On polarization

[nancylebov]

Aren't the people who are complaining about polarization the same ones who usually complain about how Americans don't care enough about politics? How do you expect people to care about politics without getting emotionally involved?

This reminds me of the quote about "find out what the baby is doing and make him stop". I sympathize with the columnists who desperately need to find something to write about and find that Viewing With Alarm is the easiest topic, but not enough to keep me from getting incredibly tired of them.

Comments

[snippy]

Aren't the people who are complaining about polarization the same ones who usually complain about how Americans don't care enough about politics?

Is that your perception? It's not mine.

How do you expect people to care about politics without getting emotionally involved?

I expect them to get emotionally involved. However, sad naive me, I also expect them to be adult about it, and to not wave their emotions around the room all the time whenever the subject comes up. What happened to having discussions, to granting those who differ from you the benefit of the doubt at least as to their good will and desire for a better future? Because they want to go about it differently than you do, that makes them evil? Because they define it differently than you do, that makes them fit objects for the basest personal insults and constant ridicule?

I know there's a culture (and I associate it with the east coast and especially New Yorkers) of vigorous debate as a form of conversation at the dinner table, but it's not the culture I want to be in, nor the one I was brought up in. I was brought up to have intelligent, calm, respectful conversations. Maybe my mistake is in expecting dinner table conversations other places.

[aliza250.livejournal.com]

How do you expect people to care about politics without getting emotionally involved?

For starters, they can inform themselves about all the issues, not just the ones with emotional triggers...

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

The people who complain about polarization just lately are the people who want to be perceived as centrists when they are, in fact, extremists.

As for getting emotionally involved in politics ... I do, but I hate it. It just makes me feel miserable and angry and, uh, what is it John Doe sings? "My money, my bullets, my government, my fault." I hate it.

I vote

[celticferret.livejournal.com]

I go and vote in every election no matter how small.

I've long since giving up the idea of being able to discuss many issues and ideas intellectually.

KG

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's not the same commentators--it's just that sometimes I get the feeling of being comprehensively nagged. It's like hearing for years about the decline of letter-writing, followed by complaints that email is bad, too.

As for the substantive point, this turns out to be a larger subject than I expected. Part of it is that this is the first Presidential campaign where I've especially cared who won, and I'm both trying to keep a grip on not getting too stupid about it (frex, I don't make jokes about something being wrong with people with my less favorite party loyalty) but still wanting to be allowed to feel strongly. (I have a lot of issues about whether I'm having the right reactions to, well, just about anything.)

Anyway, this gets into questions of how much caring is too much. I agree that excessive politics can get tiresome.

Part of the problem is that people who complain about "polarization" don't define it.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

They can, but what if they look at all the factors and conclude that there are important decisions to be made?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds as though you mean that emotion needs to not be in the process.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I hate it, too.

Perhaps we need a better way of thinking about responsibility when there are lots of people involved.

[sinanju.livejournal.com]

"The people who complain about polarization just lately are the people who want to be perceived as centrists when they are, in fact, extremists."

That is, in my opinion, a load of crap. It's a rationalization for ignoring anyone who suggests that gibbering at one another and flinging metaphorical dung at one's opponents is normal and useful behavior. Some people who make that complaint no doubt are extremists. Others, like my wife, are not; she's just tired of not being able to have civil conversations with people on usenet--or in our living room--because other people can't simply agree to disagree, but have to attack (viciously) anyone and anything on the other side, and take every statement that follow the party line in the worst possible light.

This attitude, which I would define as "never ascribe to an honest difference of opinion about means or ends what you can chalk up to ignorance and/or malice, and preferably both" is more widespread than I ever remember it being (and it happens on all sides, though I suppose I tend like most people to notice it more in the words/writing of those with whom I disagree).

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

Sinanju,

It seems to me that the first step in "simply agreeing to disagree" would be not beginning a disagreement by calling the disagreed-with position "a load of crap."

To me, it seems that the extreme right has laid claim to being "centrist" and insists that anyone who disputes this claim is "polarizing." That is what I was referring to.

[sinanju.livejournal.com]

You know, you're right. I meant to edit that out (that was my first reaction), but I didn't. Sorry about that.