I remain largely burnt out to political discussions here, at least for the most part. That’s largely because the signal to noise ratio out there on anything worth considering has gotten so low that it’s almost impossible to do any intelligent research on practically any matter. I find my stomach turned by folks like Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, yet Nancy Pelosi’s voice makes me feel like jabbing knitting needles into my ears and Harry Reid isn’t much better. All that the leadership on either side of the aisle seems to have in common is the desire to screech that anything that emanates fro the other side is likely to trigger the End of the American Dream and the Betrayal of Our Most Cherished Ideals (if not the Untimely Heat Death of the Universe).
Take that Alito nomination. My gut instinct is that I don’t particularly care for the policy outcomes of a number of his decisions, but that those decisions are driven not by political ideology but by an intellect and judicial philosophy which are largely respected in most legal circles (which, along with his pleasant demeanor, sets him apart from his alleged mentor, Scalia). I’d rather have someone who appears to respect precedent and has a coherent and considered judicial philosophy than someone who decides things the way I want but on a crappy basis (little good can come from that in the long run), and I know I’m not likely to see anyone I’m particularly thrilled with being nominated by the current Administration, but every time I try to do some serious research into the matter, I’m revulsed by the smug hosannas being paeaned by the Right and appalled by the ad hominem attacks and apocalyptic rhetoric on the Left, most of which on both sides have more to do with public policy than jurisprudence, and …
… well, it’s just easier and less ulcer-inducing to instead natter on about City of Villains, or “Which Pokemon Are You?,” or Christmas lists, or what a nut Pat Robertson is.
Which is a crying shame, if y’ask me.
This is why my ears perk up (if I had movable ears like a cat) when I hear either a Republican or a Democrat trying to be reasonable.
Yes — though it’s gotten so bad that I half-expect it to all be a cunning plan before sinking the knife in.
The problem, it seems to me, is that it’s all become about winning, not about service. If your opponent does something good for the country, or has a good idea, or even isn’t as stiff-necked and unreasonable as he usually is, that may be to the service of the nation, but it doesn’t help you win. So you simply deny it’s good, point out where it’s not good, pout that it isn’t good enough, observe how much he’s done that’s bad, etc. You never acknowledge that the other guys is anything other than a demon, because that might (in some sort of zero-sum fashion) make folks think that he might be right some other times, and thus draw away from your own support.
Throw in a media that’s more interested in reporting conflict than facts …