Hacker News Reader

Comment by reitzensteinm | Hacker News Reader

Interesting choice including Republican and Democrat, there.

I don't think they're stupid, but if someone identifies themselves as "a Republican" or "a Democrat", as opposed to "the Republican party best fits my views", or "I'm a registered Democrat", I pretty much write off any chance of having a decent political discussion with them.

A large segment of the population follows politics the way they follow football, except without even watching the games, just the commentary and opinion pieces afterwards.

Smart people also triage their time so as to not waste it going down likely unproductive avenues.

But it's just a numbers game; there are invariably going to be people a level above me intellectually who this will filter out. But I can live with that.

View on HN

Well, one argument is that politics is essentially a football game. The stakes are far, far higher, but fundamentally it comes down to all the institutions of a society self-organizing themselves into coalitions for the assumption or protection of power. "Reason" amounts to a way to mask rhetorical flourishes to convince dupes that they're morally better or smarter than the other side.

And if you're turning to the Wall Street Journal or New York Times to learn about the finer points of Nozick's critique of Rawlsian liberalism... well, then you're the dupe, even if it's of a "pox-on-both-your-houses" variety. Thinking too hard about whatever outrage-of-the-day Mitt or Obama has done is a similar waste of time--it's not that there isn't conceivably some correct position about whether eating a dog or strapping them to your roof reflects worse on your character, it's just that it's all a smokescreen.

Given that, I'd say you have to pick a side. If you end up rejecting politics because it isn't the Oxford debating society, you've essentially let the other side deprive your own side of a valuable resource. It might suck that you're stuck in a game not of your own choosing, but if someone's kicking you on the ground, you don't quietly accept it because they're not following Marquees of Queensbury rules.

I agree with your first two paragraphs. The position you advocate in the third would make sense if political affiliation conferred a tangible benefit or our participation in the process affected the outcomes. But neither of those is true, and it undermines your case.

Affiliation is rife with intangible benefits of a vaguely religious character: believing that you're right, believing that you're benefiting the righteous and confounding evil, etc. But there is no 10% discount for Democrats at the Toyota dealership, and Republicans don't get a $1500 tax deduction simply for being Republicans. The only tangible benefit to affiliation is the ability to vote in the primary—a benefit so dubious we all personally know people who affiliated opposite their beliefs just to muck up the process.

> The only tangible benefit to affiliation is the ability to vote in the primary—a benefit so dubious we all personally know people who affiliated opposite their beliefs just to muck up the process.

OT: I don't know anyone who's done that, but I've long wondered if the most effective way to get the result you want is to simply destroy everyone opposing it, rather than promoting the result directly. It seems that it'd be much easier to manipulate the system (and the people) using a negative influence than positive. It's definitely not right, but seems like it could be effective. Then again, as I write this I realize that this is half of what happens already.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com