Political process too streamlined?

[Saryctos]

Has the political process become so perfected that all issues can be almost immediately drawn to a person's moral/religious beliefs? That is to say, if there is a political line being drawn between parties, is it for their policies, or the reason behind the policies?

 

Often argumentation involves a few distinct properties. These usually filter down to breaking apart the argument to find what makes your opponent think their side of the problem is more correct. Often this drops to a basic difference in principles. Most of a persons principles are either defined or governed by what can be described as their religious nature, or moral belief structure.

 

Do you think politics has become almost too transperant. That people no longer see politics as for what they are, a deceptive method of packaging issues, and look straight to the belief structure of an argument to combat it. This will invariably break down into a shouting fest, as it is not simple to break down a belief structure simply with another belief structure.

 

I believe that breaking down arguements into their basic beliefs is as far as the political realm should take us. Knowing what your arguing against is really the end of the argument. After that, you are no longer attempting to change someone's mind by trying to change their viewpoint, you are now trying to change their structure of beliefs, and this can easily be equated to some, in their mind, as to attacking their religion.

 

By focusing more on the information, and less on the principles of political debate, we can start changing how people feel on issues based on their own inward debates, as once it has been broken down into the most basic values it should not be pushed as a politically motivated issue, as it should be pushed as a topic for inner reflecion.

 

In closing I'd like to say that breaking down arguements into beliefs, and information, is what politics should be about, not challenging those beliefs and trying to discredit that information. Perhaps with better argumentative guidlines, religion can leave the public political forum, and return to the personal realm from where it originated, leaving politics to it's own seperate train of thought.

[ecoli]

I'm going to venture a guess and say that this has happened because of biparitisan 'big business' politics. The party has a platform, and while party members don't have to agree with every point of that platform, people will try and stereotype you if you tell them you belong to a certain party. This is why I'm an independent.

[john5746]

I think that TV sound bites make issues appear very simple, black and white. If you only have 3 minutes to make a point, it is more effective to appeal to emotion then the intellect. In reality, most issues require deep discussion with many details to consider when trying to practically implement a solution.

 

While debating an issue needs no compromise, in the real world, I think compromise is key to getting anything done. The problem is excaserbated by the thought that delay means apathy. Rather than compromise, it is better to take a side and complain about the "wrong" side and make them look ridiculus for being on that side.

[ecoli]

I think that TV sound bites make issues appear very simple, black and white. If you only have 3 minutes to make a point, it is more effective to appeal to emotion then the intellect.

 

And take into consideration that the media clips those 3 minutes into only a couple of seconds of information.

[Bignose]

3 mins?!? The trend today is to try to get as short and catchy a phrase as possible. It used to be the 3 min soundbite, then the 30 sec soundbite, now the goal is 10 words or less. E.g., how many times have you heard "cut-and-run" the last 6 months?

 

Politics would not be streamlined if the public didn't basically demand it. Here's a scary statistic I just read yesterday. There is a very close Senatorial Race here in Missouri, where the incumbent has been running tv ads for 2 months or so now. The challenger just began over Labor Day. Both of their consultants expect lots more (and more negative ads) before election day. The quote from a political observer group from Vrigina: Over 80 of people get all of their information (about candidates and up-for-vote issues) from television. That only leaves 20 who even consult any other source, like radio, newspapers or magazines, the candidate's own pamphlets, and the Internet.

 

If only 20% of people are even bothered to look for additional information beyond the sound bite, the process will naturally tend toward a streamlined, sound-bitish, partisan, confrontational, negative-ad-producing process. It is really up to the voters to change the system as we now have it.