- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. . . . A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details." --George Orwell
Orwell wrote that a long time ago, and things don't seem to have improved in the interim. Yet this is a country that once produced the Lincoln-Douglas debates, to cite only one example. Will we ever again see (or hear) clear, meaningful, thoughtful political discussion and debate by our leaders and candidates?eace
It appears to me that we may have to go over the cliff before anything changes!It's sad that few appear to be willing to take a chance on putting Country before Party to prevent it, because they know they will be demonized by their own party. Meanwhile, our debt increases by $10 million dollars per minute, and no one seems to care... :shock:
Good evening, Jack! :2wave:
There is plenty of serious debate to be had. The problem is multi-faceted though....
1. People tune into various "color" commentators to tell them what the debate is. Even if unintentional, almost everything is presented with a bias however slight(or egregious). sometimes even supposedly "centrist" shows will frame questions to their guests or listeners that betray their bias, without explicitly stating it. I call this subliminal bias. They won't come out and beat you over the head with bias, but it's framed in a way that gets you to think about that issue from their point of view.
2. People don't typically have the expertise or education to be knowledgeable on such a wide range of subjects. They basically have to accept the presentation of the debate as either being true to support their own bias, or fear that the presentation is true if it counters their own bias.
3. Even within several industries and topics there are qualified experts and educators that debate issues within their own community. So it's not hard to find two people, equally educated and experienced, to contradict the other creating a confusing mess of a topic. Thus you can find an expert to confirm your bias, or one to expose your opponents bias.
I see your points, but I was thinking more of the exchanges between our candidates and leaders than the cacophony of hired talking heads.eace
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. . . . A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details." --George Orwell
Orwell wrote that a long time ago, and things don't seem to have improved in the interim. Yet this is a country that once produced the Lincoln-Douglas debates, to cite only one example. Will we ever again see (or hear) clear, meaningful, thoughtful political discussion and debate by our leaders and candidates?eace
I don't remember politicians ever speaking honestly. There are two ways people can talk, one is the way we would like things to be and the other is the way things will likely be. They basically make a sales pitch on their vision of how we would like things, not reality. Nobody would elect or follow someone telling the truth.
It used to happen.eace
Maybe in Lincolns day though I doubt there have been a lot of honest politicians since. It's just the way it is. I think Ross Perot was trying to be truthful but his picking of such a seemingly inept running mate killed his chances.
Ha! I voted for Perot, although I wasn't impressed by Stockdale. Honesty is a big part of what I'm talking about, but it's not all of it. Here's also vision. Lincoln certainly makes the cut, but I'd consider TR, FDR, Truman and Eisenhower too.eace
Jack: in my opinion with all of the special interest groups and big businesses out there that buys lawmakers, those days are long gone.
There was never any golden age of candour. By its very nature, political discourse is skewed; its prerogative is contention. Don't fall for misplaced nostalgia."Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. . . . A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details." --George Orwell
Orwell wrote that a long time ago, and things don't seem to have improved in the interim. Yet this is a country that once produced the Lincoln-Douglas debates, to cite only one example. Will we ever again see (or hear) clear, meaningful, thoughtful political discussion and debate by our leaders and candidates?eace
When?It used to happen.eace
When?
Most famous or the only one you're aware of? This was a marathon of reciprocity, why?The most famous example would be the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Most famous or the only one you're aware of? This was a marathon of reciprocity, why?
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. . . . A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details." --George Orwell
Orwell wrote that a long time ago, and things don't seem to have improved in the interim. Yet this is a country that once produced the Lincoln-Douglas debates, to cite only one example. Will we ever again see (or hear) clear, meaningful, thoughtful political discussion and debate by our leaders and candidates?eace
Two more paragons.Nixon-Kennedy was also conducted at a high level.
Two more paragons.
God and Moses.Eisenhower & Stevenson never debated face to face, but their public discourse was at a high level.
God and Moses.
I trust there's some common denominator?
It became prescriptive once you attempted to support it with examples. You said people used to follow honest politicians. I asked you when. You responded with three examples that didn't follow.My original post was descriptive, not prescriptive. I asked a question; I did not claim to have an answer.eace
It became prescriptive once you attempted to support it with examples. You said people used to follow honest politicians. I asked you when. You responded with three examples that didn't follow.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?