Well, I think you have thoroughly misinterpreted my comments. But more important, the kind of nastiness in your posts is a fine example of the problem that concerns me.eace
Lincoln and Douglas knew each other from way back. They had a lot of respect for each other, and Lincoln in particular was a likable person. The example of the Lincoln-Douglas debates is unique in many ways even in that time because both men knew the other was speaking in good faith. Even so, both men could go for the throat and did. Over all, it was an abiding faith in democracy that was on display. Both men put their arguments out as clearly as they could manage and had faith that the public would favor the best argument.
That faith in the public was probably the key. Modern campaigns seem to have lost that faith.eace
There's no hostility, Jack. Little sarcasm, maybe. You're too sensitive, dude.Well, I think you have thoroughly misinterpreted my comments. But more important, the kind of nastiness in your posts is a fine example of the problem that concerns me.eace
There's no hostility, Jack. Little sarcasm, maybe. You're too sensitive, dude.
I couldn't misinterpret your posts. There's no ambiguity there.
"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
Sort of. I tend to suspect that our "leaders" are in fact, guided by their subordinates, who do the hard work of researching, thinking, and making decisions on their behalf. Those people are the ones engaging in actual meaningful and thoughtful political discussions. It's simply taking place outside of visibility.
Perhaps you are or were a seasoned staff officer? I take your point, but shouldn't leaders cull the best of their subordinates' work to lead the public discussion?eace
It used to happen.eace
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.
I think that's exactly right. The cynical ways in which they couch their messages these days signals the contempt they have for the electorate.
Most likely the unavoidable consequence of democracy, as it came to bestow enfranchisement upon the masses, as opposed to being the privileged conclaves of a minority. I know of no time or place when political discourse was absent at least some spirited banter. It's always been messy.I'll accept that, but there was a time of better adherence to decorum and rules of conduct. And a time when there was an effort to do most the scuffling behind closed doors. Each has their problems, but today the show is about extremely negative we can paint everyone. And it's nasty, not just run of the mill painting.
Most likely the unavoidable consequence of democracy, as it came to bestow enfranchisement upon the masses, as opposed to being the privileged conclaves of a minority. I know of no time or place when political discourse was absent at least some spirited banter. It's always been messy.
I'm not sure I'd refer to this as messy. I think it's much worse than that. It almost to the point that rational discourse can't take place at all.
IMV, we are reaping the divisiveness sown through several decades of judicial activism's attempts to shape society...
Not sure I buy that. The courts are one of the checks and balances. I think the level has been amped by the Eco chamber that is the new media. Controversy sells.
There is no controversy to sell without what our courts are doing. We're not legislating anymore, it's not needed; we're looking for a court to support our views...
I don't believe that either. I really don't.
Do you think Congress is legislating?
Well, as they always have, they don't set the world afire. Though the vitriol makes compromise more difficult.
That said, the court still have mostly merely dealt with the law and arguments before them. There will always be a winner and a loser. Losers need to regroup and make better arguments. If losers always say the court is legislating, how can the courts ever function?
The courts have no business legislating and/or creating rights from the bench. The latest fiasco of upholding the PPACA mandate as a tax is the latest example where SCOTUS ignored everything that was said during the debate on the legislation and ruled that individuals in this country could be forced to purchase a service or face what was described during that debate as a penalty...
There's no bucking historical inertia. No amount of screaming and shouting will thwart progression. This is one aspect of process that Conservatism fails to address. Which is why it's always stymied by time.I'm not sure I'd refer to this as messy. I think it's much worse than that. It almost to the point that rational discourse can't take place at all.
There is no controversy to sell without what our courts are doing. We're not legislating anymore, it's not needed; we're looking for a court to support our views...
"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
Excellent post. I don't think it will ever go back to that level until corporate the money is taken out, and people treat politics as more than a popularity contest.
That is my simplified opinion.
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?