A Thread for Left Leaning Folks

[Bootstrap]

Politics requires us to avoid complicated messages that take time to think.

It certainly seems to encourage that, but does it really require it? I'd like to think there is some politician, somewhere, who actually engages in critical thinking and encourages others in that direction. Can't think of any good examples offhand, though.

Well no, it doesn't require it. We are absolutely free to engage in critical thinking. "They" aren't stopping us, "we" just aren't doing it.

One of the first things they teach you in a political science class is the difference between two definitions of politics:

1. The warfare between political factions trying to seek power.
2. Policies designed to provide peaceful ways to decide who governs, how they govern, how to deal with disputes, how to deal with poverty, how to defend the country against attack from outside, how to police the streets, etc.

It's almost impossible to do both in the same room. And #1 is always louder and more emotional, drowning out #2, unless there's some way to moderate the conversation. That's why there are rules in a courtroom or in Congress to govern who speaks when, what is out of line, etc. In a courtroom, at least, those rules work pretty well. In Congress, it depends a lot on a lot of things.

[HondurasKeiser]

It certainly seems to encourage that, but does it really require it? I'd like to think there is some politician, somewhere, who actually engages in critical thinking and encourages others in that direction. Can't think of any good examples offhand, though.

Tom Cotton comes to mind from the Republicans. Gov. Shapiro for the Democrats. And Kirsten Gillibrand for Independents.

[Bootstrap]

As a former leftist, I’d like to affirm Grace’s post. A lot of it boils down to accusing anyone whose opinions you don’t like of being ignorant, stupid, unable to engage in critical thinking etc… coming from the same people who say they cant define what a woman is.

I don't think so. And I'm pretty sure I know what a woman is. But have you noticed that every sentence above is a call for group loyalty? And none of it actually responds to what I said about what critical thinking is. For what it's worth, I disagree with a LOT of people who are incredibly intelligent and do quite well at critical thinking. And they disagree with me. But I enjoy following their lines of reasoning, and I learn from them. My views do change as a result.

You can really judge this one post at a time - is this post doing the work of critical thinking, or is it calling people names, dividing people into groups, choosing your political loyalties? What approach are they using to determine whether something is true? What evidence are they relying on? How do they respond to evidence? I'm sure we will find that everyone has some posts that are better than others.

[Ken]

It certainly seems to encourage that, but does it really require it? I'd like to think there is some politician, somewhere, who actually engages in critical thinking and encourages others in that direction. Can't think of any good examples offhand, though.

Tom Cotton comes to mind from the Republicans. Gov. Shapiro for the Democrats. And Kirsten Gillibrand for Independents.

Gillibrand is a Democrat. Are you perhaps thinking of Kirsten Sinema?

It isn't hard to come up with lists. There are a lot of smart people in government. That generally isn't the problem. There is also no shortage of ideas. The bigger problem is that there are so many institutional veto points within government that progress in any direction (left or right) is excruciatingly slow and incremental. Which means that rhetoric rarely matches results and people just get jaded with the process.

Off the top of my head...


Republicans:
Mitt Romney
Lisa Murkowski
Tim Scott
Thom Tillis
John Thune
Brian Kemp
Chris Sununu
Mike DeWine


Democrats:
Sherrod Brown
Amy Klobachar
John Ossoff
John Tester
Elizabeth Warren
Laura Kelly
Andy Beshear
Gretchen Whitmer
Josh Shapiro

Independents
Angus King

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Politics requires us to avoid complicated messages that take time to think.

It certainly seems to encourage that, but does it really require it? I'd like to think there is some politician, somewhere, who actually engages in critical thinking and encourages others in that direction. Can't think of any good examples offhand, though.

I should clarify that I was talking about non-elected political actors. Pundits, I guess is the simplest word for it. Bootstrap mentioned politicians. I agree with him that there isn't really a professional politician who can even afford to encourage careful, critical thinking in their constituents.

Bootstrap, I think "Electoralism" requires (actually, I'd say it "encourages") us to avoid complicated messages that take time to think. Politics can be people talking about societal problems over coffee, dissecting, discussing, diagnosing, ect. Electoralism, on the other hand, is only concerned with persuading a voter base to give you power. Critical thinking and persuasive rhetoric is one of many tools that an elected candidate can use to accomplish this goal; but I think it's becoming a tool that most politicians no longer find useful. Electoralism needs to grab the short attention spans of vast numbers of diverse people and convince them to cement certain political opinions in their psyche, while also convincing them that this certain candidate or party is the only one who will fight for that exact political position. This is way easier to do with surface-level thinking, appeals to emotion, etc. Critical thinking is long and laborious and you'll lose the attention of well over half the voter base.

[barnhart]

Swing states can produce Governors who appeal more to the center. Kemp in GA, Larry Hogan in DE, Youngkin in VA come to mind.

[Bootstrap]

I should clarify that I was talking about non-elected political actors. Pundits, I guess is the simplest word for it. Bootstrap mentioned politicians. I agree with him that there isn't really a professional politician who can even afford to encourage careful, critical thinking in their constituents.

Bootstrap, I think "Electoralism" requires (actually, I'd say it "encourages") us to avoid complicated messages that take time to think. Politics can be people talking about societal problems over coffee, dissecting, discussing, diagnosing, ect. Electoralism, on the other hand, is only concerned with persuading a voter base to give you power. Critical thinking and persuasive rhetoric is one of many tools that an elected candidate can use to accomplish this goal; but I think it's becoming a tool that most politicians no longer find useful. Electoralism needs to grab the short attention spans of vast numbers of diverse people and convince them to cement certain political opinions in their psyche, while also convincing them that this certain candidate or party is the only one who will fight for that exact political position. This is way easier to do with surface-level thinking, appeals to emotion, etc. Critical thinking is long and laborious and you'll lose the attention of well over half the voter base.

Very true.

One other factor:



Campaigns have gotten very good at telling voters how to feel. How to feel about them, how to feel about the other guy. And a lot of it is rooted in really yucky feelings about "them", negative partisanship. Instead of figuring out how we can all live together well in this country, it's treated as a war.

Facts? Most voters won't ever take the time to understand them. Every "fact" can turn out to be a lie, but people have learned how to feel as we go on to the next lie, and even if every single claim turns out to be false, the feeling has been built. That's how American politics works these days. That other guy is a crook even if every single accusation turns out to be a lie. People have gotten into the habit of feeling that way about him and talking that way about him. My guy is innocent no matter how strong the evidence, he's a victim of "them", and if they can do that to him, they can do it to me. You can use that line no matter how strong the proof. It's the feeling, not the facts, and these feelings create deeply built political identities. They know what they are doing when they craft these messages.

The kind of discussion you describe is exactly what we need. People coming together to discuss how we can live together well. Building community, building relationships. And that results in a very different set of feelings ... much more positive ones. And the kind of discussion you describe also results in a much better grasp of the facts. And a better understanding of various perspectives.

[Josh]

Swing states can produce Governors who appeal more to the center. Kemp in GA, Larry Hogan in DE, Youngkin in VA come to mind.

They also tend to be almost completely beholden to corporate interests and donors, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

[Ernie]

Sorry, but this is a thread for left leaning folks. Not a thread for right leaning folks to argue with left leaning folks.