jimmy neutron, wva, unta, kid cid

[Azazello1313]

because I have an essay you should love

 

For present purposes, I’ll confine my bill of indictment to two charges. First, partisanship undermines clear thinking. Second, it undermines moral integrity. In both cases, the root cause is the same: the conflation of friend and foe with right and wrong.

 

Consider this pair of poll results cited by Andrew Gelman in his wonderful book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State. According to a survey conducted in March 2006, nearly 30 percent of Republicans believed not only that Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, but that the U.S. military had actually found them. Meanwhile, in a May 2007 poll, 35 percent of Democrats expressed the view that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.

 

It’s not just that partisans are vulnerable to believing fatuous nonsense. It’s that their beliefs, whether sensible or otherwise, about a whole range of empirical questions are determined by their political identity. There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating — these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa.

 

So yes, most partisans are “better informed” than most independents, because they have a political identity that motivates them to have opinions and then tells them which ones to have as well as the reasons for having them. Consequently, partisans may have more information in their heads, but their partisanship ensures that this information is riddled with biases and errors and then shields those biases and errors from scrutiny. This is not a state of affairs worth defending.

...

I regard the shift toward a more ideological politics as progress. Broadly speaking, we have been moving away from politics as an amoral struggle between rival gangs and in the direction of politics as a contest of competing values. Because people have differing values, and assign different weights to the values they share, there can never be an end to politics. Accordingly, even in an ideal world where all citizens are completely rational and equally public-spirited, a politics and thus a partisanship of values would still be necessary. Here, then, in the realm of values, is the purest and most durable source of political identity.

 

That kind of ideal partisanship, though, remains far over the horizon. Today’s ideological mindset is shot through with irrational commitments to dubious empirical propositions as well as parochial commitments to specific interest groups. Ideological politics is thus a mongrel, an unlovely mix of the personal and the principled, the parochial and the public-spirited, the pragmatic and the dogmatic.

 

Consequently, I believe there is an inverse relationship today between one’s commitment to both the truth and the public interest and one’s commitment to partisanship, whether Republican or Democrat. To put it more bluntly, these days I don’t see how you can be both a good citizen and a zealous partisan. This isn’t to say you can’t lean one way or the other. Without a doubt, it’s possible to reach a fairly stable conclusion that one party ID or the other is a relatively better fit. But it should be an uncomfortable fit. If you can’t see that sometimes, even frequently, your party is dead wrong, and that sometimes the country would be better off if your party lost, then in my book you’ve got a problem. The fact that it’s an extremely common problem only makes it worse.

 

Professor Rosenblum argues that “what we need is not independence or bipartisanship or post-partisanship but better partisanship.” Well, I agree with the last part of the sentence: we certainly do need better partisanship. I’ll even concede that that’s the most we can realistically aspire to. There is no possibility of a pure, “view from nowhere” independence — we are all partisans of one stripe or another.

 

Yet I must strongly disagree with the first part of the Professor Rosenblum’s sentence. The only way we can get better partisanship is for partisans to become, in critical dimensions at least, more independent-minded. In particular, the resolution of factual questions and the evaluation of interest groups’ claims should be conducted, as far as possible, independent of one’s political identity. Until that happy day arrives, we need more antipartisans — not weightless, atomized independents, but informed, engaged intellectuals and opinion leaders who are willing to proclaim that both houses are pox-ridden.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa.

 

This really nails it. Good stuff, Az.

 

Our very identities can get tied up in political parties or a number of other things. Sadly, those associations can be so strong the little criticism of our own parties are sorry tokens offered in hopes of purchasing a sense of individuality. Unfortunately, there is much wrong with both parties and we would all do well to divorce our identities from them and move forward propagating only ideas rather than alliances.

 

One of my favorite books is called Identity Based Conflict (Rothman - I think). The idea behind the book is detaching our identity and self-worth based on how we deal with interpersonal or group conflict. Phenomenal things can happen when people detach their identities from conflict and engage problems strictly from an intellectual approach. My wife and I have made leaps and bounds in this area and it is amazing how quickly and effectively we deal with challenges now vs. when ego and pride were major components of every conflict.

 

It's much easier said than done, of course - but partisanship should die in favor of respect for individuals and for the process of problem solving. It's hard enough to do between two people that love each other - it's a steeper hill to climb for 535 members of congress or an entire nation.

[Kid Cid]

A very interesting read.

 

One thing that isn't addressed in this essay is that the very nature of the system we have immediately creates an enemy or other. It attempts to remove the shades of gray between my ideology and that of another person. Hey, they're in my party, they must be like me! They're not the right color, boo! These positions are then reinforced through media campaigns and advertising. It is all exceptionally divisive perhaps even by design, I don't know.

 

All I do know is that what Jimmy said above is absolutely correct. Taking an intellectual rather than emotional or knee jerk reaction to any issue will almost always lead to better results. That however requires thought and effort on the individual's part, something not everyone is willing to put in.

[Caveman_Nick]

This really nails it. Good stuff, Az.

 

Our very identities can get tied up in political parties or a number of other things. Sadly, those associations can be so strong the little criticism of our own parties are sorry tokens offered in hopes of purchasing a sense of individuality. Unfortunately, there is much wrong with both parties and we would all do well to divorce our identities from them and move forward propagating only ideas rather than alliances.

 

One of my favorite books is called Identity Based Conflict (Rothman - I think). The idea behind the book is detaching our identity and self-worth based on how we deal with interpersonal or group conflict. Phenomenal things can happen when people detach their identities from conflict and engage problems strictly from an intellectual approach. My wife and I have made leaps and bounds in this area and it is amazing how quickly and effectively we deal with challenges now vs. when ego and pride were major components of every conflict.

 

It's much easier said than done, of course - but partisanship should die in favor of respect for individuals and for the process of problem solving. It's hard enough to do between two people that love each other - it's a steeper hill to climb for 535 members of congress or an entire nation.

 

I think that:

 

Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa.

 

Is a spin on the reality of how people come to these similar opinions in groups. Sure, it's fair to point out that there are plenty of sheep out there that just follow their group blindly. It's very short sighted, however, to not recognize that many of these opinions that 'have nothing to do with one another' are often derivative of a particular political ideology and not a political identity.

 

If I adopt a particular political ideology and then apply that ideology to a variety of situations I can form opinions on those situations based in the knowledge I have (and not necessarily the reality of the situation). This is true of anyone that uses this method to form political position and opinion. Whether or not this ideology and the opinions formed from it grow over time by applying new new information gained regarding different situations and is a test of the merits of the individual. I am sure that many find themselves in alignment with a political party by going through this process once or twice and then surrender to group think. I am also sure that many question and continue to grow and question on their own. If they do an effective job of it they will either end up breaking away from that group think or influencing it to adapt.

 

The best thing we can do as individuals is engage others and question why they think what they do. Some will bleat "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad!" back and not really want to engage in any kind of discussion of the merits of one thought process or another. Occasionally someone will respond more thoughtfully. I find those times to be very rewarding.

[Ursa Majoris]

We've had threads in here before that show that (on this site at least) there is indeed independent thought. Almost every political poster here has some disagreement or other with their closest political grouping, as supposedly defined by those that tell us what those groupings are.

 

Example:

 

I'm for the death penalty in some cases, a balanced budget, a complete makeover of the big entitlements and doing nothing about gun control, amongst other things. None of these line up exactly with the Democrats. I arrived at these positions through independent thought.

 

That said, it is obvious that there are rapidly increasing numbers of people getting their political stance in echo chambers where nothing other than the opinion they already have is ever heard.

[Azazello1313]

There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating — these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa.

 

I think that is obviously often true. what really rings true about that article is how people tend to really learn about an issue only AFTER they've essentially made up their mind as to where they come out. that is something every single one of us of every partisan or anti-partisan persuasion is guilty of, and it is obviously not condusive to the best dialogue or the best outcomes.

 

but as far as, for instance, what do gun control and climate change politics have to do with each other, and why should a position on one predict a position on the other? well, and many issues, do not strike me as being so far afield, actually. I mean, if your primary political concern is distrust of centralized government power, it seems pretty clear how those issues might tie together. the more uneasy alliances, IMO, come when you try and fit, for example, the religious conservatives in with the economic libertarians. because there you are talking about worldviews that are more fundamentally at odds with each other than they are in accord. but the political reality of an opposing political force that wants to do something they both oppose (usually for different reasons) makes them bedfellows. there's nothing particularly concerning about that, those are just the realities of politics in a two-party system -- and having studied this a fair bit in college, I remain convinced that our two-party system, despite its myriad flaws, beats the alternatives.

 

I also don't find it terribly concerning that most public discussion is dumbed down into us-them shouting matches. if you read the federalist papers, or tocqueville's "democracy in america", you sort of end up with an actual appreciation of how that all works to balance itself out -- and anyone who wants to seek out more intelligent discussion can certainly find it.

 

what IS concerning, to me, is that our leaders (elected and otherwise), of both parties, seem to be more deeply into the moronic fray than they have usually been in the past. it started, I would say, in the mid 90s, and has consistently accelerated since. trying to pin the blame on one party more than the other would quickly reveal itself as just another shallow partisan swipe...what is obvious is that everyone has dirty hands. both parties play to fear, to prejudice, and to us-them mentalities, far more than they ought to. they've both figured out it's a lot easier than defending principle. people in both parties do that too, but they far too often take the easy way out.

 

here is the essay the original link I posted was in response to. and I think I pretty much agree with her that, "What we need is not independence or bipartisanship or post-partisanship but better partisanship."

[Azazello1313]

If I adopt a particular political ideology and then apply that ideology to a variety of situations I can form opinions on those situations based in the knowledge I have (and not necessarily the reality of the situation). This is true of anyone that uses this method to form political position and opinion. Whether or not this ideology and the opinions formed from it grow over time by applying new new information gained regarding different situations and is a test of the merits of the individual. I am sure that many find themselves in alignment with a political party by going through this process once or twice and then surrender to group think. I am also sure that many question and continue to grow and question on their own. If they do an effective job of it they will either end up breaking away from that group think or influencing it to adapt.

 

that is a good summation.