? You know now.) I didn't really want to, but who in the past 40 years who has any brains has really wanted to vote for who they voted for? Obama's ad-hominem attacks were less virulent and mean-spirited. But it really is a bad rationalization for ad-hominems in the first place. He dug up dirt on McCain, misrepresented and implicated his voting record in patently untrue ways, and especially here lately (unsurprisingly) has picked up Karl Rove-ian tactics (associating the Republican party with Rush Limbaugh as a straw man to attack).

It's easy to say that McCain should be the first to tone down the rhetoric (and by proxy the Republicans). But what should be said is that the rhetoric on both sides needs total redefinition as outlined in my post. I.e. logical arguments that elucidate policy. And that's not gonna happen until we, as the voting populous, demand it. I do think we're on the same page here.