the character discussion: "politics as usual?"

[Sisyphus]

We have a situation in the U.S. election right now where the nominees from both parties have reputations for being less partisan and more genuine and open than their peers. Whether or not these reputations are deserved, the fact that they were both able to trade on them so successfully speaks a lot to the national mood right now, and weariness with the perceived evil shadow government we've been living with and the associated deep and bitter divides between red and blue cultures.

 

The question is: are those reputations deserved? Personally, I think Obama and McCain were definitely the least partisan (though not necessarily most centrist) of their respective fields. But is McCain really the straight-talkin' maverick he claims to be? Is Obama? I go back and forth on both of them. Certainly both of them are politicians, and both have megalomaniacal streaks. Both have their examples of cringe-worthy cheap shots and pandering (although they both seem visibly uncomfortable doing it), but on the other hand some of the most important moments in both their campaigns have been when they (*gasp*) actually spoke to us like we're adults. McCain is often criticized for living in the same fantasy world as the Bush Administration with regards to the Middle East, but I think he's mostly refrained from the denial and stupid optimism, and instead said "this sucks and will continue to suck, but we have to do it anyway despite it being unpopular." Obama has been criticized for being "all rhetoric," inscrutable in his specific policies, and too idealistic. But I don't think any of those things are true, either: his positions are detailed and a matter of public record (even if you don't hear any of them in the soundbites), and he's taken his share of unpopular but responsible stances. Plus he gets huge bonus points for the first honest and mature speech about race in America by a major politician since... Lincoln?

 

So I guess my questions are: are we really moving into a different era of politics? If so, are these men part of the cause, or are their successes and tactics merely a response to a broader change? If the latter, how much of it is ABB sentiment? How much is the era of the Youtube Gotcha?

[ecoli]

I don't see how you can call Obama the least partisan. He may say that he appeals across party lines, but he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

[Sisyphus]

I don't see how you can call Obama the least partisan. He may say that he appeals across party lines, but he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

 

I don't equate "nonpartisan" with "centrist."

[Rev Blair]

I think you are moving into a different era of politics, Sisyphus. I think the highly partisan, win at all costs game that started with Reagan (actually Nixon, but he got caught) is over.

 

I don't think that will lead to a reduction in actual partisanship, though. Your system is based on partisanship causing a debate and that debate convincing people one way or the other. Every working democracy I can think of is based on that same principle.

 

What we are likely to see in the US is a little more thoughtfulness and more attention to the actual issues. Obama brings some of that, but so does McCain...these are guys who are confident enough in their policies to actually talk about them.

[Pangloss]

I don't buy the "most liberal voting record in the senate" statistic. He's only been in the senate since early 2005, which is simply not enough time for that kind of statistic to have meaningful value, and it's a little too obviously a talking point for the right. I want specifics, not talking points.

 

Great idea for a thread.

[bascule]

It's hard to get a good idea of how someone feels from their voting record alone. Obama and Clinton had fairly similar voting records, but I think it's clear from their respective campaigns that they hold some pretty different views. In fact many times Clinton felt far more akin to McCain than Obama (e.g. the "gas holiday" crap, the "who will answer the call" crap, etc.)

[ParanoiA]

I don't equate "nonpartisan" with "centrist."

 

I don't either. But, I can see how being extreme left or right could make it more difficult to be nonpartisan. Not saying Obama is one way or the other, just saying that if that's true, then it may suggest some potential hardship down the road.

 

I don't think that will lead to a reduction in actual partisanship' date=' though. Your system is based on partisanship causing a debate and that debate convincing people one way or the other. Every working democracy I can think of is based on that same principle.

 

What we are likely to see in the US is a little more thoughtfulness and more attention to the actual issues. Obama brings some of that, but so does McCain...these are guys who are confident enough in their policies to actually talk about them. [/quote']

 

Yeah, I agree. Partisanship is certainly bred in the bone since parties, whether I like it or not, get more legislation passed, more of their "shared" ideas put into law. At least if we could have more than two, it might eventually reflect certain patterns of thought more accurately.

 

More thoughtfulness and attention would be a breath of fresh air.

 

So I guess my questions are: are we really moving into a different era of politics? If so, are these men part of the cause, or are their successes and tactics merely a response to a broader change? If the latter, how much of it is ABB sentiment? How much is the era of the Youtube Gotcha?

 

I think we are moving into a different, and better era of politics. I'm just not sure how long it's going to last. It almost seems as if when we get ourselves in a pickle, we come together better, and once we get out of it, then we go back to pushing our respective agendas irreverently. Maybe that's a fairly human thing to expect.

 

I definitely believe their successes are part of the cause - well, at least compliments the seeming demand for broader change. I don't think it's tactics, although I don't know much about Obama to be credible.

 

I like what you said about McCain inheriting the Iraq war. That's exactly what I got out of his disposition anyway.

 

I know McCain won't, but I'm curious how quickly Obama could get us out of Iraq. I have a feeling it's going to be just like the democratic house elections, after all the promises, at the end of the day we're not leaving for years and years.

[Rev Blair]

Yeah, I agree. Partisanship is certainly bred in the bone since parties, whether I like it or not, get more legislation passed, more of their "shared" ideas put into law. At least if we could have more than two, it might eventually reflect certain patterns of thought more accurately.

 

I'm not sure how a multi-party system would work in your republican system. It works pretty well in the parliamentary system, especially the Westminister model, because party whips are traditionally much more powerful and minority parliaments have a long tradition.

 

That's not to say that I don't think a multi-party model would be good for the US system, I do, I just have trouble seeing how it would work.

 

Yeah, I agree. Partisanship is certainly bred in the bone since parties, whether I like it or not, get more legislation passed, more of their "shared" ideas put into law. At least if we could have more than two, it might eventually reflect certain patterns of thought more accurately.

 

More thoughtfulness and attention would be a breath of fresh air.

 

Democracy without partisanship begins to look like the old politburo in a hurry. The question is how much partisanship, and what type, is healthy.

 

The right amount raises the level of discourse...policies are discussed, probed, and adjusted. Too little leads to things like the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Too much leads to things like swiftboating.

[Sisyphus]

 

 

Democracy without partisanship begins to look like the old politburo in a hurry. The question is how much partisanship, and what type, is healthy.

 

The right amount raises the level of discourse...policies are discussed, probed, and adjusted. Too little leads to things like the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Too much leads to things like swiftboating.

 

What I mean by partisanship is not just disagreement. Partisanship, in my mind, is when "winning" for "your side" becomes an end in itself, rather than simply supporting the policy you believe in. By that definition, I think any amount of partisanship is negative, albeit completely inevitable given human nature.