7 ms·

As a liberal who supports social justice, the social contract, and health care reform and the like, it feels really weird to find myself cheering Freedomworks a

by leokun 13y ago

As a liberal who supports social justice, the social contract, and health care reform and the like, it feels really weird to find myself cheering Freedomworks and tea party types on when we agree on something.

shubb 13y ago
From the outside, the way American politics divides people is strange. The psychology of republicans vs democrats, tpartiers vs big staters seems more like the supporters of a sports team. When you support a sports team, if your player blatantly breaks the rules, you curse when he gets penalized. However badly they perform, you say they are unlucky and will win next season. When you watch a match with other fans, you feel like you are part of a clan, you feel a sense of belonging. Some people support terrible teams because they like that feeling, and they enjoy getting angry at the other team and its supporters. Sometimes they enjoy it so much they have riots, or at least a punch up. I'm not saying America is unique, and the... sad cynicism you see in other countries is it's own evil. It's just a bit scary watching the fate of the world be decided like a bar room sports argument. I guess this comment is a dumb generalization, but that debt ceiling thing really freaked me out.
- trebor 13y ago
  You need to understand that the division in American politics is intentional. It's the entire intent of making a dual-party system: to make government less efficient. An efficient government structure with a centralized power base could quickly and easily transform into a tyranny, in theory a decentralized multi-branch dual-/multi- party government would require more time.
  - shubb 13y ago
    If you are saying the division is by original design, that is kind of awesome. Did one of the founders say anything about it in a speech? That would actually be pretty cool. I guess what I object to is the black and whiteness of the discussion. About 20% of the US electorate are swing voters. That's a lot of people who would never vote republicrat, regardless of policy. They will vote Democrat after 2 terms of drone strikes, or Republican after the tea party nearly caused an econopocalypse. That is really sad. It also means that only the swing voters count. And the only swing voters worth trying to persuade are the ones with simple priorities, i.e. the nutty ones. It's not very healthy.
    - trebor 13y ago
      It's at least a strong tradition, if not by design. But I believe it's actually by design. I wish I had time while at work to find a link for you, but I'll give it a shot when I get home in a few hours.
    - JunkDNA 13y ago
      Initially, the founders did not want political parties. But factions quickly formed anyway. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States#First_Party_System:_1792-1824 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United...
  - biafra 13y ago
    It would be even better if the two parties would be different.
- Hemospectrum 13y ago
  > From the outside, the way American politics divides people is strange. The psychology of republicans vs democrats, tpartiers vs big staters seems more like the supporters of a sports team. That's exactly what it's like, and the worst thing (in my opinion) is how it has spread to every facet of American life, so that arguments over factual information are seen the same way. The country as a whole is far more concerned with winning or losing than with the actual significance of the "field" on which their "team" is "playing." Mind you, given how central sports is to American lifestyles[1], it's not like nobody could have seen this coming. But that doesn't reduce how dangerous it is. [1] Walk into any American high school. Chances are, the walls are lined with football trophies, and the faculty's letterhead is plastered with logos for the resident teams. The social hierarchy of the students revolves around the star players. Outcasts are called "losers."
  - rprospero 13y ago
    Your experiences with high schools are different than the ones I've encountered. The social hierarchies aren't oriented around the sports team, but rather the standard hierarchy with the wealthy at the top and the poor at the bottom. Granted, there's some variation, and being athletically talented or aesthetically pleasing can move you up the hierarchy, but being poor and having both of those traits will only raise you as high as the ugliest, clumsiest, wealthy student. In four years of high school, I could only ever name one basketball player and that was only because he was my debate partner is speech class. I never knew who the quarterback on the football team was, despite hearing of some impressive victories. I was far more aware of the less popular sports (e.g. track, tennis, gymnastics), precisely because the team members in those sports came from higher income families and thus had more popular athletes.
    - simonholroyd 13y ago
      I'm not disagreeing with your point regarding wealth, but football is the most popular men's high school sport (by participation) in the country so your experiences aren't likely the norm. Also track, tennis and gymnastics are mostly individual sports so they're less likely to be the ones driving the same level of school-wide support and pride (logos on the masthead, trophies in the hall, etc). Also HN readers might be unlikely to have had the average American high school experience.
- leokun 13y ago
  Well it's not really about party identification, at least for me. I think poverty and health services are basic rights a rich country can afford. It has nothing to do with who is for it or against it. It's the principle of it, and Freedom works and tea party types are very much on the complete opposite of it. The disagreement on these points are considerable. I am not likely to be convinced that not helping others out is not a matter of social justice and a requirement for participating in our society. Those on the other side seem about as likely to change as I am. I happen to agree with Freedomworks and the Tea party on NSA/and other social-liberty stuff like the war on drugs and not fighting in foreign countries, but that's pretty much the end of it.
  - penrod 13y ago
    You may believe that you have taken a principled stand on these issues, but unless your psychology is different from everyone else it's probable that your elevation of these specific issues, and the solutions you advocate, owes more to your social environment and the opinions which are considered acceptable within that milieu.
    - leokun 13y ago
      ...more to my social environment than rational thought? Not sure what your point is or if you're just trying to blow up and discredit a view point with some pop-psychology/anthropology 101 that could apply to everything equally and thus be a completely meaningless statement.
mindcrime 13y ago
If you're a "liberal" in the sense of the classical tradition[1] you should have no problem whatsoever cheering on the tea-party types at times. In fact, it would be highly unusual if you didn't. Well, at least to the extent that the Tea Party had, at one time, a sort of vaguely libertarian bent to it, since classical liberal thought overlaps with libertarian thought in many regards. But most people who call themselves "liberal" in this day and age aren't, and the term has all but lost any actual meaning. These days, the people calling themselves "liberal" probably ought to use "statist" or "authoritarian" to refer to themselves. shrug OTOH, the Tea Party these days has become a weird sort of mishmash of populism, anti-incumbent thinking, paleo-convervatism, libertarian thought, and (God|Satan|Allah|Dionysus|Zoroaster|Zeus|Thor|FSM|$DEITY) knows what. I'm not sure the Tea Party "movement" can be said to represent anything in particular anymore. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
EpicEng 13y ago
This is why I am a registered independent. I have a very hard time believing that any rational person can agree with the party line 100%. Now obviously there are disagreements between members within the same party, but the minority is almost always drowned out. So, in effect, if you disagree with your party on any of these big issues you may as well switch teams if you want to do anything about it.
neltnerb 13y ago
Don't feel too bad, you have more in common with any individual in the US than you might assume based on media coverage. We're all in this together, and we have largely the same concerns. Our differences are not irrelevant, but you shouldn't feel dirty or weird just because you find yourself agreeing with other average Americans about topics of mutual concern.

by leokun 13y ago

shubb 13y ago

From the outside, the way American politics divides people is strange. The psychology of republicans vs democrats, tpartiers vs big staters seems more like the supporters of a sports team. When you support a sports team, if your player blatantly breaks the rules, you curse when he gets penalized. However badly they perform, you say they are unlucky and will win next season. When you watch a match with other fans, you feel like you are part of a clan, you feel a sense of belonging. Some people support terrible teams because they like that feeling, and they enjoy getting angry at the other team and its supporters. Sometimes they enjoy it so much they have riots, or at least a punch up. I'm not saying America is unique, and the... sad cynicism you see in other countries is it's own evil. It's just a bit scary watching the fate of the world be decided like a bar room sports argument. I guess this comment is a dumb generalization, but that debt ceiling thing really freaked me out.

trebor 13y ago
You need to understand that the division in American politics is intentional. It's the entire intent of making a dual-party system: to make government less efficient. An efficient government structure with a centralized power base could quickly and easily transform into a tyranny, in theory a decentralized multi-branch dual-/multi- party government would require more time.
- shubb 13y ago
  If you are saying the division is by original design, that is kind of awesome. Did one of the founders say anything about it in a speech? That would actually be pretty cool. I guess what I object to is the black and whiteness of the discussion. About 20% of the US electorate are swing voters. That's a lot of people who would never vote republicrat, regardless of policy. They will vote Democrat after 2 terms of drone strikes, or Republican after the tea party nearly caused an econopocalypse. That is really sad. It also means that only the swing voters count. And the only swing voters worth trying to persuade are the ones with simple priorities, i.e. the nutty ones. It's not very healthy.
  - trebor 13y ago
    It's at least a strong tradition, if not by design. But I believe it's actually by design. I wish I had time while at work to find a link for you, but I'll give it a shot when I get home in a few hours.
  - JunkDNA 13y ago
    Initially, the founders did not want political parties. But factions quickly formed anyway. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States#First_Party_System:_1792-1824 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United...
- biafra 13y ago
  It would be even better if the two parties would be different.
Hemospectrum 13y ago
> From the outside, the way American politics divides people is strange. The psychology of republicans vs democrats, tpartiers vs big staters seems more like the supporters of a sports team. That's exactly what it's like, and the worst thing (in my opinion) is how it has spread to every facet of American life, so that arguments over factual information are seen the same way. The country as a whole is far more concerned with winning or losing than with the actual significance of the "field" on which their "team" is "playing." Mind you, given how central sports is to American lifestyles[1], it's not like nobody could have seen this coming. But that doesn't reduce how dangerous it is. [1] Walk into any American high school. Chances are, the walls are lined with football trophies, and the faculty's letterhead is plastered with logos for the resident teams. The social hierarchy of the students revolves around the star players. Outcasts are called "losers."
- rprospero 13y ago
  Your experiences with high schools are different than the ones I've encountered. The social hierarchies aren't oriented around the sports team, but rather the standard hierarchy with the wealthy at the top and the poor at the bottom. Granted, there's some variation, and being athletically talented or aesthetically pleasing can move you up the hierarchy, but being poor and having both of those traits will only raise you as high as the ugliest, clumsiest, wealthy student. In four years of high school, I could only ever name one basketball player and that was only because he was my debate partner is speech class. I never knew who the quarterback on the football team was, despite hearing of some impressive victories. I was far more aware of the less popular sports (e.g. track, tennis, gymnastics), precisely because the team members in those sports came from higher income families and thus had more popular athletes.
  - simonholroyd 13y ago
    I'm not disagreeing with your point regarding wealth, but football is the most popular men's high school sport (by participation) in the country so your experiences aren't likely the norm. Also track, tennis and gymnastics are mostly individual sports so they're less likely to be the ones driving the same level of school-wide support and pride (logos on the masthead, trophies in the hall, etc). Also HN readers might be unlikely to have had the average American high school experience.
leokun 13y ago
Well it's not really about party identification, at least for me. I think poverty and health services are basic rights a rich country can afford. It has nothing to do with who is for it or against it. It's the principle of it, and Freedom works and tea party types are very much on the complete opposite of it. The disagreement on these points are considerable. I am not likely to be convinced that not helping others out is not a matter of social justice and a requirement for participating in our society. Those on the other side seem about as likely to change as I am. I happen to agree with Freedomworks and the Tea party on NSA/and other social-liberty stuff like the war on drugs and not fighting in foreign countries, but that's pretty much the end of it.
- penrod 13y ago
  You may believe that you have taken a principled stand on these issues, but unless your psychology is different from everyone else it's probable that your elevation of these specific issues, and the solutions you advocate, owes more to your social environment and the opinions which are considered acceptable within that milieu.
  - leokun 13y ago
    ...more to my social environment than rational thought? Not sure what your point is or if you're just trying to blow up and discredit a view point with some pop-psychology/anthropology 101 that could apply to everything equally and thus be a completely meaningless statement.

mindcrime 13y ago

If you're a "liberal" in the sense of the classical tradition[1] you should have no problem whatsoever cheering on the tea-party types at times. In fact, it would be highly unusual if you didn't. Well, at least to the extent that the Tea Party had, at one time, a sort of vaguely libertarian bent to it, since classical liberal thought overlaps with libertarian thought in many regards. But most people who call themselves "liberal" in this day and age aren't, and the term has all but lost any actual meaning. These days, the people calling themselves "liberal" probably ought to use "statist" or "authoritarian" to refer to themselves. shrug OTOH, the Tea Party these days has become a weird sort of mishmash of populism, anti-incumbent thinking, paleo-convervatism, libertarian thought, and (God|Satan|Allah|Dionysus|Zoroaster|Zeus|Thor|FSM|$DEITY) knows what. I'm not sure the Tea Party "movement" can be said to represent anything in particular anymore. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

EpicEng 13y ago

This is why I am a registered independent. I have a very hard time believing that any rational person can agree with the party line 100%. Now obviously there are disagreements between members within the same party, but the minority is almost always drowned out. So, in effect, if you disagree with your party on any of these big issues you may as well switch teams if you want to do anything about it.

neltnerb 13y ago

Don't feel too bad, you have more in common with any individual in the US than you might assume based on media coverage. We're all in this together, and we have largely the same concerns. Our differences are not irrelevant, but you shouldn't feel dirty or weird just because you find yourself agreeing with other average Americans about topics of mutual concern.