So disappointed in American politics

[Moxie]

Can we talk about politics in general?

 

Politics have gotten so ugly this year. It is worse than usual, right? Is this just the direction America is going? Has our society lost all civility to the point that there are no rules anymore?

[mamiof5]

I refuse to dwell much on it, but yeah, it's sick. And frightening :(

[Scarlett]

I am politically neutral.....I watch what is going on though and I can say that I've never seen anything like it.

[DawnM]

Can we talk about politics in general?

 

Politics have gotten so ugly this year. It is worse than usual, right? Is this just the direction America is going? Has our society lost all civility to the point that there are no rules anymore?

 

Unfortunately, it isn't "politics" it is people in politics.  And this is the best we got?  

 

It is frightening.

[MEmama]

But it's not just here. Honestly, the more I learn the more I realize it's not just this country and it's far from unique. Understanding that makes me feel better.

[creekland]

This is the first year where I seriously don't want to vote.  Other years I've been dismayed at the choices, but this year I feel like if unknown Person X were to run, I'd give them a chance not even knowing who they were.  The odds are pretty good that I'd like them better.

 

I've never skipped voting before and likely won't this year due to other elections going on at the same time (local/state), but...

 

I wish we could model after other countries by having a very short pre-election running and campaigning time. 

[goldberry]

What's scary to me is that those feelings and thoughts have always been out there, but previously it was not considered acceptable to just spew them out. Now it is not only acceptable, but gains approval. The level of discourse has eroded and I don't see it ever recovering.

[EmseB]

I've seen quotes from past elections and campaigning and I don't think this is really any worse, historically speaking. It's probably fairly mild compared to some things I've read about American politics of days gone by.

 

It's the quality of candidates and what people want in a "leader" that bothers me.

[Denise in Florida]

I find the national political system depressing.  I do feel some inspiration from local issues and have decided to focus my interests there. 

[Anne in CA]

I think the politics and candidates are a symptom, not the problem. Our society is the problem. Conservative people want to be upset over gay marriage instead of real issues. Liberal people want to blame conservatives instead of own the problems on their side of the block. Blaming is the new norm. Society is self righteous all the way around, and it is showing up in politics.

[Heatherwith4]

It seems worse than usual to me. It's sad. I don't think social media helps. I have blocked several people on Facebook who refuse to do even simple fact checks before posting political memes or articles.

[Mimm]

It feels worse. Candidates are slinging insults and just behaving like children in a school yard. It's pathetic and embarrassing. :(

[tshirtyogapantmama]

It's been a really hard couple of months. I can't wait until it's over!

[Junie]

However, it is a very interesting year to teach political science.   :hat:

[AnnE-girl]

I used to love politics. DH and I would make a fun night out of watching election returns with appetizers and drinks (I still miss Tim Russert and his dry erase board), but this year is just depressing.

[EmseB]

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/28/5-nastiest-us-presidential-elections-in-history/

 

There was no social media or 24 hour news cycle to magnify everything to the nth degree, but it wasn't exactly more dignified back then than it is now.

[MomtoCandJ]

I don't think it would seem so bad if we wasn't bombarded with it 24/7

[JustEm]

It doesn't seem worse to me. That's politics.

 

But really I can't imagine we're even supposed to be talking about this on the board.

[Haiku]

In order to keep people engaged throughout a ridiculously long pre-election period, it has to turn into a circus. No one would care if the candidates just calmly voiced their positions for 15 months.

[SparklyUnicorn]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f0e02ef2940d4616bc376d3c75416c59/think-trump-was-crude-founding-fathers-were-just-bad

 

Ok..editing this to add, my purpose isn't commentary regarding a candidate, but that this is nothing new. 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2016 by SparklyUnicorn

[Seasider]

I've demanded - and received - better behavior from my teenaged boys and girls. There have always been policy disagreements, that's par for the course, but this junior high drama is ridiculous. But a poster above is correct - it's not the candidates, it's the loudest of society. This is what happens when a nation overdoses on reality TV and the social media misinformation pipeline.

 

It's tragic.

[VeteranMom]

Op...I agree.  It's gotten bad.  I think it's a symptom of what is going on in society, though.      

[Hikin' Mama]

Not thrilled with it either. I actually like a candidate outside the party I typically vote more than inside the party I typically vote, if that makes any sense.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Unfortunately, it isn't "politics" it is people in politics.  And this is the best we got?  

 

It is frightening.

 

We have better, but honestly, would anyone of substance really want to get into the monkey poo slinging side show our political process has become?

[Tsuga]

We have better, but honestly, would anyone of substance really want to get into the monkey poo slinging side show our political process has become?

Indeed. It's becoming a point of pride that nobody from my state has ever run for president. At least not seriously.

[Liz CA]

We have better, but honestly, would anyone of substance really want to get into the monkey poo slinging side show our political process has become?

 

I have thought about this as well. Good people with skill and knowledge think about it twice because if you have no scandal in your past, they have to make something up to keep it interesting. Who would want to subject him or herself not to mention family to that?

 

[LucyStoner]

http://www.kappit.com/img/233080/how-i-feel-picking-the-next-president/

 

(A funny, non-partisan meme)

Edited March 25, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

Though anyone who thinks aggressively attacking political opponents is new needs to bone up on the election of 1800. Entire newspapers were founded just to publish slander. It was brutally vicious and very ugly. That said, none of the contenders now hold a candle to Adams or Jefferson.

[fraidycat]

http://www.kappit.com/img/233080/how-i-feel-picking-the-next-president/

 

(A funny, non-partisan meme)

:lol:

[Guest]

This is the first year where I seriously don't want to vote. Other years I've been dismayed at the choices, but this year I feel like if unknown Person X were to run, I'd give them a chance not even knowing who they were. The odds are pretty good that I'd like them better.

 

I've never skipped voting before and likely won't this year due to other elections going on at the same time (local/state), but...

 

I wish we could model after other countries by having a very short pre-election running and campaigning time.

Your last line - this is what I think, too. I really wish all states were within a small period of time, or even all primaries on the same day. There would be very little bandwagon effect. Maybe, say, three debates before primaries, perhaps each focused on a different facet of the office. Then primaries, then another three debates between the two party nominees, then final vote - general election.

[creekland]

Though anyone who thinks aggressively attacking political opponents is new needs to bone up on the election of 1800. Entire newspapers were founded just to publish slander. It was brutally vicious and very ugly. That said, none of the contenders now hold a candle to Adams or Jefferson.

 

Oh I know it was bad back then.  I just thought we had evolved into a better society since then.  My mistake.

 

There was also a time in my youth when it sure seemed like major wars would be a thing of the past since people had figured out war sucks on all levels.  That didn't prove to be true either.

 

I guess humans have retained their human nature back to Cain and Able.  (Choose similar examples if one doesn't like those two used as symbols of the beginning.)

 

Meanwhile, moving to a laid back "no one cares about it" island where life has problems, but generally not as significant as these, and humans tend to live far longer than normal is getting quite appealing.  Ditch the modern world with its rat race and more.

[Laura Corin]

Your last line - this is what I think, too. I really wish all states were within a small period of time, or even all primaries on the same day. There would be very little bandwagon effect. Maybe, say, three debates before primaries, perhaps each focused on a different facet of the office. Then primaries, then another three debates between the two party nominees, then final vote - general election.

 

I think that the US system with primaries is the major difference to other countries, along with the presidential/mid-term cycle.  I know that there's nothing to be done about that.  Not only do (most?) other Western countries not have primaries, but they have all their general elections on the same day or at least in the same year.

 

I just checked, and it looks as if France, for example, has all its general elections within a few months of each other once every five years.  As the UK doesn't have a president, we don't have primaries and there's just one general election day every five years.

 

[DawnM]

We have better, but honestly, would anyone of substance really want to get into the monkey poo slinging side show our political process has become?

 

Right.  I guess I meant, "This is the best we have got who are willing to run?"  

 

But ultimately, I think other posters are right.  There were some people of substance running in the beginning but they are long gone.  They are of too high a caliber for our current population.

[Amira]

I agree with what some others have said- what's different this year is the way social media is being used (or exploited by some). This is different from publishing things in a newspaper with relatively limited distribution or putting up flyers or saying things in a debate that is only covered by newspapers. Also, I think it's possible to argue that social media has a stronger entertainment element than traditional media does, at least the media that has been generally used in politics in the past. I feel like social media is being used to influence or manipulate people in a new way and I don't think social media is a particularly good platform for worthwhile political discourse, even if a few candidates to manage to get beyond the entertainment.

[Soror]

This is the first year where I seriously don't want to vote.  Other years I've been dismayed at the choices, but this year I feel like if unknown Person X were to run, I'd give them a chance not even knowing who they were.  The odds are pretty good that I'd like them better.

 

I've never skipped voting before and likely won't this year due to other elections going on at the same time (local/state), but...

 

I wish we could model after other countries by having a very short pre-election running and campaigning time. 

Of all the years to not have a 3rd party candidate. I keep holding out hope that someone will run 3rd party, I can't imagine they wouldn't do terrific because there are large numbers of people on both sides that don't want any of the major candidates. Dh and I were reminiscing about Paul- why didn't he run this year- I'm not his biggest fan but considering the landscape this year I'd be going door to door for him!

[elegantlion]

The only thing I really like about this election season is that ds gets to vote and that his first Pres. election is not boring. 

[Catherine]

I think the situation we have currently is the natural result of all the factors that are currently in play: the 24 hour news cycle, deterioration of education, globalization and the economic results of that.  It scares me when i think it, but there is really  nothing at all about the candidates or their "positions" that wasn't predictable.  THAT is what scares me.  It's very hard for an entire nation to bounce back from a low like this.

[Farrar]

I'm definitely aware of the history of dirty politics but I think it actually is worse than its been in a long time. People are actually more divided. There's less of a middle than a few decades ago. I think some of the things about our system which were fine a century ago - like the long gap between the election and the inauguration, the fact that speech is money, etc - are now downright undemocratic in a modern context. Technology isn't just the backdrop - it also changes how things work. If you were going to gerrymander a century ago, you could do it in a limited way, but big data makes it possible to do it so precisely now. Yet our system allows for it. Sigh.

[Farrar]

Of all the years to not have a 3rd party candidate. I keep holding out hope that someone will run 3rd party, I can't imagine they wouldn't do terrific because there are large numbers of people on both sides that don't want any of the major candidates. Dh and I were reminiscing about Paul- why didn't he run this year- I'm not his biggest fan but considering the landscape this year I'd be going door to door for him!

There will be 3rd party candidates on the ballot nearly everywhere. Jill Stein is the likely Green nominee and Gary Johnson is the likely Libertarian nominee. There will be others, but those are the two biggest small parties. I saw a poll from some state that gave Johnson double digits there in a particular match up (you can guess), which is pretty astounding considering his low name recognition- but really bespeaks the level of looking for other options that is going on right now.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Farrar

[Soror]

There will be 3rd party candidates on the ballot nearly everywhere. Jill Stein is the likely Green nominee and Gary Johnson is the likely Libertarian nominee. There will be others, but those are the two biggest small parties. I saw a poll from some state that gave Johnson double digits there in a particular match up (you can guess), which is pretty astounding considering his low name recognition- but really bespeaks the level of looking for other options that is going on right now.

I should have said a major 3rd party candidate, there are none out there that have the name recognition Paul did, perhaps after the major nominees are settled and people lose (more) hope those candidates can start to gain some more traction.

[Amira]

I think that the US system with primaries is the major difference to other countries, along with the presidential/mid-term cycle.  I know that there's nothing to be done about that.  Not only do (most?) other Western countries not have primaries, but they have all their general elections on the same day or at least in the same year.

 

I just checked, and it looks as if France, for example, has all its general elections within a few months of each other once every five years.  As the UK doesn't have a president, we don't have primaries and there's just one general election day every five years.

 

 

I agree that our primary system is just plain weird and quite American.  It gives the two political parties a huge amount of power and they're unlikely to want to change that.  And I don't think that Americans understand the primary system very well anyway.  The two political parties each pick their nominee with differing levels of input from voters in different states.  The number of people who voted for a particular candidate isn't necessarily the most important thing.  If the Republican convention is contested this year, I think some people might finally see more clearly how nominees are chosen- it's not always a democratic process, and it's not required to be.

 

I wish that the government would take over the primaries to tweak them into a two-round system. That seems like the simplest solution.

[Farrar]

I agree that our primary system is just plain weird and quite American.  It gives the two political parties a huge amount of power and they're unlikely to want to change that.  And I don't think that Americans understand the primary system very well anyway.  The two political parties each pick their nominee with differing levels of input from voters in different states.  The number of people who voted for a particular candidate isn't necessarily the most important thing.  If the Republican convention is contested this year, I think some people might finally see more clearly how nominees are chosen- it's not always a democratic process, and it's not required to be.

 

I wish that the government would take over the primaries to tweak them into a two-round system. That seems like the simplest solution.

 

But on the other side of it - the parties aren't the government. I've seen a lot of people this election saying things about how the primaries are doing things that are "unconstitutional" which is hilarious. They're independent organizations. They don't have to follow the constitution any more than your local PTA does when they choose a president. They can use whatever methods they want (a slight exaggeration - there are some laws about this, but generally speaking - it's why there's such a patchwork of systems). Which, I get that people are mad about... But do we really want to ensconce the party system further by having the government take over the primaries? I don't know about that. In many other nations, the candidates are chosen by the parties themselves. They used to be that way here too. No one feels its undemocratic in those nations to not have primaries. You have actual elections instead.

[MercyA]

I don't vote anymore, but I still love these t-shirts:

http://despair.com/products/vote-whig

http://despair.com/products/destructor (for those who don't remember, this was a quote from Ghostbusters)

[Mom22ns]

I'm definitely aware of the history of dirty politics but I think it actually is worse than its been in a long time. People are actually more divided. There's less of a middle than a few decades ago. I think some of the things about our system which were fine a century ago - like the long gap between the election and the inauguration, the fact that speech is money, etc - are now downright undemocratic in a modern context. Technology isn't just the backdrop - it also changes how things work. If you were going to gerrymander a century ago, you could do it in a limited way, but big data makes it possible to do it so precisely now. Yet our system allows for it. Sigh.

 

I agree with the bolded in particular.

 

I don't think things are really any more or less ugly than they have been historically, although not every election is this bad. I do think the internet and social media has played a bigger role than ever before and that has changed the landscape. It is no different than when radio changed things, or when television changed things. The first few election cycles with a new media are confused and largely swayed by the candidates who take the best advantage of that media. Then everyone figures it out and it becomes less dramatic. This election cycle one candidate has taken on social media in a huge, successful and ugly way. By the next election, all candidates will have a much more comprehensive social media plan. Whether that will be good or bad is yet to be seen, but it will be.

[Guest]

I'm definitely aware of the history of dirty politics but I think it actually is worse than its been in a long time. People are actually more divided. There's less of a middle than a few decades ago. I think some of the things about our system which were fine a century ago - like the long gap between the election and the inauguration, the fact that speech is money, etc - are now downright undemocratic in a modern context. Technology isn't just the backdrop - it also changes how things work. If you were going to gerrymander a century ago, you could do it in a limited way, but big data makes it possible to do it so precisely now. Yet our system allows for it. Sigh.

Yes, this is my thinking, too. This, plus the effect of bandwagoning that was much more limited when the ability of a candidate's prominence in any one state or area was unable to be quickly spread.

 

A FB "friend" of mine recently asked a question that, to me, illustrated his desire to bandwagon. He asked if the wider public was as in favor of a particular candidate as he tought, or was it just the type of Friends he has in his feed? I said, "it's the Friends in your feed. I have very few FB friends who support that candidate." I interpreted his question as "don't want to be supporting the unpopular person!" These are the type of people most succeptible to voting on simple belief that this is what others like themselves are doing. Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of Americans who vote this way. :(

[Farrar]

Yes, this is my thinking, too. This, plus the effect of bandwagoning that was much more limited when the ability of a candidate's prominence in any one state or area was unable to be quickly spread.

 

A FB "friend" of mine recently asked a question that, to me, illustrated his desire to bandwagon. He asked if the wider public was as in favor of a particular candidate as he tought, or was it just the type of Friends he has in his feed? I said, "it's the Friends in your feed. I have very few FB friends who support that candidate." I interpreted his question as "don't want to be supporting the unpopular person!" These are the type of people most succeptible to voting on simple belief that this is what others like themselves are doing. Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of Americans who vote this way. :(

 

There is a certain very popular candidate who never shows up in my feeds with supporters. Because we're all pretty insulated. But, when I do have people I disagree with who post politics, sometimes they're just so mean and uninformed about the other side. And, of course, I see it plenty with those I agree with - people posting stuff where they're like, "Look at this! This is horrible!" and I'm like, okay, I don't like that candidate but what you're attacking is ill informed because you've taken it out of context completely or hypocritical because your guy plays politics the same way. Sometimes I feel soooooo frustrated by that. And sometimes I feel like it must be some sort of superpower to be able to see the failings in the political media for your own side because no one else seems to see it. Sigh.

[momof4babes]

This is the first year where I seriously don't want to vote. Other years I've been dismayed at the choices, but this year I feel like if unknown Person X were to run, I'd give them a chance not even knowing who they were. The odds are pretty good that I'd like them better.

 

I've never skipped voting before and likely won't this year due to other elections going on at the same time (local/state), but...

 

I wish we could model after other countries by having a very short pre-election running and campaigning time.

In Canada, we had a much longer election last time around.

It was exhausting and repetitive.

[Amira]

But on the other side of it - the parties aren't the government. I've seen a lot of people this election saying things about how the primaries are doing things that are "unconstitutional" which is hilarious. They're independent organizations. They don't have to follow the constitution any more than your local PTA does when they choose a president. They can use whatever methods they want (a slight exaggeration - there are some laws about this, but generally speaking - it's why there's such a patchwork of systems). Which, I get that people are mad about... But do we really want to ensconce the party system further by having the government take over the primaries? I don't know about that. In many other nations, the candidates are chosen by the parties themselves. They used to be that way here too. No one feels its undemocratic in those nations to not have primaries. You have actual elections instead.

 

If the government took over the primaries, they couldn't be party-oriented which could help reduce the parties' power (although not necessarily- but it couldn't get worse).  The primaries would be a democratic, non-political first round where the top two candidates went on to the general election.  Since there would probably be a number of candidates, it could open things up a little more. And since we already have a primary system in place, it would be relatively easy to make the change rather than having a runoff in the fall.

 

I imagine each party would each have its own candidate in the first round, but if the selection of those candidates were separated from any government involvement, funding, or support, it would be much clearer that the parties are separate from the formal, constitutional election process.  Maybe it wouldn't change anything in many ways, but it might help.

[Farrar]

If the government took over the primaries, they couldn't be party-oriented which could help reduce the parties' power (although not necessarily- but it couldn't get worse).  The primaries would be a democratic, non-political first round where the top two candidates went on to the general election.  Since there would probably be a number of candidates, it could open things up a little more. And since we already have a primary system in place, it would be relatively easy to make the change rather than having a runoff in the fall.

 

I imagine each party would each have its own candidate in the first round, but if the selection of those candidates were separated from any government involvement, funding, or support, it would be much clearer that the parties are separate from the formal, constitutional election process.  Maybe it wouldn't change anything in many ways, but it might help.

 

I can see it either way... I guess I would see it as the complete downfall of Washington's warnings against party politics. Sigh.

 

In any case, I think a lot of thinking people on both sides can agree that our election system needs some dramatic reforms to run better, but there's no political will to do it and there likely never will be. That's my depression about the whole deal. I don't think all the people in politics are horrible or dumb by any stretch but once you or your party manages to game the system as it is, it's hard to be willing to change it, even if you know you're leveling the playing field for all, that means that your advantages disappear. 

[Mom22ns]

He asked if the wider public was as in favor of a particular candidate as he tought, or was it just the type of Friends he has in his feed? I said, "it's the Friends in your feed. I have very few FB friends who support that candidate." I interpreted his question as "don't want to be supporting the unpopular person!"

 

That is an interesting interpretation. I might have asked that question wondering if the world was really that insane or if my FB feed was really that insular, not at all because I wanted to vote for someone who is popular.

 

I keep my own FB feed very clear of political posts. I unfollow anyone who posts something that I find politically offensive (not that I disagree with, but that is offensive - typically an issue of tone). I also unfollow anyone who does a lot of political postings no matter their views or their tone. I use FB to keep up with friends not politics. However, this does make my FB feed very skewed. No one would be able to guess who the most popular candidates are from what is left on my FB feed. :lol: