partisanship is hypocrisy
I voted for Clinton in 1992.
I'm embarrassed, but there you have it.
That was the last time I voted for a major-party candidate. The first four years of that presidency taught me that the evils of the previous 12 years had been government evils, not Republican evils. But I still identified more with Democrats than with Republicans. It took the Lewinsky tail-gate scandal to dissolve the vestigial links between me and the so-called liberals (democratic socialists).
Not that I cared about Mr. Bill's sex life, or Miss Monica's, or any of the surface-level issues. What drove me nuts was the blatant hypocrisy of everyone who seemed to have a strong stance on what was going on. As Timothy Leary said, "The only intelligent way to discuss politics is on all fours, since it all comes down to territorial brawling in the end."
Another Tim Leary quote, this one from The Eightfold Model of Human Consciousness:
This is why I call P3, the non-rational third tier of belief, the "political" tier. When one is dealing in the realm of emotions, symbolism, alignment, "whose side you're on," etc., there is no need, apparently, for any rational consistency. Leave that to people who care about principle or consequences. Political battles, in a majoritarian democracy, are about hormones, reflexes, fight-or-flight instincts ...
I want to be shut of all of it.
These thoughts brought to you by the following two articles, which found their way to my Inbox this morning:
I'm embarrassed, but there you have it.
That was the last time I voted for a major-party candidate. The first four years of that presidency taught me that the evils of the previous 12 years had been government evils, not Republican evils. But I still identified more with Democrats than with Republicans. It took the Lewinsky tail-gate scandal to dissolve the vestigial links between me and the so-called liberals (democratic socialists).
Not that I cared about Mr. Bill's sex life, or Miss Monica's, or any of the surface-level issues. What drove me nuts was the blatant hypocrisy of everyone who seemed to have a strong stance on what was going on. As Timothy Leary said, "The only intelligent way to discuss politics is on all fours, since it all comes down to territorial brawling in the end."
Another Tim Leary quote, this one from The Eightfold Model of Human Consciousness:
Larvals do not like to receive information unless the facts fit into their 3rd Circuit reality net and immediately reward their emotional status. Democrats were delighted to hear the facts about Nixon, but Republicans were irritated and resistant.To which I add: In the 1990s, we got to see this same perception game with the roles reversed.
This is why I call P3, the non-rational third tier of belief, the "political" tier. When one is dealing in the realm of emotions, symbolism, alignment, "whose side you're on," etc., there is no need, apparently, for any rational consistency. Leave that to people who care about principle or consequences. Political battles, in a majoritarian democracy, are about hormones, reflexes, fight-or-flight instincts ...
I want to be shut of all of it.
These thoughts brought to you by the following two articles, which found their way to my Inbox this morning:
Bush, Kerry and partisan hypocrisy, by David Boaz, Central OregonianPS How aware is Steven Johnson of his obvious political bias? I'm sure he knows his bias, but does he know how obvious it is in his writing?
The Political Brain, by Steven Johnson, New York Times Magazine
1 Comments:
I totally agree with everything you said there. Although, I feel that your point can be applied to more than just politics. It can be used when talking about people's favourite programming language (PERL, no, PHP, RAHHH), or computing platform (Apple vs. M$ vs. *nix), or even beverages (damn coffee vs. tea folk).
Yeah, I guess that's all politics to. I retract my comment.
...spike
www.sadistech.com
Post a Comment
<< Home