Partisanship vs misunderstandings

To be clear from the outset, this is intended as a non-partisan thread. If your instinct is to post saying how the other side is the real problem and your own side is much better, I would respectfully ask you not to. I'm certainly left of centre, but I see lots of partisanship from both left and right wing posters. I'd rather this thread was more reflective instead of yet another bun fight.

I want to discuss an experience I imagine a lot of us have here: you're talking to someone and it seems they willfully refuse to understand what you're getting at. No matter how much you try to clarify, they continue to misunderstand, or else deflect to their talking points. A very frustrating experience. The easy thing is to assume the other person is being stubborn - of course they must understand what you mean, it's just that they're completely partisan and will never admit when they're in the wrong. No doubt that is sometimes, maybe often, true. And sometimes people are probably just trolling.

But what interests me is that I know at times people experience me as completely partisan, and yet I know that I don't approach discussions with that kind of intransigence - if someone disagrees with me I try to understand what their perspective is, and if I realise I'm wrong about something I'll admit it. So that makes me wonder how many of the posters I experience as closed-minded are in fact more open-minded than I think, but there's just some huge gap in communication. If so, I wonder what might help bridge that gap.

Obviously this board is never going to be a genteel debating club, given how incredibly acrimonious US politics is: also, you have to be somewhat attracted to conflict to spend any amount of time here, which naturally creates an underlying aggressive tone. But still, I suspect some of the acrimony here is needless, borne of misunderstanding rather than partisanship. I think that's a shame: it feels so much better to gain insight from a different perspective than to throw insults over the partisan divide.

Thoughts?

 

I think you need to look at the nature of "partisanship". Now, I've met some people who vote for a particular party because they and their family "always have" and that's all there is to it. Forget them, they're a hopeless cause.

Sometimes I think people embrace a party because of the appeal of a particular candidate; Obama or Trump, with only a passing interest in there platform.

Others try to match their views on issues to a candidate. This is the path I've tried to follow over decades of voting. My parents were classic liberals so I was exposed to a lot of that ideology; in addition, my father was a union official for many years. And, as I've mentioned a few times I became a "long-hair hippy wierdo in my early college years. "Power to the people, right on" and all that.

As I embraced that community I gradually realized that when our leaders shouted that slogan what they really meant was "power to me so I can tell the people what to do".

Long story short: I started thinking for myself. I decided what my priority are, and rank them, and find the candidate who's platform was closest to my on my top priorities. Initially this led to Democrats - I voted for Jimmy Carter -TWICE! :eek;

I still do that analysis continually. At the start of the 2016 election season there were something like 18 GOP contenders and 3 Dems; in my hierarchy True was next to last and Clinton was last. When it came to the general election I voted for my "highest" rating nominee -Trump.

Trump is lewd, crude, abrasive and uncouth. But it's not a personality contest - I wasn't interview him to marry my sister.

</rant>

 

I enjoyed the rant, thanks. Always interesting when someone switches party in their choice of candidate.

 

1. You want to talk about partisanship without mentioning partisanship?
2. Most people don't *choose* to misunderstand others. Some people just don't understand what we're trying to convey.

 

Party generally isn't a consideration. I voted for Diane Feinstein against an uber-conservatice as well. Sadly the loony wing of the Democratic have been ascendant the past few cycles so my options are decreasing.

 

To talk about partisanship in a non-partisan way.

You might be right (I hope so), but observing the forum, it seems to me that when people can't get their point across, they quite quickly go to the assumption that the other person is being deliberately obstructive.

 

OK.

Well, you have to account for the fact that millions of people have the right to vote but a majority of them are not on political forums or even the internet. The people represented here and on other political forums are the people that have very deep, sacred opinions about their candidate and/or party and want to tell other people about it. They are also very headstrong and think they are always right but so does the other side. They aren't misunderstanding one another. They are willfully ignoring the other side because they think they are right or their opinion should have more *weight* than anybody else's opinions. Those are the clashes you are seeing.

I say they should start spiking our water with Valium. Knock some people down a peg or ten. LOL

 

That's the thing - I suspect that actually there's more misunderstanding than it seems at face value. At least, a few times I've had the experience of thinking someone was obstructing in a partisan way only to realise there was some misunderstanding getting in the way.

YES!! Send it to the UK too please.

 

I think there is some acrimony over ideas and opinions that don't get anywhere because of partisanship here on PF (and elsewhere) but it is not pervasive. However there is intractable animosity over facts (as opposed to ideas and opinions). I for one at least try to understand opposing opinions and thoughts but have zero tolerance for opposing facts. A couple of adages come to mind that might put this in perspective. 1. Compromise is a highly overrated thing. 2. Don't confuse an open mind with a hole in the head.

 

This question of facts is a very interesting one. I've noticed here recently that it can be very difficult even to start a discussion because the facts can't be agreed on. You're more on the right, yes? As I said, I'm more on the left. So, maybe this difficulty with basic facts is a generalised thing. Do you think that's something new? I don't remember such a disconnect over facts a few years ago (I blow hot and cold on this site - I'll participate for a few months, and then disappear for a long while). I very much agree with your point 2. Point one, I'm not so sure. Maybe that's after 18 year of marriage... You give up something you really want that your spouse doesn't, but you find in time that actually that generosity breeds something quite nice. But it's an impossible issue to find a clear answer to: equally you can give up something you really want and be miserable. But marriage has definitely made me less rigid.

 

It was Sen. Moynihan, D-NY, (one of my favorite opposition liberals) who infamously said back in the 80s (IIRC) that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. The dichotomy has been well known for some time. Yes I am distinctly more on the right, although, like the left, the right is not a pure homogeneous thing. Not knowing what the right actually is, I prefer "constitutional conservative" which I clearly and unabashedly am. My adage on compromise is specifically directed to politics, and maybe business, but not marriage. Being married 57 years I too know!

 

Let's not forget that partisanship often defines truth or facts. That is why we usually have two opposing sets of "facts." In fact they are all opinions.

 

My two cents.

We need to agree on a common set of facts to have discussion.

Unfortunately we’re having difficulty distinguishing fact from opinion or one could say our critical and analytical skills that help us become autonomous beings that aren’t easily manipulated have retarded or eroded.

Hence the daily nonsense.

 

I expect partisanship from most folks with whom I discuss politics. It isn't a big deal for me. I just delve into 'why' they feel the way they do. I ask lots of questions to understand their attachment to one party/politician or another.

The existence of partisanship in Congress and the Senate, however, is a very different matter. When I see one party or the other voting for or against something that would greatly benefit the country based, simply, upon the 'party line' I tend to remember when it comes time to vote. I want people in government who do what is right for the people or respects the wishes of the people who put them there over their allegiance to a Speaker or party.

 

Yes, that makes me think of an exchange I saw recently. Something like "January 6th wasn't violent - the police let protestors in". Countered by "Rubbish - they were fighting with the police tooth and nail". Back and forth, back and forth. Video of both gets posted; still doesn't help - the info gets ignored or deflected, so a discussion can't even start about a realistic appraisal of what happened.

That kind of discussion I find rather common here. So what's going on - is this just complete stubbornness? I would have thought that if someone was presented with video evidence they were wrong, it would be too humiliating to continue to pretend they were right, but it happens often enough that I wonder if it's somehow a catastrophic lack of critical thinking. Or is there something about US culture I don't understand? Is it actually more humiliating to admit you're wrong than to brazen it out and have everyone look at you like you're crazy?

 

If the acrimony comes from misunderstanding, it is because people put other people into mental "boxes". Once you are in the liberal "box" of some other, conservative poster, you are in the "bad" category, and all future interactions will be based on this. Therefore, there will be no understanding, because once a poster is in the "bad" category, their point will have to be opposed, no matter whether it is valid or not. Of course, this goes for both sides.

I can't count the times that a poster started a silly argument with me, just because they perceived me on the political opposition's side. You know, the opposition is not only "bad", but also has to be always wrong.

The other thing is that people don't really like to argue about ideas or facts, they like to argue about people. If they are emotionally attached to a certain politician, no factual-based argument is possible, because the emotions always get in the way. That's why people are even willing to lie on an anonymous forum like this, because their emotional attachment prompts them to support their side/politician at ALL costs, no matter if the truth goes by the wayside, It is no surprise that politicians lie, when even their supporters lie to make said politician look good. We get what we deserve.

 

I would kill any pol I know of any persuasion, including myself, who came within a mile of my sister, and I don't even have one.

Politics very much IS a personality contest. A person who is lewd, crude,abrasive and uncouth is not going to build any of the coalitions that get things done and that is just about exactly what happened during the Trump regime, except that he was such a total crook that he was able to rob us blind while we were distracted by his latest antic. And that was all he ever wanted (or wants).

It was 4 years where he pounded the table and yelled like hell. It's too bad that so many people mistake that for competence but then lots of people mistake bullheaded stubbornness for leadership too.

 

I think partisanship in Congress is much easier to understand, not that it excuses it - wanting to climb the greasy poll, fear of your voters etc - there are rational reasons to take indefensible positions. But here? When we're anonymous and all that is at stake is maybe a little pride? I find the utter entrenchment in positions pretty bizarre.

 

There are clearly some good historical reasons for the acrimony - both parties have a lot to complain about in the way they've been treated by the other side. I know from experience there can be some understanding; simply giving ground when you realise it is necessary can encourage the same. But I think that's the exception more than the rule.

That's why I try to call out people on the left for dumb arguments. It shows it's not just a partisan game for me.

Could you say a bit more about this? Do you mean things like "Trump is a monster"; "No, Trump is the best president we ever had" kind of thing?

 

It is my belief that the line between "facts" and "spin" is almost nonexistent. The two concepts are inextricably linked. People do not base their perception and subsequent opinion on fact, rather they base it on spin. Whether they understand this or not is of no consequence.

Spin, at least in part, is the careful selection of specific "facts" that distort reality to present the best case to support one's preconceived notions. There is very little black and white in politics. Almost everything is a gray area, and thus spin is what ultimately paints people's perception of reality. People like to say that Fox or MSNBC, CNN etc are just spouting lies, but in reality, very little of what they say are lies. What they present is spin. People tend to call spin that opposes their position lies, and call spin that supports their position "facts".

Take the economy for example. There are at least a thousand different economic indicators that one can cherry-pick to describe the health or lack therein of the economy at any particular time. Look at the current economy. One side can legitimately say that inflation is through the roof, consumer confidence is at an all-time low, and the stock market is tanking, therefore this economy is horrible. The other side can legitimately say that wages are up, unemployment is low and demand is high, therefore this is a great economy. In this debate, both sides can claim that they are just spouting facts, and that the other side just does not like facts, therefore their opponent is just a partisan shill that ignores "facts" in order to support their partisanship.

 

I recommend reading "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt. We are products of our environment and view others through our own beliefs. Try telling someone that they don't worship the only true god.

I believe that we are meant to view each other as the enemy so while we're at each others throats, they can continue to spend our money like thieves with stolen credit cards.

 

Yes, all that makes sense, but it's worse than that. You present a video which incontrovertibly demonstrates your point (eg rioters attacked police, or conversely police let protestors in to the capitol), and your point is still rejected. I really can't decide what that is about (it could be about many things depending on the instance, I guess). But there are times when it doesn't seem like simple stubbornness: it really appears to be some kind of inability to recognise the truth of anything which contradicts your position.

 

Thanks, that looks excellent.

George Carlin fan? I love him.

 

People disagree with what things would "greatly benefit the country."

 

I always like the saying:

“Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and little minds discuss people.”

If you look at this forum, most discussions are about people, some about events, very few about ideas (without people (politicians) or events attached to those ideas). It stands to argue that most posters on this forum are, therefore, of little mind, myself included. I tried to discuss ideas when I first joined, but I quickly noticed that it is futile, because if you post about thoughts out of the box, you get no replies. On the other hand, if you bash Biden, Trump, Pelosi, Boebert etc, you get lots of replies (and likes). But, try, for example, starting a discussion of the second law of thermodynamics (which, in my view everyone should have some familiarity with, because it dictates ALL processes in life). and you get silence. It's frustrating, and I don't really know why I stick around, but I guess it is for entertainment and habit.