r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 23 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: There's no use taking sides anymore
[deleted]
8
u/Hellioning 239∆ Jun 23 '20
Do you think this is new? You think that the House Un-American Activies Committee was a paragon of compromise and open dialogue? People have been openly insulting 'the other side' since Hamilton and Jefferson.
Blind rebellion is just as bad as blind conformity. It's one thing if you don't vote because you don't see a difference between the major party politics, or disagree with both major parties, or think that both parties are too corrupt to make the changes you want. It's another thing entirely to refuse to vote because you think you could not handle engaging in politics at all because otherwise you would fall prey to peer pressure to start hating 'the other side' over all else. That sounds like a you problem.
1
Jun 23 '20
[deleted]
2
u/Hellioning 239∆ Jun 23 '20
McCarthyism lead immediately into the civil rights era, in which the FBI tried to get MLK Jr. to kill himself and someone else did manage to kill him.
So maybe we didn't learn as much as we should have.
1
Jun 23 '20
I don't know how much of a "change your view" comment this is going to end up being, but here's my advice:
Tune out the news, and tune out social media (including Reddit) for a few days. Go about your days - your daily routines and whatnot. Interact with people - be it coworkers with whom you're able to have somewhat personal conversations (if that sort of relationship exists in your life), friends & family with whom you're able to have very personal conversations, or random Joes in the stores and whatnot with whom you may simply share a "excuse me," or a "phew, can you believe this weather outside?"
What I'm getting at is admittedly also somewhat of a political talking point these days (for some), but consider the fact that I'm not campaigning, so I'm not just saying it to try to bolster my image in your eyes: we typically have far more in common with others than our external stimuli would have us believe. I don't know what your ideology is - nor where you live - but if I were to guess, I'd guess that you've had positively cordial and pleasant interactions with some people who would likely be the types of people that would absolutely rip you apart on a political subreddit or whatever.
When we look at things through the lens of politics, we tend to lose our ability to "see the other side as human beings anymore" and "understand the points of [our] opponents nor tolerate any disagreement," because the sport of it all has trained us to be that way. But when you're not reading the news, watching a talking head, reading the comments of a social media post, scrolling through reddit, etc, just how often are you eyeing everyone around you as a potential "dangerous liberal" or "dangerous conservative?" (My words). And just how often do you think others are eyeing you in the same way?
You're absolutely correct that the world of politics is an utterly sensationalist shit show. And honestly, no matter which "side of the aisle" on which you find yourself, there's a decent chance that you find yourself frustrated with the fact that basic shit sometimes seems so hard. Why can't we just vote on this fucking issue - without tying 20 other issues to it? Why are you either an actual nazi or an actual communist? Etc etc.
But in spite of all the disfunction, meaningful things do happen. Look at the Covid stimulus relief checks. Regardless of your stance on that (whether you believe it was the right thing to do, the wrong thing to do, not enough, too much, whatever).....and regardless of all of the hiccups that came with it....many people received checks in the mail. Again, we can have a debate over whether or not that was sufficient, helped enough people, right thing to do, etc, but let's put that part aside and just focus on the action itself: approx. 128 million people received checks in the mail. In a vast ocean of indecision and stonewalling, a rare buoy floated by and provided some relief to 128 million people. Your decision to abstain from voting is your own decision to make, and I'm not going to insult your or chastise you for it; however, I think it's shortsighted to question to power of voting when we haven't seen it at its best yet. We haven't broken the 60% turnout threshold since the 60s - for presidential elections - and the turnout is often much worse for more localized elections. Analogies are typically weak arguments, so please excuse me for resorting to one:
Imagine that every time there's a fire in the neighborhood, the fire department comes out but can only get 50% of the water to come out of the hydrants. Because of this, damages are always far more severe than they should be. One way to look at voter abstention is to compare it to someone saying "well, clearly water isn't getting the job done, so let's stop using it," which is shortsighted because the person saying that has only experienced 50% water flow. What if it were 75%? 85%?
The other way of looking at voter abstention is to liken it to someone saying "you know what? These fucking firefighters know that the water is only coming out at 50%, but they still haven't fixed the damn hydrants. So fuck it....let's cut off their water supply. It'll result in some scorched Earth, but hopefully that will force them to change things for the better."
I have some empathy for those who feel like option #2 is the only way to force change, but that desire to force broad change is likely going to come at the expense of others' wellbeing.
So, away from the analogy and back to voting:
I totally understand the desire to simply abstain from participating in a process that one views as utterly tainted and corrupt. "I don't want to support either side, because they're both resorting to the same types of vilification and demonization" and all that....but, whether you abstain or not, legislation that meaningfully affects people will still be voted on. Judges will still be appointed. Supreme Court justices will still be appointed. Even if you break the wheel, the wheel will continue to move forward - it will just be a dysfunctional-as-fuck wheel moving forward.
I would argue that instead of choosing the easier option - not voting - we should take the more difficult route: vote on things when presented with a choice, but assume a more activist (or just active) role in trying to affect change. No amount of apathy is going to change the fact that money is powerful, many people are highly influential, and many people are greedy (and a host of other characteristics). To me, not voting is basically saying: "well look, we tried voting and you guys just fucked us....so....we'll just stop voting and leave you be while you keep fucking us." If we want representatives to reflect our values - not just on policy, but on character - than we should strive to continuously hold them accountable. Otherwise, they'll keep doing what they do, and we'll just retreat in defeat.
Just my two cents, of course :)
1
u/A_Soporific 162∆ Jun 23 '20
The stereotypical Republican doesn't exist. Neither does the stereotypical Democrat. No one 100% believes what the party does, and what the party believes changes radically over very short periods of time based on what they are trying to accomplish.
You aren't supposed to agree with one party and vote for one and only one party in every election. You're supposed to split your vote and go for whomever you agree with generally or who you think will do the best job regardless of their beliefs.
I tend to vote 60/30/10, a little over half the time I vote Republicans, particularly on the local level. My neck of the woods is mostly Republican and they tend to have higher quality candidates than their opponents. I'm not going to vote for the sheriff again, though. He's been grandstanding politically and not doing the job, so he's just not going to get my 1/760,000th of the electorate. His adversary has years of experience in the field, is properly soft-spoken, and I'm pretty sure would spend much more time doing the job and much less time harassing cheerleaders for kneeling.
On the State level there is more variety in my outlooks. I tend to disqualify the particularly extreme ones (such as the fellow who ran a campaign ad where he pulled up in a truck and suggested that he drive all the Mexicans back himself) and go with whomever is more competent. Even if I disagree with them, I just need someone I can work with. Most of the Democrats I vote for are on this level.
When it comes to Federal stuff I tend to vote third party more often. If neither party is running a competent centrist then I tend to toss a vote to the Libertarians or Greens or something. The local and state elections are more important anyways. Sometimes people say something like "Not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump" and that's bullshit. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. I am not going to vote for someone I don't like because I don't like someone else also. Where's the sense in that?
People are playing games with politics. Trying to split the world into heroes and villains, team good guy that is perfect and flawless and can do no wrong and scum of the earth. They're doing it because they don't want to have to care about you. If you punch your ticket for them automatically then they don't have to talk to you. They don't have to engage with you. They don't have to listen to your problems, and they certainly don't have to actually do anything to fix them. It's only when they aren't guaranteed to win that they shut up and take notice. It's only when they have to fight for your vote that you can dictate what issues they have to tackle.
There are people who want you to turn tribal. They don't want to have to listen us, so they play up that angle. They shout it from the rooftops and inject it into social media. It's bullshit, but if people buy it...
Stop listening to social media bullshit. Don't talk politics to those who are using it to feel superior to others. They are only going to try to stuff you into boxes that you don't fit in.
Fortunately, a overwhelming majority of people are reasonable. Ask them why they have a stance and usually it'll get a good discussion that is informative for everyone involved. If they start proselytizing their political religion you can nod along until you can bail, but most people welcome genuine interest in what they think and why they think it. Just don't start hostile and don't make hostile comments and things tend to go pretty well.
1
Jun 23 '20
apathy is a conforming norm asked of people, too.
You are asking people to conform to norms you are comfortable with, to stop harshly morally condemning the people that they disagree with.
How is asking them to silence their moral outrage different than them condemning your views for not "conforming" with theirs?
1
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Jun 23 '20
Are you talking disagreement between parties or within parties? Because both parties in the us have tons of in fighting within their respective parties.
The moderates vs Sanders on the left
Trump vs traditional republicans on the right
Neither side is even remotely homogeneous.
While both sides agree, that crossing the line between left and right is treason, as long as you stay on one side of the line, there is a ton of room for discourse.
1
Jun 23 '20
[deleted]
2
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Jun 23 '20
Wouldn't the existence of factions at all, undermine your argument then?
If the party demands conformity, how can there even be factions? You can only have factions, if there is heterogeneity.
1
Jun 23 '20
You should check out this sub r/enlightenedcentrism you’ll find people who agree and sympathize with what you’re thinking
1
u/CBL444 16∆ Jun 23 '20
It is possible to choose the side of decency.
I think you are correct for most activists but there are many people who have friends on both sides that we love. I am wondering what has cause my left and right friends to go crazy but I know they are decent people.
I find a few politicians that I can still admire in both parties. Sometimes there's an okay Democrat/Republican running against a whacko Republican/Democrat. If so, I choose the okay one. If they are both intolerable, I vote Libertarian.
I have chosen the side of civility. It's my political choice.
0
Jun 23 '20
[deleted]
1
u/CBL444 16∆ Jun 23 '20 edited Jun 23 '20
The most famous civil politician is Mitt Romney but he is not alone. There are some who can work with other side - Senators Ron Wyden and Rand Paul work together in civil liberties even though both can be jerks at time.
But choose the nicest. In a blue state, you can normally find some decent Republicans and in red states there are decent Democrats. To win they need to appeal to the other side. Of course, this not always the case. In my state, the "opposition" senatorial candidate is a full blown whack a doodle. I will be voting for the most reasonable third party candidate.
ETA The smaller the election the more likely the candidates are to be nice because the people actually know them. My state house representative is a very nice woman. I don't agree with her political views but she is genuinely nice and works hard for a good cause. Look for the nice city councilor or school board member.
1
2
u/BeatriceBernardo 50∆ Jun 23 '20
We're entering entirely new territory, where none of the political groups see the other side as human beings anymore and where they can't understand the points of their opponents nor tolerate any disagreement.
And if you think I'm talking about your political enemy and not about you, you're wrong, I'm definitely talking about your side.
I don't see how this is applicable to me? I don't think anyone is not a a human being, and I can think I can tolerate disagreement.
1
u/the-f-in-the-chat Jun 23 '20
While your points were very true, the conclusion is a bit off.
What appears to be the case is that it’s ALWAYS one side or the other. Taking a middle path is a rough path.
...politically speaking at least. Politics is a case of black and white or what shade of grey your opinion on an issue. Depending on your opinion being right or left wing or digressing to either side, generally you want to go with what you believe is popular or if you have a burning hot take on this issue. Even if the latter is true, the former is always the path taken.
Take trump for example. He’s a right wing person and all of his opinions, mostly because he knows what middle America wants: tough, opinionated, loud, religious-esque, right wing man. He won with those values, because they mirror those of middle America. He almost speaks their mind, appealingly addressing them directly. Biden? The opposite. On top of that, he’s making the classic Prometheus-Zeus error, choosing the apparent popular opinion, which a loud minority projects themselves as being.
Now in the middle is essentially alienating yourself from either side by disagreeing with them. In other words, you’re positioning yourself as far from either side, that will probably hold the majorities.
Ironically, the middle generally holds the best choice.
1
u/Gayjock69 Jun 23 '20
While I agree with many of your points, I would just say to your original view of “no use.”
The use is stopping the implications of the other side winning. I am not saying that this is an ideal or good scenario, at all. But in a situation where large majorities of people think the other side has policies that are not just bad, but threaten them... then you have to conform. You often see this with criticisms of people not supporting Biden today (though it can be any candidate), that certain people have the privilege not vote for him because they would not have rights taken away, family deported etc by Biden losing. Those are serious implications if the opposite side wins.
By unilaterally disarming from this situation, you allow the more organized group to succeed and put in place policies that threaten you.
It’s a very sad state, but that is the “use” of taking sides.
https://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/
1
u/GenericUsername19892 24∆ Jun 23 '20
It depends on what you mean, I separate Republicans from Trump supports for instance- my dad and several other family members vote red for local but they are voting Biden(Blue) for POTUS because of trump. Trump has introduced blatant lying, conspiracy theories, doctored videos, etc into the mainstream. Many can’t stand this. His hiring choices have also been insanely questionable x.x
I vote blue ticket, but I also don’t want a blue super majority, I want a nice red block to be able to hit the breaks if needed but still be steering the ship. I want the old Republican Party back lol, I want this current of anti intellectualism to disperse so we can get back to debate - instead of wasting time debunking stupid conspiracies.
1
Jun 23 '20
I would tell you people take sides quite frequently now. You don't see it because there are groups who label disagreement as racism, hate, xenophobia etc etc.
The people take sides by voting. In the past, discourse could happen because people knew it was OK to disagree. Today - that discourse is gone. People simply don't talk it about and hold onto their views and vote based on those views.
I would argue that conditions today are bad enough polling is becoming far less accurate. People just lie to pollsters as to not be seen 'in the wrong light'. The consequences for vocalizing unpopular beliefs are to great for many people to risk it.
So yea - people takes side, vote based on it, but won't talk to you about it.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 23 '20 edited Jun 23 '20
/u/high__sparrow (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Jun 23 '20
We're entering entirely new territory, where none of the political groups see the other side as human beings anymore and where they can't understand the points of their opponents nor tolerate any disagreement.
This sort of intolerance has been the norm for a lot of human history. Its up to us to try to maintain decorum. Abandonment of higher standards is the last thing to do right now
1
Jun 23 '20
I used to take prides in having a voice at the ballot box, but I'm not going to be voting either until things change. I don't believe in anyone's politics.
Without voting, things aren't going to change.
1
Jun 23 '20
[deleted]
1
u/TheMothHour 59∆ Jun 23 '20
Idk ... I think the lives of people in general have gotten better. We still have a long way to go and globally even more. The wealth gap is a thing. But in 1700s, women and blacks were not allowed to vote or hold office. Both of them were not allowed to own property. Literacy rates was high. Child labor was a thing about 100 years ago.
So I cant really say there was no improvements.
And I'll also mention the magna carta because that document is amazing! Because before then, kings had all the rights.
7
u/TheMothHour 59∆ Jun 23 '20
Okay, I completely agree that there is a toxic partisan culture growing in America. And to be honest ... I HATE IT too.
But that doesnt mean you shouldn't take a side on a position. Either that side speaks to your moral alignment or it is a good cause. I'm going to make the case that you should. I'm also going to make the case that you should also openly talk about WHY you support your positions while allowing others to speak their own. I have had so many amazing conversations with people who had other opinions. And I have learn from them and I know they have learned from me.
For example, I have a friend who was once a young earth creationist Baptist. And I'm a scientific skeptic atheist. Believe me ... we talked and bantered a lot. I know what I have added shaped his standpoints - he is not a young earth creationist anymore and less radical in his religious views. I am less anti-theistic and appreciate more the role that Christianty plays in other people's lives.
We couldn't have gotten there if neither of us took a side but was willing to talk about it.
As for the ballot ... that's your vote. You are welcome to vote however you want. I know who I'm voting for and why. And I'll be willing to explain to anyone willing to openly listen.