Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdreaver | Hacker News Reader

Take a look at the comments section if you want to see political tribalism at its best.

> I thought Bush orchestrated the Patriot Act... who knew..?

> Regardless of your opinion of the surveillance, you gotta see this as a cynical political move. Bet he wouldn't sue a Republican president. Isn't good enough to disagree with Obama - a candidate has to demonstrate outrage with him to gain cred with the base.

Everything is right vs left to some people. There is no discussion of the consequences of this action, just name-calling an unsubstantiated claims. I hate discussing politics because the cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics required to fully support Republicans or Democrats makes my head hurt.

View on HN

That is the main problem I see with modern politics. It basically becomes "stereotypes of the left versus stereotypes of the right". A friend of a friend told me that he didn't see Gay marriage being outlawed in many states as a civil rights issue. I said I did. At this point, he asked "so you're a democrat?" I said "not really, I don't think of myself as associated with either party" and his answer was, no joke, "well how can I understand why you believe what you do without knowing what party you're in?" as if every Democrats brain is connected to one thought center and the same with Republicans. The strawmen that come out of this are utterly insane. "well you think what Christie did with closing the bridge and putting lives in danger was bad? What about Benghazi?!?!" as if you had to be on team Benghazi is bad or team Christie closing the bridge was bad and there were no other options. It's incredibly depressing really.

This is exactly the problem. We could be having deep, analytical discussions about the principles and philosophies that form the basis of our political convictions. Instead, our conversations are tainted by partisanship.

I'm sorry. We're busy training the next generation of knowledge workers. Things like "how to construct a cogent argument based upon a reasoned moral framework" or "how to distill essential points and deduce the original line of reasoning from a long-form essay" are artsy fartsy humanities unnecessary to getting a paycheck in the real world.

Haha if that's the case, then we're all going to end up like drones. We'll only be able to do what we're told and we won't be able to think for ourselves. We'll never be able to think deeply about issues, because hey -- that's useless! That won't get me a paycheck!

Innovation is inherently interdisciplinary. If we aren't exposed to different ways of thought, we won't be able to approach problems from the variety of different perspectives that are both necessary and key to creative problem solving.

Innovation can be interdisciplinary, but my suspicion is that specialization leads to more of it. That's not saying that all political innovation benefits society equally and we need more political scientists and politicians. At some point we need to start solving more problems outside the realm of politics.

I can't even tell is people are being sarcastic anymore. :(

I agree, and I think this decoupling of individual political decisions from party lines is one of the main benefits of direct democracy. You don't have to vote red or blue every four years and then live with the consequences.

In Switzerland, where this is the way the government and lawmaking works, many things are dealt with in parliament to keep the process economic, but they can fairly easily escalated to a plebiscite.

At the same time, the government as far less partisan and generally constituted by member of all mainstream parties.

> That is the main problem I see with modern politics.

I'd have to disagree. The main problem I see with politics these days is that it fundamentally disagrees with the way that the world works best, and it puts this incorrect view into action. That's quite contrary to what it should do, and it's a source of frustration. Ideally, politics should change its stance on core issues to be more inline with what it should be, and legislate accordingly.

as if every Democrats brain is connected to one thought center and the same with Republicans.

For most Americans, this may as well be the case (or is the case already... Fox News vs. MSNBC)

From my earliest awareness of politics, I always found it totally bizarre that a person's opinion on, say, gay marriage bore such a strong correlation to their opinions on foreign policy, the economy, social programs, etc. It's absolute insanity, and yet a very small number of people seem to see through it.

Ever since reading about the Robbers Cave Experiment [1], I have trouble looking at politics without seeing it through that lens.

[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/lt/the_robbers_cave_experiment/

Ahh, a great classic. You can view all humanity through that lens, all the time.

That study is a classic that belongs alongside Milgram (obedience to authority) and Zimbardo (Stanford prison experiment). I'm not sure why it isn't better known. The three go together perfectly.

This is right vs. left. He wouldn't have done this to a Republican president, do you think he, Rand Paul, would have? Do you know much about Rand Paul? The man's entire political career is based on acting the partisan part.

Like it or not, everything literally is partisan politics. No issue in the US rises above partisanship. That's the system we live in, you'll just have to accept that or attempt to change it directly.

I know it is right vs left, and I don't care. Being a pawn in the right vs left debate is a waste of time. I care about the actual effects of this suit.

> Like it or not, everything literally is partisan politics. No issue in the US rises above partisanship. That's the system we live in, you'll just have to accept that or attempt to change it directly.

Are you kidding me? There is so much to life besides partisan politics. Deciding not to care about partisan politics is one of the best decisions of my life.

It is indeed possible to change the world without using the government and partisan politics. Trying to steer the current political system to do your bidding is a waste of time unless you have a tremendous amount of resources and willpower. For the average citizen, the only winning move is not to play.

Not playing is not playing, it's not a winning move, it's no move. Nor did he say anything about life being partisan politics; he said issues, i.e. political issues are all partisan.

> It is indeed possible to change the world without using the government and partisan politics.

For 99.999% of people, no, it's really not. Voting is the most powerful thing you can do to change things in any meaningful way. Those who show up run the show; those who don't show up follow the laws passed by those who do.

If you have the power and opportunity to change a wrong, but do nothing, then you're as culpable as whoever caused the wrong in the first place.

In this case we're proving that a wrong occurred by attempting to get retribution for the alleged wrong - whoever is targeted (be they Rep. Dem. Lib.) is inconsequential for the general public, aside from adjusting voting patterns in the future.

Once the suit determines culpability, we can find ways to prevent the wrong from happening in the first place.

If what you say is true, then every single second of every single day that I'm not spending my time maximizing my benefit to society and others, I'm living in... well, "sin" or whatever moral bad state you would like to call it.

You may choose to live like that, but I prefer to judge myself in a way that doesn't make literally everything I do an immoral act.

We're all selfish and make decisions in our best interest (our families' and close ones' interests _are_ our own) - whether or not you look at those selfish decisions as a "sin" isn't a distinction I've made or intend to.

Okay, but what you said was that any time we don't act and can act we are operating "in sin", which leads to the conclusion that if we don't always act in the most optimal way for society, we're acting in sin.

So even if you didn't intend to, you just made all selfish acts sinful.

He wouldn't have done this to a Republican president, do you think he, Rand Paul, would have? Do you know much about Rand Paul? The man's entire political career is based on acting the partisan part.

I am not a big Rand Paul fan, but I'm curious how you arrived at this conclusion. ISTM that he'd be as almost as much of a pain-in-the-ass to a Republican president from the less-libertarian/isolationist/goldbug wing of the party. Look at the spats he's had with Christie, at a start.

I would venture to guess that their are a lot of people in United States who believe in cutting government spending and fiscal responsibility but at the same time are socially liberal, and believe that people should be given opportunities and left alone to do what they will with their life and have sex and marry who ever they want (assuming consent and free will). Basically, something tells me that there are a lot of people who understand that the problems we are facing are more complex than the sound bite solutions which our politicians provide. Why isn't there a 3rd party. I am not talking about libertarians, or anarchists, or the Green Party. I want to vote for the party of "reasonable" people who will use logic, science, and well documented facts to get my vote, not rhetoric and scare tactics. The "balance" party perhaps.

> Why isn't there a 3rd party?

http://www.gametheory.net/News/Items/120.html

I totally agree. I am the guy you just described and I think of myself as a libertarian, before the Tea Party ruined the term. I'd like us to rein in spending and make lawmakers accountable for the money they vote to spend. At the same time I'm in favor of absolutely anyone doing absolutely anything they want so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights. Marry three desk lamps and a fishing pole if you want. How does that in any way affect me? Smoke some green tea leaves and a polyester blanket if it makes you happy. You burn down my apartment building and we're gonna have words. We don't need to be spending our blood and treasure to butt into other countries' affairs. I want the post-WWII days back where we didn't bother anyone that didn't bother us first.

>I want the post-WWII days back where we didn't bother anyone that didn't bother us first.

Perhaps you meant the word "days" literally. The CIA, created in 1947, solely exists to butt into other countries affairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_re...

We have that party here in Norway, and it doesn't really work as you want it to.

When you base your political stance on reason and reflection, you're appealing to a ridiculously small portion of the population. Most people either won't be able to grasp it, or does not have/take the time to do so.

Not to complain, the situation feels pretty good over here, with political power shared between multiple parties. It's still frustrating trying to debate politics, because you cannot argue facts with a person driven by emotions. Trying to means racing against the clock of attention span, while ELI5'ing as best you can, and this is on an individual level, debate panels are even worse because you're even more time-constrained and cannot assess an individual's response to better reach them.

This of course, leads me to my point, politics are what they are because there is no demand for truth, there is only a demand for emotional gratification. It's easier to sell war against satanic evil, than it is to sell funding for research into solar energy hodgepodge technology.

> Water tubes? Why don't I just go in the back yard and fill up some bottles! hah!

Both parties are slowly merging into one anyway: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/politics/boehner-to-...

The only notable difference these days is the fringes (where Rand Paul and Tea Party reside) vs the single party.

Agreed. Another reason to disregard partisan politics, because the two sides are really one on the most important issues of our time.

Government shutdown of 2013?

Yes, like immigration, health care, women's rights, food stamps, voting rights, minimum wage, social security, and taxation.

That's a pretty _horrible_ example of the parties coalescing into a single viewpoint, since intentionally defaulting on our debts is an extremist view by any definition. That's like saying "clearly the two parties are basically the same because they both don't support nuking Russia". "Both parties agree not to act like lunatics" is a terrible example of "the parties are merging".

A much less bizarre example would be the way the parties have moved towards each other on issues like national security, the finance industry, etc.

This is not an extreme example. The alternative was conditional terms on expanding the debt limit, not defaulting on the debt. The bill passed without any additional restrictions on spending or changes to collection.

The national debt is one of the biggest issues in the country right now and both parties are doing little to stop its expansion. As I said in my original comment, the fringe are the ones who are legitimately different from the single party, for example, as you mentioned, the Tea Partiers would support either defaulting or significant restrictions on spending.

> The national debt is one of the biggest issues in the country right now

I disagree with this claim. Unfortunately, it is also the claim upon which the rest of your claims are founded, so I'll have to disagree with everything else you said, too.

> I disagree with this claim.

Unsupported opinions are pretty meaningless. How is it not one of the biggest issues?

The national debt story has been making constant front-page of news for 3+ years now. Anyone who doesn't see the huge long-term significance of the massive debt is exhibiting significant ignorance to economics. The USA is making a serious gamble that the economy will be strong and fast-growing for the next 5-10 years. If not, it's going to get nasty.

> The national debt story has been making constant front-page of news for 3+ years now

So has Justin Beeber; that doesn't validate it. In the news != newsworthy.

It is only a big issue if you don't understand the economics.

"The USA is making a serious gamble that the economy will be strong and fast-growing for the next 5-10 years."

You know who else is making that bet? The people eagerly buying t-bills. So eager, in fact, that they're loaning us this money at well below inflation - they're more or less paying us to keep their money safe.

We should be sure we're using borrowed money for something reasonable (building infrastructure, smoothing short term needs) rather than on what amounts to consumption, though that distinction may be hard to make.

If you owe your bank 10000 dollars and cant pay you have a problem if you owe your bank 1 million (or in our case 17 trillion)and cant pay they have a problem.

A significant portion of the debt is held by Americans. I don't get your point.

My point is debt isn’t a problem unless there are significant consequences attached to it. You talk of economic understanding but your theory is flawed.

This analogy makes sense, but surely there's a debt/GDP ratio where it breaks down, no? How do we know what that is?

The national debt is a problem created by the budget, not by the debt ceiling. Using the threat of not paying debt you've already incurred via the laws you've already passed to try and circumvent the political process is idiotic and harmful. The debt ceiling does not create debt, it should always be raised, it should in fact be eliminated and all debt incurred should simply be paid period.

The place to deal with the debt issue is in budget negotiations, not by refusing to pay bills from past budgets because you didn't agree with past agreements.

Actually, as Rand Paul himself said, defaulting on our debt is the last thing we should do, and by bringing it up, Obama was playing a very cynical card.

The feds have no problem paying the debt service (though of course the growing debt is a problem); it's everything else they can't afford.

Ultimately, it's Congress' problem, not Obama's. He doesn't pass budget bills. But there are almost zero folks in Congress with enough backbone to do anything about it.

Are either of those actually examples of political tribalism? The first seems to be mocking the ignorance of many partisans, while the second seems to be attributing political tribalism to Rand Paul. Neither commenter seems to be exhibiting political tribalism.

"a candidate has to demonstrate outrage with him to gain cred with the base."

This is for publicity purposes nothing more than that. (Of course he also believes in what he is doing but the main driver is to give him even more household recognition).

After all Paul represents Kentucky. So why fight a battle for all of us. I hate when politicians do things like this (In NY Spitzer did this and Schumer does the same). They take on issues that garner much press mention which is not to say they don't have benefits to those in their state.)

See "grandstanding"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-engli...

Right vs Left is a pretty boring way of looking at it, and I find different lens much more useful.

One surprising one is the power of the executive branch vs the other branches of government. Views on that don't fall along right vs left lines at all, and I think there are plenty in the Republican party (as well as the Democratic party) who will see this as an attempt to limit presidential power, and will be opposed to it on that ground.

Politics is the mind-killer: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/

It takes a concerted effort to think of political issues purely consequentially.

welcome to the false left-right paradigm. most people just don't realize that it's deliberately being used to have the sheep running in circles every 4 years. meanwhile, there's only one political agenda on all sides.

but it's ok. go back to sleep.

wait until they call Paul a racist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com