
Public Highly Critical of State of Political Discourse in the U.S. - hhs
https://www.people-press.org/2019/06/19/public-highly-critical-of-state-of-political-discourse-in-the-u-s/
======
daenz
>Majorities in both parties say it is very important that elected officials
treat their opponents with respect. But while most Democrats (78%) say it is
very important for Republican elected officials to treat Democratic officials
with respect, only about half (47%) say it is very important for officials
from their party to treat Republican politicians with respect. There is
similar divide in the opinions of Republicans; 75% say Democrats should be
respectful of GOP officials, while only 49% say the same about Republicans’
treatment of Democratic officials.

If there's one thing that unites us all, it is intense and hypocritical
tribalism.

~~~
umvi
> If there's one thing that unites us all, it is intense and hypocritical
> tribalism.

"You need to be tolerant of my beliefs, but I don't need to be tolerant of
yours"

~~~
mffnbs
Not all opinions are equal and there's no reason to treat them as such.

~~~
rjf72
Your interpretation of his comment quite succinctly sums up the problems with
society today. Being tolerant of something is not the same as treating it
identically to other views. Imagine my neighbor is completely and absolutely
convinced that 2+2=5. I'd be somewhat curious why somebody would believe such
a peculiar thing. If we had the time I'd certainly be happy to indulge him and
of course I'd also try to correct him. If, at the end of the day, we couldn't
agree? That's fine. Of course I'm probably not going to be convinced that
2+2=5 and won't make a secret of it, but _agreeing to disagree is okay_.

In practice this distinction of tolerance vs "all opinions are equal" is even
more critical because many of the topics people love to get into heated
arguments about have compelling, entirely factual, arguments supporting
mutually exclusive conclusions. Life's fun that way. On these sort of topics -
guns, migration, economic systems, etc - there are of course some completely
unsupportable views, but there are no right answers. In fact they probably
literally do not exist since even with omniscience, the answer would still be
contingent on the state of a society and people at any given point in time and
place.

We all believe the things we believe because we, tautologically, think they're
what we ought believe - what is most right, or most supported, or whatever our
personal value system tells us is correct. The problem we face today is when
we then start assuming that because our value system tells us _this_ belief
must be the most valid, that we start to treat other completely supportable
views as invalid.

~~~
kolbe
I think deep down, most people agree with you. But it's not very practical to
have a level-headed approach to political discourse, since most political
topics of the day are not rooted in morality, but instead are economic agendas
shrouded in morality. For example, no one really knows the systems effect of
forgiving student loan debt, but politicians advocating for it are quite
confident that that policy helps them win. So, being uncertain or open to
discussion along the lines of whether or not that policy is good for the US
isn't really the point. It's already known to be good for other, more palpable
reasons, and any effort to shift the discussion into uncertainty about the
effects of the US is only bad for the politician who already knows about the
policy's effect on them personally.

------
atdt
And New Yorkers prefer the sound of ocean waves to the sounds of car traffic
and jet engines. So what?

What the public prefers is irrelevant. The content of public discourse is
dictated by the acoustics of the media environment. We are trapped inside a
terrible, gigantic conch, which resonates with the frequency of scandals and
sound-bytes and dampens the sounds of thoughtful debate.

------
cmurf
I see self-censorship in public political discourse, and that gives too much
room for charlatan entertainers to suck up all the oxygen in the room. The
negative discourse is not what the general public is engaging in.

Fully 40 years ago I remember more public debate about politics than today.
I'd characterize that as having been semi-productive. The newsertainment
pundits today just try to rile people up. It's anger for-profit. Getting
pissed off is a product you buy by watching or following a professional
agitator. And that is not public discourse, in my view.

------
xlog
US needs a third major political party ASAP.

~~~
umvi
The funny thing is, I see merit in both parties. I like conservatism when it
comes to the 1st and 2nd amendment protection, freedom of religion, etc, but I
hate how the right treats the environment as a resource to be wasted, used,
and abused. I think the libertarian stance on drugs is a little too extreme (I
think drugs should be legal, but that they also shouldn't necessarily be
easily accessible - people should still have to jump through a few hoops to
get them). Rinse and repeat of a lot of issues.

If it were possible to transcend parties and vote just for candidates that
represented my nuanced beliefs, I would switch in a heartbeat. Instead I'm
forced to prioritize which issues are most important to me, and then plug my
nose and vote for the party that best represents just those (even though said
party comes with a lot of undesirable baggage).

~~~
ntsplnkv2
> I like conservatism when it comes to the 1st and 2nd amendment protection

With a president that openly labels the press the enemy of the people?

> If it were possible to transcend parties and vote just for candidates that
> represented my nuanced beliefs, I would switch in a heartbeat.

It's impossible. Everyone will have their nuanced beliefs and no candidate
will match perfectly except in rare circumstances.

~~~
umvi
> With a president that openly labels the press the enemy of the people?

With a president that has appointed more 1st/2nd amendment-protecting federal
appellate judges than any other president, you mean?

------
iron0013
Best to click through to the content, which is very good. “Reactions to
Trump’s rhetoric: Concern, confusion, embarrassment”

