The game of elections v. The act of governing…

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I’m listening to Tim Miller’s book Why We Did It.  Miller is a political manager who happens to be a gay man who worked John McCain back in the day.  He points out early on that people in his role didn’t really see anything wrong with exaggerations or lies in campaign messaging to encourage people to turn out or stroke checks for their candidates.  He points out that “the game” as he calls it has come to dominate everything and that a professional “game” player using “the game” to vault himself to political power shouldn’t be all that surprising when people have compartmentalizated away actual policy issues from what they see as “the game”.  

He points out that to these folks “winning” is all that matters… what happens after the “win” isn’t terribly important to them.  “That’s what wonks do.”

We’ve all seen this.  American politics has become more and more this.  Miller points out that people shouldn’t be surprised that the apocalyptic messaging used in political messaging actual prompting an insurrection shouldn’t surprise anyone, yet it did.  

Can this be changed?  Or are we stuck with “the game” and its constant apocalyptic messaging forever… because it works to get people elected?

@DMC

@Fez

@Tywin

Discuss.  This is a meta discussion about how politics in the US works… not an in the trenches discussion about what is actually happening hence the creation of a distinct thread.  

[DMC]

Yes, teaching legislative process to undergrads many of the textbooks literally use the "game" theme as a learning tool.  And it's certainly ingrained in political operatives -- there is indeed a delineation that policy is for "wonks."  The latter I definitely don't view as a bad thing, much rather have them deal with policy outcomes than politicos.  Can it be changed?  Who knows, I doubt it.  Politics as sport is pretty much human nature.  It's certainly not exceptional to the US, we're just really gross about it.  I mean, the word for contests to get elected is the etymologically war-based "campaign."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes, teaching legislative process to undergrads many of the textbooks literally use the "game" theme as a learning tool.  And it's certainly ingrained in political operatives -- there is indeed a delineation that policy is for "wonks."  The latter I definitely don't view as a bad thing, much rather have them deal with policy outcomes than politicos.  Can it be changed?  Who knows, I doubt it.  Politics as sport is pretty much human nature.  It's certainly not exceptional to the US, we're just really gross about it.  I mean, the word for contests to get elected is the etymologically war-based "campaign."

So… we need to accept that lies and deliberate manipulations of fact are “just part of the game”?  That the game is what it is?  Politics as actual policy can be boring.  Politics as a sport is more sexy.  But when “your team” loses a football game people aren’t stripped of basic human rights.  

Do you see this as a feature/bug of the nature of modern social media based Democracy?

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So… we need to accept that lies and deliberate manipulations of fact are “just part of the game”?

Pretty much, yeah.  When in human history have lies and manipulations not been a part of politics?

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But when “your team” loses a football game people aren’t stripped of basic human rights.  

That's different than "politics as a game."  That's polarization radicalizing a game.  The latter obviously is not an inherent condition as we can see looking back to the postwar period and can be changed - even if that looks really, really difficult right now.

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Do you see this as a feature/bug of the nature of modern social media based Democracy?

Well, Aristotle certainly would call it a bug.  The Framers, or at least Madison and Hamilton in The Federalist, were extremely worried about it too.  But it's certainly not exclusive to democracy.  We're talking about this on a forum about medieval monarchy that's first book and flagship show was called Game of Thrones.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Pretty much, yeah.  When in human history have lies and manipulations not been a part of politics?

That's different than "politics as a game."  That's polarization radicalizing a game.  The latter obviously is not an inherent condition as we can see looking back to the postwar period and can be changed - even if that looks really, really difficult right now.

Well, Aristotle certainly would call it a bug.  The Framers, or at least Madison and Hamilton in The Federalist, were extremely worried about it too.  But it's certainly not exclusive to democracy.  We're talking about this on a forum about medieval monarchy that's first book and flagship show was called Game of Thrones.

Social media is something unlike any philospher ever imagined possible in the sense of mass communication or its ability to amplify the worst among us.  Is it… incompatible with a properly functioning democracy?

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Social media is something unlike any philospher ever imagined possible in the sense of mass communication or its ability to amplify the worst among us.  Is it… incompatible with a properly functioning democracy?

It sounds like you want to talk about social media more than the nature of politics or democracy. 

I'm one of the biggest critics of social media, but no I don't think it's toxicity and/or effect is inconceivable to political philosophy.  For instance, Jefferson was one of the greatest political philosophers of his era and he allowed a political party to be built around him, slandered his opponents, and was subject to slander very akin to what you'll read on twitter.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

It sounds like you want to talk about social media more than the nature of politics or democracy. 

I'm one of the biggest critics of social media, but no I don't think it's toxicity and/or effect is inconceivable to political philosophy.  For instance, Jefferson was one of the greatest political philosophers of his era and he allowed a political party to be built around him, slandered his opponents, and was subject to slander very akin to what you'll read on twitter.

I have a tendency to figure out what I’m thinking as I think or type (I’m a verbal processor) so if what I’m t saying shifts as I engage in discussion… that’s why.  

I’m aware of the dirty political history of the US.  

[Darzin]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

ICan this be changed?  Or are we stuck with “the game” and its constant apocalyptic messaging forever… because it works to get people elected.

 

 

The two party winner take all nature of the US politcal system exacerbates this but it's always going to be somewhat of a feature in  a democracy as slinging mud is the oldest trick in the book. It' also worth noting that hyperpartisans like apocalyptic messaging else it wouldn't be used so often, but regardless of a campaign or not people hype themselves up in their own echo chambers. If you ever want to feel the democrats are doing well go read the comments of the Blaze. 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I have a tendency to figure out what I’m thinking as I think or type (I’m a verbal processor) so if what I’m t saying shifts as I engage in discussion… that’s why.  

Fair enough.  I'd say the degradation of trust in institutions is what has precipitated the asymmetric polarization and subsequent threat to democracy in the US.  The entire premise of a "social contract" is dependent on buy-in among the body politic, and right now it's just not there.  And that would be expressed with or without social media - and indeed precedes its inception.