It's Mann and Ornstein, yes. They also released a book with the same thesis around the time of that op-ed.
This article is basically the Rosetta Stone for those of us who believe the myth that "both sides do it" is just as corrosive as Republican dogma or even Trump. Because it's a neverending get out of jail free card. Try bringing up politics with a conservative family member and point out something they can't refute. The EXACT response will be "but the Democrats, and how about that game on Sunday".
I believe I addressed this just yesterday. Why should the ATTEMPT be shrugged off just because it's doomed to fail??
You literally just explained why the attempt should be shrugged off: because it is doomed to fail. Are there not enough real problem in the world for you, that you feel the need to give valuable brainspace to problems which cannot happen?
I can think of about a dozen reasons, but the main one is the power of the bully pulpit, and the fact that 40% of the country believes anyone who voted by mail shouldn't have it counted because.....reasons. I've been waiting 4+ years for anyone to provide any REMOTELY comparable evidence of the absolute assault on voting rights by the Republicans coming from the opposite side of the aisle, and no matter how many times I ask, no one can come up with anything.
And isn't it just AMAZING how every single place the Republicans are screaming about "voter fraud" just HAPPENS to be where alot of black people cast votes for Democrats. I know, I can't believe it either......
This would be like if Democrats had lost last Tuesday, and immediately started insisting that all the votes in rural Ohio and the The Villages in Florida were "fraudulent". But that doesn't happen because 1.) there isn't a long-standing cultural narrative tying the votes of white people to nefarious "inner-city machines" and 2.) Democrats actually believe everyone has the right to vote. And the other side doesn't. Period.
I feel like this tangent is going to be mostly semantics if we keep going back and forth. Eventually we start picking apart each other's words instead of focusing on the subject itself.
Again, I'm not a moderator these days, but I feel compelled to quote Rule 5 of the thread rules:
This thread is not here for partisan invective or semantic quibbles, nor is it here for forumites to "win" arguments or "defeat" an opposing viewpoint. This thread is here to share information and discuss ideas. Whenever possible, focus on the subject matter, and if your comment is less about the subject and more about something else that's bothering you, reconsider posting it.
Personally, I've found it's much less stressful and more productive not to try to win arguments or dissect a competing claim. Generally it's easier to let one's prior points stand on their own feet, rather than risk repeating oneself.
I'd go so far as to say the general consensus and unifying principle of most liberals who vote for Democrats is "holy christ I wish they were better on these issues, and they need to grow a backbone, but the other side left the reservation completely about 30 years ago." All we want at this point is basic competence and someone who gives a shit.
Yeah... My expectations for the presidency have gotten incredibly low, and I don't think I'm the only one. I like Biden but the premise of his campaign is that he's not massively corrupt, pathologically dishonest, or totally indifferent to the suffering of his people. We should be able to expect that from both presidential candidates, and really, even Trump's supporters don't tend to think of him as a particularly selfless or compassionate person.
Back in 2008, I thought to myself that all I asked for was a president who didn't kill 100,000 Iraqis.
In 2020, I thought to myself that now all I asked for was a president who didn't kill 200,000 Americans.
And let me assure you, those of us who have been talking about this pandemic and where it was leading since March were not doing so in the advanced hope we would be "right" and we'd be in this situation so we could proudly declare it to the world. Are we supposed to not point out what happened because some people see it as gloating??
There also seems to be an insinuation (if not here then certainly elsewhere) that both the Mueller investigation and Ukraine scandal were about "overturning the results of an election". Ummmm.....no. In the first case, we had, what, a half dozen criminal indictments of close confidantes of the President, mostly for LYING about said investigation so the truth could never be uncovered. In the second, even if Trump had been found guilty, the RESULTS of the election would have stood, and Pence (who was on the ticket, that's what VPs are for, to take over if the current occupant is no longer there for ANY reason) would have taken the reigns.
And let me assure you, those of us who have been talking about this pandemic and where it was leading since March were not doing so in the advanced hope we would be "right" and we'd be in this situation so we could proudly declare it to the world. Are we supposed to not point out what happened because some people see it as gloating??
You're shifting goalposts. This discussion was about the election, not the pandemic. Trump has been judged and found wanting by the public for how he handled the pandemic (amongst other things).
Pointing out facts can certainly have value. But you will have to explain to me how you think repeatedly saying "Republicans are worse than Democrats at x and y" has improved the steadily deterioriating political situation in the United States. And if you don't think it improves the situation... then we're in agreement, yes? Explain to me why my argument is wrong, if you really think it is. Don't just keep saying "Republicans are bad", because that is completely beside the point. Don't keep saying "the two sides aren't equally bad", because I never said they were.
Do you agree that the political situation in America is deteriorating due to mutual distrust and paranoia? If not, why not? (The actual existence of mutual distrust and paranoia is more or less proven by years upon years of opinion polling, though you can dispute that too if you must. Please bring data.)
Do you agree that focusing exclusively on how Republicans do this and that bad thing does absolutely nothing to reduce this mutual fear and paranoia? If not, why not?
Clarify your positions. Show me why I'm wrong.
I cannot be swayed by this unilateral disarmament theory. I'm using the pandemic because it's a pretty good example of where "outreach" got us. There was a very simple request put out about 5 or 6 months ago. Will everyone please just wear a mask in public. It could save the life of someone you know, or someone I know. I am not going to continue to "debate" or "reach out" to those who view a mild irritant as outweighing the life of someone I love. And the GOP has been egging these people on, for political gain, this entire time. So, thanks but no thanks, my reach across the aisle meter is on empty. I am not Christ come again. My cheek is staying where it is.
As I have stated, this is why it's good Joe Biden (who has the capability to do what I cannot) is President-elect and I'm not.
I cannot be swayed by this unilateral disarmament theory. I'm using the pandemic because it's a pretty good example of where "outreach" got us.
Did I say a single thing about outreach? Ever? (Hint: I did not. There is a very good reason for this: you can only discuss what should be done once there is an agreement upon a principle which is a basis for that discussion. That is what I am attempting to achieve.)
I'll ask you again:
Do you agree that the political situation in America is deteriorating due to mutual distrust and paranoia? If not, why not? (The actual existence of mutual distrust and paranoia is more or less proven by years upon years of opinion polling, though you can dispute that too if you must. Please bring data.)
Do you agree that focusing exclusively on how Republicans do this and that bad thing does absolutely nothing to reduce this mutual fear and paranoia? If not, why not?
Please directly answer the questions asked, or at least explain why you will not.
Because I'm not particularly interested in spending my energy reducing the "mutual distrust" of a political opposition who I believe is causing active harm to the country. I'm interested in defeating them so that harm stops. And I don't agree with your premise to begin with. I believe the Republican Party IS the problem, not two sides who are both skeptical of one another.
Do you agree that the political situation in America is deteriorating due to mutual distrust and paranoia? If not, why not? (The actual existence of mutual distrust and paranoia is more or less proven by years upon years of opinion polling, though you can dispute that too if you must. Please bring data.)
The governing situation is not deteriorating because of mutual distrust. It's deteriorating because of conservative distrust of all forms of knowledge/expertise that exists outside of their ability to control.
Of course in any large enough country, there's always going to be small factions in any political party that are paranoid lunatics. But only one major party makes it their core goal to completely distrust: scientists, universities, public schools, the press, and on and on and on.
The problem is not a mutual distrust between the two parties. The problem is one party refuses to trust anything else *except* its own party.
I'll address the point about these trends worsening. I'd argue that it's not because people have called out and shamed these bad tactics. Again, I encourage you to read the Mann & Ornstein essay I linked. It's because far too many people have indulged this authoritarian rejection of all knowledge outside the party as being mere partisan distrust.
Republicans are under no obligation to reject evolution by natural selection, man made climate change or now the freaking science of infectious respiratory illnesses because Democrats believe them. In fact -- for our government to function -- they are obligated to accept these as the best evidence we currently have.
I'll add that the ONLY way to address this mistrust and paranoia IS outreach, and by god, it has been tried. The entire Obama Presidency was an attempt at outreach (to it's detriment). The countless profiles of Trump supporters in every major media outlet was an attempt at outreach. Merrick Garland was an attempt at outreach. Joe Biden sure as shit is an attempt at outreach (a party sacrificing it's own more liberal goals to woo conservative voters who may be paranoid of a woman, black man, socialism, etc). And not only is the hand slapped away every time, now they are just attempting to bite the hand off.
Because I'm not particularly interested in spending my energy reducing the "mutual distrust" of a political opposition who I believe is causing active harm to the country. I'm interested in defeating them so that harm stops. And I don't agree with your premise to begin with. I believe the Republican Party IS the problem, not two sides who are both skeptical of one another.
The governing situation is not deteriorating because of mutual distrust. It's deteriorating because of conservative distrust of all forms of knowledge/expertise that exists outside of their ability to control.
Of course in any large enough country, there's always going to be small factions in any political party that are paranoid lunatics. But only one major party makes it their core goal to completely distrust: scientists, universities, public schools, the press, and on and on and on.
The problem is not a mutual distrust between the two parties. The problem is one party refuses to trust anything else *except* its own party.
Let's accept for the sake of argument that you are correct and all this is 100% the Republican's fault and that 40% or so of the population being willing to support this is entirely to blame for America's problems.
Now... how do you solve this? How do you "defeat them so that harm stops"? It is surely not feasible for Democrats to win every election from here on in. And it is certainly not supported by evidence to assert that what you've been doing so far is making Republicans more willing to listen to science, accept election results, stop causing "active harm", etc, correct?
What is your actual solution to the problem? In what way will you make the "harm stop", which is certainly a very important thing to do? How are you going to actually fix the "conservative distrust of all forms of knowledge/expertise etc."?
Are you going to form your own country and expel all conservatives from it? Are you going to take away their voting rights? Are you going to kill them all? Surely not any of those. Wait for them all to die? The youth have been voting left for a very, very long time... so that doesn't seem likely to work either.
So, assuming we can agree that this is a problem (while disagreeing on the precise causes of the problem) how do you propose to make things better? Do you actually think continuing on to a fifth decade of pointing out how science disagrees with Republican doctrine will capture hearts and minds or lead to everlasting electoral success? If so, what leads you to believe it will work now when it never has before?
Your only "solution" so far is for us to stop pointing out how bad Republicans are. This doesn't strike me as a "plan".
Since Biden will probably be the next president, how much wars do you think that he will start? I bet 6.
As much as I disagree with everything you've said so far, you do have a point here. I have no idea if there will be new wars or not during the Biden administration, but you do have a point that previous Democrat presidents maintained wars overseas. The thing that really got to me was the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Obama, while the US was still engaged in two wars. He even said in his speech, and I quote: "perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars.".
That is cynical AF. He should have rejected the Nobel Peace Prize if his country was engaged in war. Jean-Paul Sartre rejected a Nobel Prize in Literature due to political reasons. Obama should have done the same. Come on people, for f---'s sake.
I have a plan. How about having our educators get back to teaching mathematics, the scientific method and critical thinking instead of pseudo-scientific political claptrap? How about training our children how to guard their minds from bullshit instead of training them to be obedient consumers? How about treating all human beings the same instead of dividing them into little sub-groups, separating them and turning them against each other? How about politicians actually doing any of the fucking things they promise instead of parading the same old Goddamned promises every 2-4 years to get everybody fired up until the election is over?
I'll add that the ONLY way to address this mistrust and paranoia IS outreach, and by god, it has been tried. The entire Obama Presidency was an attempt at outreach (to it's detriment). The countless profiles of Trump supporters in every major media outlet was an attempt at outreach. Merrick Garland was an attempt at outreach. Joe Biden sure as shit is an attempt at outreach (a party sacrificing it's own more liberal goals to woo conservative voters who may be paranoid of a woman, black man, socialism, etc). And not only is the hand slapped away every time, now they are just attempting to bite the hand off.
And where's the outreach and the call for outreach to the other side? On the one hand we're told that the polarization is not symmetric, on the other hand only the less polarized side is called out.
The obvious subtext of the argument being made is that only Democrats/the left side of the spectrum can be reasoned with. That's telling.
I think the solution is absolute defeat at the ballot box. It's not that Democrats "win every election from now". It's that Republican suffer a string of defeats so convincing that they have to change to be competitive in elections. We're not there yet, but we are getting there imo.
Comments
This article is basically the Rosetta Stone for those of us who believe the myth that "both sides do it" is just as corrosive as Republican dogma or even Trump. Because it's a neverending get out of jail free card. Try bringing up politics with a conservative family member and point out something they can't refute. The EXACT response will be "but the Democrats, and how about that game on Sunday".
I can think of about a dozen reasons, but the main one is the power of the bully pulpit, and the fact that 40% of the country believes anyone who voted by mail shouldn't have it counted because.....reasons. I've been waiting 4+ years for anyone to provide any REMOTELY comparable evidence of the absolute assault on voting rights by the Republicans coming from the opposite side of the aisle, and no matter how many times I ask, no one can come up with anything.
And isn't it just AMAZING how every single place the Republicans are screaming about "voter fraud" just HAPPENS to be where alot of black people cast votes for Democrats. I know, I can't believe it either......
This would be like if Democrats had lost last Tuesday, and immediately started insisting that all the votes in rural Ohio and the The Villages in Florida were "fraudulent". But that doesn't happen because 1.) there isn't a long-standing cultural narrative tying the votes of white people to nefarious "inner-city machines" and 2.) Democrats actually believe everyone has the right to vote. And the other side doesn't. Period.
Again, I'm not a moderator these days, but I feel compelled to quote Rule 5 of the thread rules: Personally, I've found it's much less stressful and more productive not to try to win arguments or dissect a competing claim. Generally it's easier to let one's prior points stand on their own feet, rather than risk repeating oneself.
Back in 2008, I thought to myself that all I asked for was a president who didn't kill 100,000 Iraqis.
In 2020, I thought to myself that now all I asked for was a president who didn't kill 200,000 Americans.
I cannot be swayed by this unilateral disarmament theory. I'm using the pandemic because it's a pretty good example of where "outreach" got us. There was a very simple request put out about 5 or 6 months ago. Will everyone please just wear a mask in public. It could save the life of someone you know, or someone I know. I am not going to continue to "debate" or "reach out" to those who view a mild irritant as outweighing the life of someone I love. And the GOP has been egging these people on, for political gain, this entire time. So, thanks but no thanks, my reach across the aisle meter is on empty. I am not Christ come again. My cheek is staying where it is.
As I have stated, this is why it's good Joe Biden (who has the capability to do what I cannot) is President-elect and I'm not.
Because I'm not particularly interested in spending my energy reducing the "mutual distrust" of a political opposition who I believe is causing active harm to the country. I'm interested in defeating them so that harm stops. And I don't agree with your premise to begin with. I believe the Republican Party IS the problem, not two sides who are both skeptical of one another.
The governing situation is not deteriorating because of mutual distrust. It's deteriorating because of conservative distrust of all forms of knowledge/expertise that exists outside of their ability to control.
Of course in any large enough country, there's always going to be small factions in any political party that are paranoid lunatics. But only one major party makes it their core goal to completely distrust: scientists, universities, public schools, the press, and on and on and on.
The problem is not a mutual distrust between the two parties. The problem is one party refuses to trust anything else *except* its own party.
Republicans are under no obligation to reject evolution by natural selection, man made climate change or now the freaking science of infectious respiratory illnesses because Democrats believe them. In fact -- for our government to function -- they are obligated to accept these as the best evidence we currently have.
Your only "solution" so far is for us to stop pointing out how bad Republicans are. This doesn't strike me as a "plan".
As much as I disagree with everything you've said so far, you do have a point here. I have no idea if there will be new wars or not during the Biden administration, but you do have a point that previous Democrat presidents maintained wars overseas. The thing that really got to me was the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Obama, while the US was still engaged in two wars. He even said in his speech, and I quote: "perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars.".
That is cynical AF. He should have rejected the Nobel Peace Prize if his country was engaged in war. Jean-Paul Sartre rejected a Nobel Prize in Literature due to political reasons. Obama should have done the same. Come on people, for f---'s sake.
And where's the outreach and the call for outreach to the other side? On the one hand we're told that the polarization is not symmetric, on the other hand only the less polarized side is called out.
The obvious subtext of the argument being made is that only Democrats/the left side of the spectrum can be reasoned with. That's telling.
I think the solution is absolute defeat at the ballot box. It's not that Democrats "win every election from now". It's that Republican suffer a string of defeats so convincing that they have to change to be competitive in elections. We're not there yet, but we are getting there imo.