AKA Why Politics Will Make You Stupid
I consider myself something of a political professional. I've devoted several years of my life to understanding politics, at a fairly high level. This has involved a lot of reading, debating, critiquing and attempting to discover models which can reduce political activity to some sort of regularity...which has often meant grappling deeply with the intersection of politics with history, economics, warfare, sociology and biology.
Academic politics still tends to have certain party political assumptions about it. I know for example, in the USA, a vast majority of political scientists self-describe as liberal. Still, those assumptions are known, are frequently criticized and the focus is more usually on finding out how people act and what they do, instead of arguing about who is "right". Or, in the case of international politics, where the stakes are rather higher, the question of what to do is not considered in such starkly party political terms, instead hewing closer to the somewhat different theories of global politics, which can cross party lines (such as the Neoconservatives and Liberal Interventionists of different parties having more in common with each other than with the Realists who nominally part of the same party as the Neocons, to give but one example).
As such, the world of internet political debate and blogging is something of a shock to me. It seems to me, putting it bluntly, that when people who are not primarily interested in learning about politics argue on the topic, they become a bit unhinged and, well, stupid. Not every, but a good majority.
Political arguments are very hard things to carry out in a calm and rational manner. There are a number of reasons for this, which I hope are obvious. Still, I will mention them:
As a species, humanity is a social animal, with a kind of basic hierarchy – open to revision though it is. Therefore, humanity is a fundamentally political species. As such, especially in the ancestral environment, our political choices could easily have a huge impact, in terms of lifestyle, mating opportunities and security. Especially for the losers. We get all wound up and upset about politics because in the far past, if we lost, we got killed.
Furthermore, a very basic kind of ethnocentrism seems to be hardwired into the human brain. Some of you may be aware of the Robbers Cave experiments. Essentially, a large number of boys were split into two arbitrary groups, and chose names. Very quickly, and without any guidance from those performing the experiment, they formed powerful group identities and negative conceptions about the other group. The only thing that was able to overcome this was the possibility of a third group, which forced cooperation on the two teams. This strong need to identify with a tribe and denigrate opposing tribes is especially prevalent in partisan politics, and one reason I tend to look down on it as a mode of expression. (This also has implications for the choice to go to war in democratic societies and the utility of the "national security discourse", a subject for another time).
The nature of the internet itself adds to this problem. The Greater Fuckwad Theory strongly suggests that an audience + anonymity means people will act with less regard as to the consequences of their actions. We've all seen it; an argument on the web spirals out of control because there are no reputational issues involved in going over the top when on the offensive. Especially where political issues are concerned.
Conversely, many feel they can make a name for themselves on the web, especially by pandering to base sentiment and engaging in hyper-partisan attacks. Some of these people are in fact covert activists for a political party, though they may pretend to be "neutral" or "apolitical" or support a non-threatening minor party, such as the "Libertarians" or "SWP". Some are just idiots, willing to be used by political strategists because they truly believe in the case, and they welcome the notoriety it brings.
In either case, they help contribute to a coarsening of political rhetoric, because their job is to ensure their side wins. You may be aware of the saying by the Prussian General Clausewitz, "war is the continuation of politics by other means". This is true, but the opposite is also true. Politics is war without the dead bodies (normally...depending on your jurisdiction. Or chosen political issues. Just ask anti-Mafia campaigners how bloodless democratic politics are). And war is about winning, about inflicting a crushing defeat on the enemy so they will accept your terms and act in your interests, not their own.
One of the major ways a democracy differs from a dictatorship is that power is too widely spread to allow for private bribes to create a ruling coalition. Instead, politicians, especially those who are not in power, must rely on propaganda. It is no coincidence that the Prime Minister in the UK right now used to work in PR, or the close relationship between the media, pollsters, spin doctors and political power that has arisen in a number of liberal-democratic states in recent years.
A veritable industry of PR men, advertising experts, media workers, campaign strategists and, yes, political scientists, have risen up, devoted to the art of "selling" a narrative to the public. Even in non-democratic societies, such as China, control over information and the official narrative is considered critical – there are suspicions that the ambitious princeling Bo Xilai was deposed precisely because his actions suggested he wanted to take control of China's sophisticated information management system (also known as "The Great Firewall of China").
All modern wars use propaganda. And most propaganda...well, it shows the enemy as weak, vicious, cruel, stupid and inferior in every possible way. While going too far in politics can incur penalties, using armies of trolls and covert propagandists can give plausible deniability to an individual or group, while planting the suspicion in people's minds that the opposing political side really are not very nice people. It works on the irrational biases of human nature, as detailed above, because winning the war is everything, and every argument, every potential voter is a weapon that, if not acquired, must at the very least be denied to the enemy.
This essay could go on and on. But that would be tiresome. But as we can see from above, there are two basic reasons why discussing politics in a rational manner is hard: our hardware is not suitable for this kind of thing, and because the existing political arrangements are designed to take advantage of that fact.
It seems that an increasing number of people (perhaps just in the US) feel that partisan politics result in shitty conditions for most everyone, but don't see a way to combat either the instinctual herding or vast, self-serving political structures that exploit such innate drives.
Cain, do you think some form of widespread forced cooperation (in the vein of the Robbers Cave experiment) is likely to shift large chunks of a nation's population away from partisan politics and toward actual workable solutions?
Also, facebook and google have been making it more difficult to remain anonymous. Do you think this helps induce people to behave more in line with their actual character, as a mitigating effect on The Greater Fuckwad theory?
Also, I'm curious as to people's thoughts on whether propaganda can be used to induce nonpartisan cooperation, seeing how that is just another narrative that ostensibly could be sold to the public.
From another angle, how might the existing political arrangements be altered, destroyed or subverted to take advantage of our rational faculties towards more optimal solutions?
Wow, fucking kickass post Cain. Sorry I don't have much to add, except that I wouldn't have mind of the essay would have gone on :)
I agree with the premise of the post whole-heartedly, and it is in fact the reason I have given up on politics as a means of changing anything.
It's not even just that it turns into unreasonable fighting at the "my guy's better than your guy" level.
I'll admit what I think a lot of us feel but no one wants to fucking admit: I'm fucking confused.
Now, I didn't spend the last 6 years of my life reading and trying to comprehend this shit like you did but I'm no uninformed dummy, either...at least I hope I'm not. I'm just overwhelmed with a blizzard of information, misinformation, accusations of misinformation, counter-accusations, all the minions working on me full time, Colosseum-battling news network "fights," watchdog groups exposing biases, other watchdog groups exposing how the first watchdog groups are wholly-owned subsidiaries of some business whose CEO plays golf with Rupert Murdoch, People calling me an idiot for my libertarian ideals, people calling me an idiot for my socialist ideals, other people calling me a fencesitter for both.
And I've got observances: 10% sales tax in a city with 500K people, bad schools, no trains, no white-collar industry, minimal-to-moderate tourism and below-average wages because the local gov't had an "oopsie." A Democrat president who's been a slightly less offensive continuation of the prior administration. Goodness in people, evil in people. Banks putting out brazen memos to the One-percenter club, telling them not worry about the Plebes and the crushing feeling that trying to change anything outside of my own circle is like trying to steer a train.
I've gotten sucked into waving different flags...mostly because the idea of choosing a set of ideals and sticking to them felt comforting. I could simplify the whole thing just by holding onto my sense of integrity. I've felt like a fool after each.
So I admit it: I'm confused as fuck. I don't know what information is accurate, what is bullshit and I can't tell who's lying. They're all lying, I guess. And I don't even know how to seek accurate information. Every teller of the same story leave something out and every teller adds something patently false. Piecing it together from both sides is a bad idea too because you never know what they BOTH left out to push a mutual agenda. I get the sense they're all working together and they know what they're doing but I'm accused of being paranoid: Occam's Razor says incompetence is more likely.
So I can't discuss politics on any more than a theoretical level, simply because I don't possess the tools for the job. I have to second-guess every recalled name or date, every "fact" I think I know, every opinion formed under circumstances I can't recall. I open my mouth...and then realize I have no idea if the shit that was about to come out of it is going to be debunked and if it is, can I even trust the debunker?
This is one of those threads where all I can say is IAWTC.
100% troof! I've always seen politicians as having a heirarchy-based agenda, first and foremost. They all want to be king and the best way to accomplish this objective is to say things that will get them elected. Whether the things they say are true or the promises they make are intended to be kept is utterly irrelevant in this quest for the throne, it just has to be believable and joe public will pretty much believe anything when it comes to politicians. The best politicians are not the smartest or the ones with the best ideas, they're the best salesmen with the shiniest teeth.
I don't get involved in political debate, aside from sneering cynically at anyone who believes that one party is somehow better than another but no one wants to hear that. It's a zero sum game that's only fun to play if you're causing someone to lose their shit.
The solution is our race growing out of it's primate pecking order obsession and petty tribalism. Looking around me I'm guessing this is will be a fairly long term thing. Like we'll have evolved an extra leg or some wings long before our politics are worth a fuck.
The problem I have is that no matter how much everyone around me seems to understand that Red Team vs. Blue Team is a retarded way to run things, and both teams are being pushed around by the same people with money and no one is actually looking out for our best interests, I can't ignore the short term reality that Red Team's stated goals are more odious to me than Blue Team's, and so I can't excuse myself from the process entirely or the worse option might win. Even knowing that they're both terrible, useless options. And then I get wrapped up in thinking that maybe sensible people could take over Blue Team, and we could finally crush those idiots over in Red Team, and I'm right back in the middle of their game.
I don't know how to get out of that trap.
Well, I tend to think of it like I think of The Machine. I think most of us acknowledge that it really isn't possible to topple The Machine, at least, not in any kind of acute way. But I think it is possible to chip away at it, nudge it.
And so I guess that's where it is important to try to get out of that mindset of getting sucked into that game. Short term it does seem pointless. And it can feel tempting to support the Blue Team because the Red Team is so fucked, but that kills the long term game.
The Blue team may feel marginally better in some categories, but I would remind you that it was the Blue Team that was behind the PMRC that went after Twisted Sister, WASP, and 2 Live Crew because of their evil/bad lyrics that were going to corrupt kids.
Nah, you gotta forget that game.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on May 08, 2012, 02:07:18 PM
The problem I have is that no matter how much everyone around me seems to understand that Red Team vs. Blue Team is a retarded way to run things, and both teams are being pushed around by the same people with money and no one is actually looking out for our best interests, I can't ignore the short term reality that Red Team's stated goals are more odious to me than Blue Team's, and so I can't excuse myself from the process entirely or the worse option might win. Even knowing that they're both terrible, useless options. And then I get wrapped up in thinking that maybe sensible people could take over Blue Team, and we could finally crush those idiots over in Red Team, and I'm right back in the middle of their game.
I don't know how to get out of that trap.
Might help to remember that
"I can't ignore the short term reality that Red Team's stated goals are more odious to me than Blue Team's"
Stated goals do not mean anything. They're there to attract demographics to the brand and should, in no way, be construed as plans or intentions of the brand itself. Brand's only mission is ever - make a fuckton of cash by fleecing the rubes on behalf of the elite.
If someone sensible took over team blue they'd be beaten stupid long before they could make any kind of difference to the status quo.
That's the fucking truth.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on May 08, 2012, 02:07:18 PM
The problem I have is that no matter how much everyone around me seems to understand that Red Team vs. Blue Team is a retarded way to run things, and both teams are being pushed around by the same people with money and no one is actually looking out for our best interests, I can't ignore the short term reality that Red Team's stated goals are more odious to me than Blue Team's, and so I can't excuse myself from the process entirely or the worse option might win. Even knowing that they're both terrible, useless options. And then I get wrapped up in thinking that maybe sensible people could take over Blue Team, and we could finally crush those idiots over in Red Team, and I'm right back in the middle of their game.
I don't know how to get out of that trap.
This is a lie. The worse option is perfectly capable of winning with or without your input now...OR IS IT?
Quote from: Cain on May 07, 2012, 11:09:05 PM
This essay could go on and on. But that would be tiresome. But as we can see from above, there are two basic reasons why discussing politics in a rational manner is hard: our hardware is not suitable for this kind of thing, and because the existing political arrangements are designed to take advantage of that fact.
Excellent post Cain, I just wanted to get a little more on this side of things.
It's somewhat hard not to agree with this analysis, so my thinking is along the lines of what kind of political/societal structures can we construct that do not push monkeys further into the tribal mindset? Is this even possible? The various current systems I can think of tend not to function adequately beyond a few people(Anarchism springs to mind).
I get the feeling that we need a total shift in terms of how we think and arrange these power structures. As for something that is actually going to work for "everyone" I haven't a fucking clue what that could really be.
Quote from: navkat on May 08, 2012, 02:58:38 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on May 08, 2012, 02:07:18 PM
The problem I have is that no matter how much everyone around me seems to understand that Red Team vs. Blue Team is a retarded way to run things, and both teams are being pushed around by the same people with money and no one is actually looking out for our best interests, I can't ignore the short term reality that Red Team's stated goals are more odious to me than Blue Team's, and so I can't excuse myself from the process entirely or the worse option might win. Even knowing that they're both terrible, useless options. And then I get wrapped up in thinking that maybe sensible people could take over Blue Team, and we could finally crush those idiots over in Red Team, and I'm right back in the middle of their game.
I don't know how to get out of that trap.
This is a lie. The worse option is perfectly capable of winning with or without your input now...OR IS IT?
There is no worse option. They're both identical.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 08, 2012, 03:45:08 PM
Quote from: navkat on May 08, 2012, 02:58:38 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on May 08, 2012, 02:07:18 PM
The problem I have is that no matter how much everyone around me seems to understand that Red Team vs. Blue Team is a retarded way to run things, and both teams are being pushed around by the same people with money and no one is actually looking out for our best interests, I can't ignore the short term reality that Red Team's stated goals are more odious to me than Blue Team's, and so I can't excuse myself from the process entirely or the worse option might win. Even knowing that they're both terrible, useless options. And then I get wrapped up in thinking that maybe sensible people could take over Blue Team, and we could finally crush those idiots over in Red Team, and I'm right back in the middle of their game.
I don't know how to get out of that trap.
This is a lie. The worse option is perfectly capable of winning with or without your input now...OR IS IT?
There is no worse option. They're both identical.
They're not identical, they're just different flavors of the same medicine. I don't want to have to swallow the bubble gum flavor.
Personally, I aint swallowing any of it :vom:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 08, 2012, 10:17:16 PM
Personally, I aint swallowing any of it :vom:
In the end, you are. Unless the laws these idiots make don't apply to you, and their foreign policy doesn't affect the world you live in, and their economic decisions don't impact your life. So, um, if you're obscenely rich? :)
I can't vote my way out of earthquakes and tidal waves and malaria and being run over by a bus. Just like picking a colour doesn't stop a bunch of monkeys from causing wars and inventing all sorts of stupid laws.
Medicine is supposed to make you get better.
I used to be an office manager. Frequently, part of a project I'd delegated to someone would arrive on my desk or in my inbox, looking like total shit. Shit would be sent back to the shitter with instructions for improvement, notes, etc.
Shitter would go away. End-of-day, unless I held shitter's hand and stood over the shitter asking for updates (which I hate to do. People should be able to do their jobs without me being an oppressive cunt), shitter would invariably place the pile back into my inbox with their "improvements."
At least once a week, I'd get the same pile of shit, except the first few pages/rows/columns/whatever would look fantastically accurate and the filename changed to reflect the new version. The rest would be the same utter garbage that needed to be re-done, by me, to fit in with the rest of the report. What's even more infuriating is that these "projects" often amounted to not much more than a two-page series of fucking lists. How do you get a fucking list wrong?
That's the feeling I get when I think about stuff like how the already-bullshit healthcare reform bill is going to be struck down on the grounds that someone forgot to add a standard blurb about it being subject to the laws of the land to the bottom. Only the shit they hand us often gets filed into the new Activity Report without a goddamned soul actually looking at the big picture for congruency and errors.
I've been away from the board for a while. I'm glad I came here today and read this thread. I've been getting caught up in the game, lately. It's very easy to do when you live in a county that just voted 3-1 to constitutionally ban gay marriage and civil unions.
Now there's a lot of emotion nationwide around a polarizing issue, and I noticed that Obama and Romney were both quick to take opposing sides on it today. Taking clear sides on this issue has already energized each party's base, and they will be able to use this issue to distract everyone from the fact that they differ on nothing else. That's pretty clever. You can say what you want to about Ron Paul's supporters, and you'll be right, but I did notice that some of them caught that today.
If you think politics is hard, try religion. I suspect its for the same reasons no less. If you can find a way to harness those reasons within humanity, you could accomplish amazing things.
But I'm not holding my breath.
.
Quote from: inode_buddha on May 11, 2012, 01:13:40 AM
If you think politics is hard, try religion.
I fail to see any practical difference.