We all know that American party politics are silly. Democrats and Republicans throw out accusations at each other, attempting to discredit the other or make them sound bad. Most of the time the tables are turned in a matter of months, with one party calling out the other for the exact same thing in reverse.
For instance, I've heard a lot of Democrats recently calling Republicans "The Party of No". Just this morning on "Meet the Press", good ol' Virginia outgoing governor Timmy Kaine criticized Republicans for "saying no to everything."
Here's the problem: saying "No" is not a bad thing. Maybe Timmy forgot but it was actually a good thing when Democrats (some of them) said "No" to the war in Iraq. Maybe it would be good if someone stood up to Obama now and said "No" to escalating the unwinnable war in Afghanistan.
Maybe it would have been a good thing if someone had said "No" to federal laws which mandated that home mortgages be given to borrowers who couldn't afford them -- the collapse of which precipitated our current economic recession.
Maybe it would have been a good thing if someone had said "No" to the invasions of American citizens' privacy contained in the Patriot Act and numerous other pieces of legislation enacted during the Fear after 9/11.
In fact, I would venture a guess that more damage comes from those in power not saying "No" than comes from those same people slowing down, examining what they are being asked to approve and actually questioning and stopping something that will cause more harm than good.
This is the problem with American politics. Instead of identifying problems, and working efficiently to solve them, using historical facts for comparison and tradition as a solid basis, our politicians just go about calling each other names, attempting to discredit their opponents, and making pointless, stupid accusations from their "talking points." Instead of thinking critically and pragmatically (or realistically) about what needs to be done, politicans think about how to make their opponents look worse or themselves look better... often in that order.
To me, saying "No" is a good thing. It illustrates that you think critically; that you don't just assume someone means well and accept what they're selling you. Moreover, to criticize someone for "always saying No" doesn't tell me that they're wrong, it tells me that you're an idiot who either can't think for himself, or doesn't think others should think for themselves.
And you wonder why I question the usefulness of representative democracy.
6 comments:
Interesting...
C.S. Lewis writes a lot about how everything bad in this world is an exaggeration of something good - no moderation on a good thing brings it to excess, where it turns to something bad (i.e. food/obesity; sex/rape; possessions/greed).
It's an important concept to grasp, especially in a society where "no" makes us want to grab our revolutionary weapons and fight against the British. But "no," when used to temper the frequency of "yes" only makes our freedom stronger.
Great post - thanks!
Your point isn't lost, but I think it's totally off base as it concerns the current political discourse. I mean you have mcconnell passing out "how to obstruct" pamphlets to party members. Reading the bill in its entirety on the floor? what? delaying that senate vote until xmas eve was simply an attempt to make the process last until the final possible moment - and this was an unashamed admission!
Dissent and careful consideration are healthy, but this kind of "no" is not useful. Really makes me wish we would re-work our system of representation b/c right now it just creates Congress that is way more polarized and hostile towards the other side than the median voter.
(ps i can't work the internet..attempt #3)
John, in your last paragraph you reiterate my point. Saying "No" just to say "No" is of course just as foolish as deriding someone for always saying no. And both sides are guilty of both sins. Which was my overall point.
Republicans and Democrats are cut from the same cloth. Though they bicker and argue over things, they are basically the same.
However, do you think the bitterness between both sides is a result of our system of representation, or simply a result of our leaders having to face elections in which they have to answer to ill-informed masses who respond with a herd mentality to their chosen pundits (Glen Beck or Keith Olbermann, both of whom are marked by distinctly uncritical thought)?
I truly believe it is an artifact of our specific (and antiquated) representation system. That includes the rules around term limits adn things of the like. Most voters identify themselves as independent and centrist. (Even in Massachusetts, apparently) I think I am pretty average, and I wouldn't sit there and blindly follow around these obviously biased talking heads. Not that it doesn't happen at the margin, but that's okay.
I'm not sympathetic to the argument that an "uninformed" constituency can't arrive at an adequate result if their opinions can be aggregated in an appropriate manner. First, the average voter is more "informed" than the average American, and second I believe that any kind of errors people are making should roughly cancel themselves out (I feel a lot more strongly about this happening in a presidential election than a Congressional one b/c of the increased diversity of the electorate. Still a weird process though).
Have you ever read "the wisdom of crowds?" I noticed in your post on books a few you mentioned wanting to read were those pop-sociology books so it might be right up your alley. Definitely recommend it before Blink or Outliers if you haven't read it.
John, thanks for the thoughts and the book recommendation.
Post a Comment