![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Spent a while working on Ye Political Rant today, partly in response to the SDMB (someone said something awfully stupid, enough so that I could tell that pointing out how dumb it was would embroil me in an intense, emotionally draining argument that would make me miserable without actually having any potential for having a useful or productive result; I decided to put the rant in the file instead of on the board, because at least the file doesn't call me a hypocrite for using precise, correct language).
Nearly posted to another SDMB political thread, decided I couldn't manage the prospect of getting involved in a potential argument, even though that one seemed likely to be civil. But I want to write it down anyway, somewhat.
The question was "Which is more important to you in picking which politicians you support, issues or character?" And it's an interesting question.
Because I think the only sign of political character I care about is the capacity to only push politically those positions that can be supported rationally, bolstered with facts, and with the capability to adapt policy to new data or cogent argument. I'm deeply mistrustful of arguments based only on subjective stuff; one of my ethical points is that if I can't support my gut reactions convincingly with stuff that references a reality that doesn't depend on my organs then I should shut right the hell up about mandating behaviour of people with different intestines. My guts are good enough for my choices; they aren't good enough for public policy, which has to deal with the world of facts, not squicks, shinies, and indigestion.
Someone who can do that is likely to have my respect for their positions, even when I disagree; someone who can do that with positions I agree with will have my support.
Cynically speaking, it's a good thing that I'm not driven by perceptions of "character", given that going on about the subject, especially going on negatively about the opponent's, tends to lead me to the conclusion that the speaker doesn't have any.
Oddly appropriate music, this . . .
Nearly posted to another SDMB political thread, decided I couldn't manage the prospect of getting involved in a potential argument, even though that one seemed likely to be civil. But I want to write it down anyway, somewhat.
The question was "Which is more important to you in picking which politicians you support, issues or character?" And it's an interesting question.
Because I think the only sign of political character I care about is the capacity to only push politically those positions that can be supported rationally, bolstered with facts, and with the capability to adapt policy to new data or cogent argument. I'm deeply mistrustful of arguments based only on subjective stuff; one of my ethical points is that if I can't support my gut reactions convincingly with stuff that references a reality that doesn't depend on my organs then I should shut right the hell up about mandating behaviour of people with different intestines. My guts are good enough for my choices; they aren't good enough for public policy, which has to deal with the world of facts, not squicks, shinies, and indigestion.
Someone who can do that is likely to have my respect for their positions, even when I disagree; someone who can do that with positions I agree with will have my support.
Cynically speaking, it's a good thing that I'm not driven by perceptions of "character", given that going on about the subject, especially going on negatively about the opponent's, tends to lead me to the conclusion that the speaker doesn't have any.
Oddly appropriate music, this . . .
