The Media Throws This Word Around

ekent

<div class="IPBDescription">polarized</div> The thing I hear from all of the talking heads is that the state of politics in our country is very polarized. I can only imagine from the amount of world news that I get that this is not a uniquely american fact. The talking heads also say that this was not always the case. This is a problem since I, at the comparitively young 22, have no other frame of reference. I think that most people on these boards are similarly aged, so you'll have a similar perspective.

This polarization worries me, because in politics as in life I am mostly concerned with results. And yet I find it difficult to imagine a life where people don't identify more with a political party than with specific issues. Pollsters always talk about "the moderates" and "the undecided" as ideal groups of rational thinking americans, but frankly I've never met anyone like that. What do you think? Are politicians really arguing issues anymore? If so, where can I see that? If not, why not?

My intuition says that polarization is a result of ideology trumping practicality. I reserved the second post to talk about that. But honestly I'm sure it's more complicated.

ekent

By way of introduction:

I've always believed that there are only two reasons people argue. Firstly, and most fundamentally, they may have functionally different frames of reference. I would never expect an evangelical Christian to agree with the theory of the Big Bang, for example. This makes their argument hard (or impossible) to reconcile, although it shouldn't be beyond a rational person to be able to empathize with another viewpoint without discarding their own. A realistic goal of arguments in this case would be highlighting the point of contention.

Secondly, and most frequently, they may be misusing language unintentionally. (I assume that in an argument, no one would be <i>trying</i> to cloud the issue.) It should be obvious to any speaker of the english language that almost every word has several sometimes completely distinct meanings, some of which have connotations beyond the literal meaning. If you say "He is to blame for the party" you are not only saying "He caused the party to start," you're suggesting that the party was an error that he made. He started the party and was <i>wrong</i> to do so.

With that said:

I have been watching a lot of (American) politics lately, in the run up to the election. That's a first for me. Something that has always bothered me is whenever a pol will characterize his opposition as "liberal/conservative." Even more so when you realize that the word liberal in America has become equated with elitist and the word conservative with redneck. I suppose my problem with these words is partly a personal one, as I wrestle with how I would define myself personally.

I say first, I'm clearly very open minded. That's the dictionary definition of liberal, right? One of the two issues I'm most concerned about in the election is the perception of Americans abroad. That's the stereotypical definition of liberal. Of course, the other issue I'm most concerned about is the massive budget deficit. And it makes me cringe whenever Kerry uses outsourcing to promote some sort of protectionism. Those are traditionally conservative views. What am I?

I think the problem is that in this case, the words liberal and conservative have been stretched beyond their capacity to hold accurate, valuable meaning.

If you look back to the French and American revolutions what you see is that the most influential revolutionary leaders were all "conservative". Washington, Jefferson, Lafayette and even Robespierre were staunch advocates of individual freedoms. You can look a generation or two back to their inspirations in the persons of Locke, Thomas Paine, Rousseau and Voltaire who each advocated small government, limitation of power, familial values and individual rights respectively. It should be easy to see the irony in calling these revolutionaries "conservatives."

A better word, in my view, to accurately describe those views is libertarian. Not only does "Liberty" encompass the ideas of individual rights as well as small government, limitation of power and by extension, family and personal values, but it suggests an opposite, too.

The opposite of libertarian should be most accurately called socialist. I hope I can avoid the massive negative value that word has by association with Communism. What I really mean is that where libertarianism is the belief in individual solutions and the promotion of individual rights, socialism is the belief in community solutions for what would be considered community problems -- and solutions that empower society.

Solutions to the problem of crime should illustrate the differences. A man commits a murder. Immediately the libertarian and socialist jump to their own conclusions. The libertarian says, "this man is an individual he made his own choices. Murder is an unacceptable choice. He deserves to die or rot in prison for being a heinous jerk." The socialist says, "this poor man is a member of society. He has the potential to enrich our lives with his hidden artistic ability but he was unfortunately subjected only to the worst influences as a child. He should be rehabilitated and educated to be a productive human being."

Am I trying to pass judgement on either one or the other? Personally, I would hope that any rational humans would shrink from identifying completely with either of those two views. Realistically, I think that since most people who read this will be american and America has been dominated by libertarians, most people will more closely identify with the former view. Since Europe has been subjected to harsh historical lessons on the power of the individual (Hitler, Stalin, Ceausescu, Thatcher??!,) I'd be willing to bet any european will identify more with the latter.

Thinking about it that way, it seems to me that no matter what their background, leaders are pragmatically socialist. This impact may be dulled when they come from libertarian backgrounds, but when you're trying to run a cohesive <i>society</i>, it would be harder to identify with the little guy. That might explain why the most prominant libertarians are always revolutionaries.

---

I don't think that libertarian-socialist is the only measurement of a political animal. I do think that it is the most important measurement. Clearly other features are influential. Some people are very religious. Some people are motivated by their job, their ethnicity, or their native language. When it comes down to it, though, it seems to me that most people tend to fall into groups based on whether they believe more in individual solutions or community solutions. As a catch all, though, I think that moralism-pluralism is also influential. Moralism-pluralism is the measurement of how you feel about integrating new members of society.

Moralists believe in the seamless integration of newcomers. Frequently, this is associated with fundamentalist Christianity, who obviously believe in imposing their ideology through government laws. Another example of this would be the recent French law against religious symbols in schools. Communist Russia, with its many laws against religious worship (in census polls, most russians were forced to identify themselves as athiest), is another. Pluralists believe in the peaceful coexistance of many distinct ethnic groups within the same society. Affirmative Action is a very pluralist idea. Many ideas from the Women's and Civil Rights era owe their successes to pluralistic thought, although I think MLK was a definate moralist.

Anyway, reference my little graph below for clarity. If you're curious, I'd probably place myself at like -3, -1 (libertarian and slightly pluralist, otherwise totally arbitrary numbers).

Windelkron

good post.
A peculiarity of American politics and media is how the political spectrum is drastically different than it "should" be, and yet still suffers descriptions like "far left" and "far right."

What I mean is what Americans might consider to be "Far left" is ACTUALLY, in the world scheme of things, only moderate left. Same thing for the right. For example, people say Kerry is on the left, when in fact his policies are right of center (eg attitudes towards business).

Also, people tend not to think of political affliation as the square, but rather the line. I admit I do often as well. It's a good way to think of things, but I'm not sure Americans are smart enough to think in 2D <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Bo_Selecta

well, yeah, from a European point of view the U.S. seems somewhat.. schizofrenic O_x
everything is so.. well, extreme. like how everyone is obsessed over a nipple and at the same time the US has given the great gift of porn to the masses. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->

I think the whole difference is that nearly nobody considers themself -anything- over here, we don't identify with something like that, there's a lot less of 'groupthink'.
Just because I voted for the liberal party (not the same thing as US liberal btw) doesn't mean that I'm now somehow part of that "group".. maybe that's what changed in Europe after WWII, it's funny to see that America is a lot like how Europe used to be quite some time ago =D (and is making the same mistakes Europe has in the past)

Pepe_Muffassa

One of the problems with American government is that it is very polar in nature. The one president can choose his whole cabinet, which can influence law - it all trickles down (this goes for both liberals and conservatives).

Europeans, on the other hand, use a parlimentary system - you can have 40% conservative, 40% libera, with the other 20% divided amongst special interest groups. In order to make law or pass bills, those two sides have to appeal to the 20% for support.

I apologize for my lack of understanding for all the nuances of european politics, but this is what I saw from my living in NZ when I was younger, and they model european government.

As for my personal views - I'm a conservative. I do wish that American had a more even system - I think it would be far more "fair". Another advantage is that the parties would get blamed for the way they vote on an issue (if bad stuff happens) as opposed to the whole "administration" taking a fall for what happens durring thier time in office.