Justice Stevens to Retire Soon

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by NonCon

When the Republicans stop being violently opposed to socialized health care, stop being opposed to gay marriage, stop trying to continue Don't Ask Don't Tell, and just generally grow the fuck up, then maybe I'll consider bipartisanship a thing that should happen.

You shouldn't generalize everyone who calls him or herself a "Republican" like that.

I mean I don't even consider myself a Republican anymore, I'm officially an Independent, but I know plenty of people (including friends and family members) who consider themselves Republican or conservative and who don't actively oppose gay marriage or hate minorities, and who actually have brains in their heads and treat their opponents with respect.

The Tea Party and the likes of Beck and Limbaugh have hijacked the movement, but that doesn't mean everyone's on board with their shenanigans.

Insofar as you might believe that every Republican or conservative is violently opposed to everything you hold dear, and given the attitude permeating through your argument, the ultimate irony may well be that you're every bit as much a part of the problem as the members of the Tea Party you're probably so upset with. They, like you, are driven by the irrational beliefs that all those who disagree with their positions on certain complex policy issues are violent, destructive, and immature malcontents brazenly attempting to force their extremist agenda.

The real world's a heck of a lot more complicated with that, with a great many shades of grey coloring the beliefs and actions of each individual. And the real question is whether you fall into the hyper-partisan trap of assuming that your opponents are all eeevviiilll, heartless enemies deserving only of being crushed on a metaphorical battlefield, or if you see them as fellow human beings -- flawed, yet genuinely decent people striving to improve the lives of their friends and family, possibly misled by leaders they've invested in but earnestly hoping for a better future -- and actually attempt to persuade them that your side is just without resorting to all the pointless divisive name-calling and mud-slinging.

Originally Posted by Wigmund

What controversy? You're just saying that it would be for the best if Obama replaced judges with more moderate ones. Meanwhile everyone else here (myself included) think the President should grow a pair, go bounce them off the heads of the leading Republicans, and nominate more liberal justices so we don't have to worry about stupid shits like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

No, if that's the message you've gotten from my arguments I think you've misunderstood my point.
(Strange, however, that I seem capable of going from being perceived as "mainstream liberal" in one topic and back to "sinister conservative" in another.)

I'm arguing in favor of Obama's best interests. I'm arguing, in a roundabout way, for the progression of his ideals and policies. In the long-term, sometimes the most counterintuitive route is the necessary one to take to ensure that Obama and Democrats stay in power so the majority of their policy goals can be fulfilled. (This argument was coincidentally used against me in the recent environmentalism thread, but I generally draw a bright line between "Issues That Will Destroy Our Planet" and "Procedural Issues Regarding a Branch of Government that Will Not Destroy Our Planet."

I mean, I dunno, it's just bizarre to me that a perspective from someone at worst ambivalent towards (at best mildly favoring) Obama would be met with so much hostility. It's not as if I'm arguing Obama should appoint more moderate justices because I want Obama to fall into a sinister trap and I want the Federalist Society's originalist interpretations to win the day. My own personal "plain meaning" libertarian philosophy of the judiciary favors neither Obama's likely appointees nor the Scalia-Thomas neoconservative approach of enlarged Executive powers. But my own personal preferences have nothing to do with my objective feelings on this subject, as my argument against partisanship cuts against any ideological bent and I'd apply the same philosophy if I myself were President and responsible for appointing judicial nominees.

(But based on your strenuous and rather livid objections, you'd think I just wrote "OBAMA SUKS SOCIALISM MUS DYE TEA PARTEYS 4EVA." I'm not the enemy!)

[Kim]

You know what? Your friends and family who call themselves republicans/conservatives but aren't the way I'm generalizing the party don't matter. Why? Because they aren't the ones in charge of the party. Glenn Beck and all those assholes who are the way I generalize the party are the ones running the republican show. When your progressive republican friends and family are the ones whose opinion matters to the uppity ups, let me know.

The real world's a heck of a lot more complicated with that, with a great many shades of grey coloring the beliefs and actions of each individual. And the real question is whether you fall into the hyper-partisan trap of assuming that your opponents are all eeevviiilll, heartless enemies deserving only of being crushed on a metaphorical battlefield, or if you see them as fellow human beings -- flawed, yet genuinely decent people striving to improve the lives of their friends and family, possibly misled by leaders they've invested in but earnestly hoping for a better future -- and actually attempt to persuade them that your side is just without resorting to all the pointless divisive name-calling and mud-slinging.

Glenn Beck and everyone who fellates his opinion deserves every demeaning, rude, and dismissive insult I can think up, and probably plenty that haven't even occured to me.

[POS Industries]

Well, the nominee can still be moderate. That's fine, and if Obama was able to find someone who didn't particularly give a flying fuck about political wedge issues and was purely interested in coming in and working with everyone on the Court in order for them to all do their jobs proper, I'd be perfectly okay with that.

What I do not want is for him to specifically nominate a conservative--even a moderate one--just for the sake of trying to make himself look better in the eyes of the rest of the conservatives, because that's not going to make anything better. Fox News will still call it a socialist plot and the Teabaggers will eat it up and continue hating him.

Meanwhile, the whole thing would pretty much be political suicide for most of the Democratic Party, as they either disenfranchise their base by going along with Obama's conservative pick or they further tear themselves apart with infighting and publicly waste everyone's time by fighting it. In both cases, they basically hand the Republicans control over both legislative and executive branches, as they've divided their voter base against itself and against them while the Republicans continue with their unified supporters.

So they either risk voter backlash by getting stuff accomplished or guarantee it by just rolling over and giving the Republicans what they want. But hey, with the latter at least they won over that handful of swing voters, amirite?

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by NonCon

Glenn Beck and everyone who fellates his opinion deserves every demeaning, rude, and dismissive insult I can think up, and probably plenty that haven't even occured to me.

Glenn Beck himself? Heck yes. Absolutely. I completely agree with you. All his beliefs are in the public forum, and he's an easy and meritorious target for your vitriol.

But: All of his followers? Everyone who believes in him? That's where you lose me. Because generalizing everyone who agrees with Glenn Beck is...well...generalizing an awful lot people.

Example: My grandparents watch Glenn Beck. They love him. They also have relatives who are gay (and married), and they aren't terribly interested in opposing their rights to a happy marriage. They also have grandchildren who've aborted, and they remain blissfully ignorant regarding those "sins." Though I doubt they have a strong opinion about abortion, or about gays in the military. Ethnic minorities are a somewhat tougher issue, because they grew up in a different time. But much to my surprise, they were accepting of my cousin when she chose to marry a Turkish man and equally accepting of another cousin of mine who is in a relationship (and has had a child) with a Hispanic man.

It'd be easy to implement your criterion and say my grandparents are "bad people." Without even meeting them. Without even tasting my grandmother's delicious baked cookies or enjoying their wondrous hospitality. Truth of the matter is, my grandparents are jaded, and Glenn Beck speaks to the fact that they feel isolated and unrepresented by the political process. Problem really is, Glenn Beck doesn't fully represent their own political beliefs. They just don't think about the political ramifications of many of Beck's positions. They enjoy the entertainment, and the sense that someone shares in their general rage against the government that taxes them and seems to forget they exist. Beyond that, they really don't care about many of the issues Glenn turns into apocalyptic disaster scenarios. They agree with Glenn almost after the fact, after he's persuaded them with his rants and raves and they've heard no voice of opposition.

I'm sure a Democrat who met with them could convince them that Glenn Beck's positions were wrong, in large part because (unlike me, perhaps unlike you) my grandparents aren't expressly political people and they don't think constantly about their lives in terms of political developments. It's very much on the backburner. Their families, their health, their livelihoods have all come first. For the vast majority of Americans, including the vast majority who watch and "support" Beck or Limbaugh, this is the truth. They were born and raised conservative, but never were expressly involved in the political scene long enough to think about their beliefs. They had other areas of concern, other goals to pursue, and analyzing the consequences of a particular policy initiative wasn't among their strengths. Some people are great at government, as some are great at math and some are great at writing -- and some people just aren't built to consider socio-political issues in depth. I'd consider my grandparents wonderful people, with many strengths that have helped them build wonderful relationships with friends and family over the years, but they're not particularly savvy or gifted political thinkers.

And there are many more out there like them.

Just because the most vocal advocates of Glenn Beck are the zany Tea Partiers protesting with their giant signs around Washington D.C. and making ludicrous statements, doesn't mean you should associate everyone with the most extreme crazies of the bunch. That's just stereotyping -- the same stereotyping we decry when applied to minorities (even when it could be argued that those stereotypes have a degree of accuracy to them, we still decry them as they're far from universal constants. A disproportionate percentage of African Americans may live in the city and like rap music, but we can't generalize and apply that to every African American, just as we can't say every African American is a liberal Democrat.)

I'm just sayin', it's funny how you're actually a part of the problem you're decrying. By perpetuating the notion of Us against Them, pure good against pure evil in their starkest terms, and by colorizing all those who listen to a certain person or act a certain way as evil and unredeemable, you're only serving to heighten the civil discordance that threatens to topple over this nation. You're arguably every bit as much a part of the problem as the Tea Partiers are, only you're on the opposite side of the divide.

[Archbio]

You're arguably every bit as much a part of the problem as the Tea Partiers are, only you're on the opposite side of the divide.

That's assuming that "The Problem" is this divide, that there's no underlying problem with regressive politics.

Edit: Just generally, the idea that people should assume that the people who support and vote for politicians and pundits who run on platform of depriving people of their rights just don't really share these opinions isn't just asking really too much charity; it's not actually relevant. Results speak for themselves.

[POS Industries]

Well, Snake, it's great that your grandparents are nice people, and I'm sure that if the large share of Republicans were like them that America would probably be a much better place where we all got along great when it came to political discourse. But the sad truth is that they're not, and every attempt you make to liken complaints about the obstructionist partisanship and outright petty and childish behavior currently being displayed by the Republican Party in general to insults directed squarely at poor, innocent Grammy and Grampy Snake aren't really doing anything to prove your point.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Glenn Beck himself? Heck yes. Absolutely. I completely agree with you. All his beliefs are in the public forum, and he's an easy and meritorious target for your vitriol.

But: All of his followers? Everyone who believes in him? That's where you lose me. Because generalizing everyone who agrees with Glenn Beck is...well...generalizing an awful lot people.

Do you want to personalize it? Do you really want to play that game? Everyone who agrees with Glenn Beck, by necessity, falls into two categories. Terrible people and stupid people. Either they're stupid enough to believe the shit that Glenn Beck spews, or their terrible enough to actually agree with his views. If you want to personalize it and say that I'm saying your grandparents are terrible/stupid people, you go right ahead and do that. I'm not going to stop you. When I make this argument, I'm already know I'm saying that my parents, whom I love, are terrible/stupid people. If that doesn't change my opinion, your grandma's cookies certainly won't.

EDIT: I believe it was George Carlin who said everyone is stupid, but not everyone is stupid about everything or all the time. Please keep that in mind.

[POS Industries]

There. Now you may object to insults directed squarely at your grandparents and be well within your right to do so.

Christ...

[Wigmund]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

It'd be easy to implement your criterion and say my grandparents are "bad people." Without even meeting them. Without even tasting my grandmother's delicious baked cookies or enjoying their wondrous hospitality. Truth of the matter is, my grandparents are jaded, and Glenn Beck speaks to the fact that they feel isolated and unrepresented by the political process. Problem really is, Glenn Beck doesn't fully represent their own political beliefs. They just don't think about the political ramifications of many of Beck's positions. They enjoy the entertainment, and the sense that someone shares in their general rage against the government that taxes them and seems to forget they exist. Beyond that, they really don't care about many of the issues Glenn turns into apocalyptic disaster scenarios. They agree with Glenn almost after the fact, after he's persuaded them with his rants and raves and they've heard no voice of opposition.

Most of the general rage I hear from Beck and his followers (sensible or not) is that they're terrified that the country is changing. It's no longer majority white, majority Christian. We've entered the beginning of a time where there's no true majority in this country. Some people can't handle it, others embrace it.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

I'm just sayin', it's funny how you're actually a part of the problem you're decrying. By perpetuating the notion of Us against Them, pure good against pure evil in their starkest terms, and by colorizing all those who listen to a certain person or act a certain way as evil and unredeemable, you're only serving to heighten the civil discordance that threatens to topple over this nation. You're arguably every bit as much a part of the problem as the Tea Partiers are, only you're on the opposite side of the divide.

That's the joy of American politics, every once in awhile we hit a point where everything violently explodes and there's bloodshed and pillaging and all sorts of fun uncivil stuff going on.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Well, Snake, it's great that your grandparents are nice people, and I'm sure that if the large share of Republicans were like them that America would probably be a much better place where we all got along great when it came to political discourse. But the sad truth is that they're not, and every attempt you make to liken complaints about the obstructionist partisanship and outright petty and childish behavior currently being displayed by the Republican Party in general to insults directed squarely at poor, innocent Grammy and Grampy Snake aren't really doing anything to prove your point.

But, don't you see?

(Or maybe I'm just doing a really poor job of making my case.)

The Republicans you rightfully despise are hoping you call their actions as obstructionist partisanship and decry their outright petty and childish behavior!

They benefit from your doing so!

The more you buy into the Us v. Them psychology, the more you buy into the notion that Republicans are all ubiquitously evil and irredeemable, the more you (and Democrats of all shapes and sizes) fall into the exact trap of performing the exact actions the Republicans in positions of power want you to take. They want you to segregate yourselves from anyone who's ever watched a Glenn Beck show or anyone who's ever attended a Tea Party rally, for any reason whatsoever. They want you to espouse the notion that all those individuals, with their disparate backgrounds and different socioeconomic situations, are all collectively the big bad boss that must be slain.

It empowers them. It only justifies their narrative. Their narrative, after all, relies on your hatred -- just as yours relies on theirs. To keep their supporters in line, the Republicans rely on paranoia...just as the Democrats do. They take the statements you and Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart and exasperated Democrats in the House and Senate say and hold them up and declare: "They hate you! They view you and everything and everyone you love as parasites to destroy! They want the government to succeed in forcing socialized Health Care upon us, on making us pay for their privileges! They want us to lose every war we fight, sacrifice human lives to protect animals, destroy cherished American values of family and freedom! They want to enslave us in a despotism, and these hateful comments prove just how much they despise you!"

And you're buying into the same exact logic, only reversed! Olbermann and Stewart and liberal interest groups pull you aside and declare: "They hate us! They view us and everyone we love as parasites to destroy! They want to restrict the rights of minorities and prevent gays from marrying! They want to limit a woman's rights to choose! Why? Because they're monsters, every last one! They're inconsiderate subhuman degenerates, rednecks from a past era, who want to enslave us in a despotism, and have us fight these senseless wars in far-off lands. You must despise them! They are savages!"

And in the end, what do both sides really gain?
...Your support. Preferably in the form of your money, towards the interest groups and lobbyists that fund the hyper-partisan machine.

Both sides play off fears of their respective opponents so that Washington's K Street can revel in excess. The entire system is built on a mutual adoration for hyper-partisanship. Democratic interest groups love Glenn Beck and Limbaugh and the Tea Party. Without them, they'd make no money! Likewise, Republican interest groups feed off the generalized animosity from liberals. Olbermann's next broad statement comparing all Republicans to rapists becomes a rallying cry for the Tea Party movement!

That's my point. Yeah, Republicans right now are almost certainly acting more childish than Democrats. But by giving into your hatred and joining them in the mud-slinging cesspool, you're deepening the divide...and you're strengthening the very people you oppose. The more partisan this society becomes, the more power will belong to the few on each extreme. I'd rather we find a way to return to an America that truly represented the will of the people, all of the people, the ~50% who call themselves Democratic and the ~50% who call themselves Republican. (Although it's more like ~33% each, with an additional ~33% independent or apolitical.)

To clarify: I entirely support hatin' on politicians and public figures in the media. You want to bash Limbaugh, Beck, or the current Republican senator from North Dakota or something, be my guest. They're public figures, after all. But here's the thing: you have an incredible opportunity with private citizens who appear to disagree with you. Instead of buying into the stereotypes perpetuated by conservatives and liberals to keep the hyper-partisan machine going, a truly smart liberal (or conservative, I suppose) politician will realize that the vast majority of these people are amenable to being convinced that a better political option exists. Your beloved progressivism can focus on maintaining the status quo or it could attempt to win converts to the cause, and drive its opposition to extinction through acts of generosity (as opposed to malignancy.)


But this has gone incredibly off-topic, hasn't it? I apologize.

EDIT: NonCon: To an extent, I actually agree with you. I would classify my grandparents as "politically stupid," in a sense. They're certainly not politically gifted. But politics, like any other skill or area of knowledge, has its gifted minds and its lousy ones. My grandfather probably has terrible political theories, but as an engineer he also could construct just about anything far better than I ever could (or will.) This world needs all types to function, and just because I'm a fairly gifted political / legal mind due to my interests and backgrounds (at least compared to most others out there) doesn't mean I have the right to an aura of condescension that I can impose among those who don't get politics like I do.

Unfortunately, the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world exploit a lot of people who aren't intelligent when it comes to analyzing political issues. Doesn't mean the right Democrat couldn't convince them otherwise. Doesn't mean they'd necessarily remain uninformed. But it doesn't mean they're awful people, either. Everything is shades of grey, after all. And buried deep within my Grandparents' irrational support for Glenn Beck are actually a few decent concerns about the growing size and scope of government that I think (mis)inform their political decisions. Most Glenn Beck supporters among the 'commoners' actually probably have decent reasons to be upset with the political process, but then Beck comes around and uses those few legitimate issues, combines them with their more irrational fears, overdramatizes everything into life-or-death apocalyptic crises, demonizes imaginary enemies, and makes a stew of reactionary, yet somewhat entertaining (in the eyes of his followers) hell-brewin'.