Up until about six or so months ago, I was rather active in posting on political posts. Now, I usually don’t even read them. Part of this is my dissertation – I have less time for blogging – but the main reason is: I find I like everyone a lot better.
Basically, far too many of the political posts out there are angry screeds (some of them mine) – but the people writing them seem to think they are the height of reason (as I have done as well). People who respond to them often respond in anger – and frankly, they tend to go downhill.
Yet, having taken time off from political blogging, I find, when politics aren’t around, I really, really like most everyone. There are perma-bloggers at T&S, for example, I’ve traded nasty words with in the past – but now, I find that I rather enjoy most of what they have to say on other topics.
Anyway, having come to this realization, I’ve decided my life will be happier, I will have a lot less stress, and I will like people more (and hopefully they will like me) if I (mostly) just stay away from the political posts. The few I have recently skimmed (some on this blog, even) have just shown me how pointless discussing politics online can be, and how way too much anger gets stirred up.
Ivan, I agree with you in many ways. I tend to avoid contention assiduously in most areas of my life. In some ways, I wish I could retire from society and not have to deal with politics at all. But unfortunately (for me at least), we are counseled to be active in our communities and active in government and campaigns. This is why you see Mormons disproportionately involved in national politics — there appears to be a reason for it today.
So, personally, I think it’s important to state your political views and overcome the slings and arrows as best you can. The solution for me (not for you, because I respect your decision and honor it) is to be engaged and try to use what influence I have to get speak up for what I think is right.
Most of the time I succeed in exchanging ideas in civil ways. Other times, not so civil. But I keep on trying to get it right.
Everyone has their own limits. I’ve discovered that in online conversations about politics, I tend to get angrier than I would in a face to face interaction – something I once wrote on here: https://millennialstar.org/index.php/2006/10/03/jumping_on_or_off_the_body_meme_or_being
–
So, while I stay involved in politics in “real world” interactions, I find my behavior online to be despicable (and the behavior of others – another part of this is because I don’t like seeing people I otherwise like and admire acting so idiotically).
Yeah, there is something about the anonymity of on-line interaction that seems to bring out the worst in some people. But at the same time, on-line opinion forming (not that I am flattering myself too much to say I personally influence that many opinions) seems to be an important way of changing hearts and minds. I also find that the Bloggernacle has been useful for me in helping me learn how to frame arguments in ways that will be effective. My debating skills in person have gotten much better, and I attribute a lot of that to my interactions in the Bloggernacle. There are a lot of very, very smart people here, and you had better be on your toes, or you can get creamed.
If I were angry all the time, I would give it up like many other people have. But so far, it hasn’t happened.
I participate in the Bloggernacle debates knowing full well “contention is of the devil.” It is a difficult balance.
My wife was asking me the other day about my parent’s politics. They are/were (Mother passed away some years ago) Democrats. She found that interesting considering my politics. I had to remind her that in his day John F. Kennedy had more “conservative” views on most things than George Bush is today. One could, at one time, have a reasonable political debate but we as a society have moved so much to the left that there isn’t any debating any more. It is a deparate fight for ideological (and potentially physical) survival.
The collectivist thought process dominates the debate today so thoroughly that any “conservative” objection evokes the wildest howls of utter rage. How dare we not conform?
I intend to resist vigorously.
Some wise words and astute observations, Ivan.
I’ve gotten a bit burnt out myself. But I think that’s more because I feel I’ve largely said my piece and any addition would just be repeating myself. At the same time though, my personality is too obsessive to allow me to totally leave it alone. To top it off, I enjoy politics more than most subjects.
But really, I think half the problem is that politics themselves are just uglier right now. I expect we’ll be more civil a year or two from now.
Seth R. #6
From a historical perspective, American politics have always been nasty, heated, and personal. The archetypal view of the “dignified public servant” has never existed. Heck, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr settled their differences at gunpoint!
Things only seem worse because of today’s widespread reach of media.
In 2008, when Hillary Clinton is elected President, I expect politics to be just as ugly as they are now, and probably more so. It will just be like a turnover in football: Fox News will switch from defense to offense, and Daily Kos will switch from offense to defense.
The notion that politics should be civil is the collectivist left’s way of saying to conservatives “shut up!”
I say nothing doing.
In 2008, when Hillary Clinton is elected President, I expect politics to be just as ugly as they are now, and probably more so. It will just be like a turnover in football: Fox News will switch from defense to offense, and Daily Kos will switch from offense to defense.
In general, you’ll see arguments and tactics change hands. Both parties are corrupt and immoral. Republicans aren’t against activist judges when the judges are Republican…
And so forth…
Politics is bloodsport, and if you approach it that way, then you can enjoy it without it ruining your life. It’s basically fantasy football, or fantasy MMA.
I’ve discovered of late that the only politics worth arguing about are local — schools, roads, libraries, etc., areas where we can make a difference and where lives are truly affected.
Queuno, I agree with you on the local politics angle. But I still believe there are national level issues where Latter-day Saints can and should try to make a difference.
For instance, the subprime mortgage market collapse is basically a national problem with almost exclusively national solutions, but it sure is ruining lives locally where I live.
Good point, Seth.
Seth R. re: #6 –
You may be right. Perhaps in a year or two, after I have my dissertation written and something resembling a “real job” I might start engaging politics online again.
It is hard to stay away from.
Yes, I’ve come to believe that the reason there is sports and weather is so people have something to talk about that’s not politics or religion, two issues that invariably arrive at disagreements and often become personal.
And since Bloggernacle sites generally do talk about religion, adding politics just makes it that much tougher to keep discourse pleasant and friendly.
georged #8:
And vice versa, I should point out.
Mike, I agree with your #15. Yay, we agree!
Look, compared to a lot of other popular blogs out there, the discussions here are literally Emily Post.
It can get a whole lot uglier than anything we see on the nacle.
Geoff:
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya….
I don’t disagree that one person can’t make a difference in national politics, but I think some of us would rather argue about the war in Iraq than work with our children’s school to fix some problem. It’s like the active Bloggernacler who won’t do his home teaching, and complains about how the Church is an unfriendly place.
You have more impact on your daily life by getting involved in local issues (and you’d be amazed at how the Internet and blogs can be deployed to great use in local politics.)
I don’t see why both issues cannot be worked on simultaneously and profitably.
Mike – If you have unlimited time and access and influence, yes. But there are too many bloggers — even in the ‘nacle — who waste many hours worrying about which far-off ark to steady than what is going on in their own neighborhoods.
Spend a year — as the average citizen — worrying over national politics and a year worrying over local issues and tell me which one showed any progress.
I’m not saying don’t worry about national issues, but unless you have Mitt Romney or a senate staffer on speed dial, it should definitely be secondary.
I think there’s a lot of truth to that Quenuno.
Further I think that getting involved at the congressional level is much, much easier than most folks realize.
But local government (city and state) have few people involved and really needs more public involvement.
Which impacts you more?
Congressional hearings on immigration policy?
Or the City Council’s 7 to 2 vote last evening, to approve you and your neighbors’ front yards to be torn up for two extra lanes of traffic, to accommodate the new Wal Mart that is going up two blocks from your house next year?
queuno, I think you’re employing the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. I would submit that it is equally important to be engaged in national and local issues, and that time can and should be spent on both.
Considering the scale and scope of the death and devastation in Iraq, it is our obligation as citizens to push our elected representatives to find a resolution to the problem (whether or not you agree with how things are being dealt with now). I am only one of millions of citizens represented by Senators Hatch and Bennett, but I write them regularly on this and other important issues. If I expect them to represent all Utahans, then they need to hear what all Utahans think (including those who disagree with their positions).
It is equally important that I be engaged locally on important issues. The scope and scale of the decisions affect fewer people, but my voice has more weight here.
My community’s biggest debate is over our library (expand, renovate, new, do nothing), for well over a decade. I sat through a well-attended 2-hour meeting tonight, listened to a consultant present options and 40-50 fellow citizens comment freely.
I have relationships with some on the Council, to whom I can email and know it carries some influence. I can participate in local civic blogs. I have more opportunities to express an opinion that will be heard, than on an immigration debate.
Although, on the immigration front (as someone else mentioned it) consider Farmers Branch, TX– a perfect case of how local citizens are actually trying something local because the career politicians in DC won’t. Right or wrong, if you’re a concerned citizen in FB, you can effect change easier than in DC.
This isn’t to say don’t get involved in DC. But rather than spend 2 hours on Volokh or Kos or Powerline, go to your City Council meeting and make your views heard.