A random moment of politics.

[kiya]

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 . . .

Comments

[rainfallsautumn.livejournal.com]

I count character a bit more strongly, but then, I *know* the state & local candidates. I know who they've treated well, I know when they've helped others, I know when they've lied, I know when they've cheated-- I know the kind, ethical ones and I know the slime. I find it very hard to overlook the slime when it's thick enough. My Congressman is a prime example of that. He's a fairly moderate Republican, he's right on 80% or more of the issues that matter to me. But he's the slimiest of the slimy, and he'll never get another vote from me. I also have the advantage of living in Washington when it comes to the federal candidates in that I'm likely to know people who know them well. Not that political activists aren't biased witnesses, but if someone is a really good person, or conversely, a real problem, it does tend to get around. I also know who is likely to be honest about the opposition and will readily say "I don't agree with that person, but they're genuine and they take care of their constituents." I do put a lot on my instincts, but I also check them with knowledgeable people. Personally, I'd rather support someone I know is honorable and with whom I agree on 60% of the issues than someone I think is a complete waste of oxygen but with whom I agree on 90% of the issues. I can trust one to vote their conscience.

[tiassa]

Okay, it's been a while and I've had time to think about this. Not that I'm more awake now, but.

Personally, I'd rather support someone I know is honorable and with whom I agree on 60% of the issues than someone I think is a complete waste of oxygen but with whom I agree on 90% of the issues. I can trust one to vote their conscience.

After all, even if the latter candidate claims to agree with you on 90% of the issues, if they're a total lying bastard who likes taking bribes from lobbyists instead of actually representing the people they're supposed to represent, who says they're actually going to vote that way?

If someone seems to me to be an honest, intelligent person who will actually be a good representative of me as a voter, then I'll vote for them, even if I don't agree with them 100%.

Not to say, of course, that I think, say, someone's extramarital affairs (or lack thereof), military service (or lack thereof), honesty when taking tests in elementary school, or something along those lines, is a good indication of whether or not I trust a person. I try to look at their previous record, if they've been in office before, find out what I can about them if they haven't, and study their platform carefully...and then just make a judgement based on the kind of person I think they are.

But anyone who indulges in mudslinging at an opponent will have a very hard time getting my vote. I think someone should be elected on their own merits, not "I'm better than that bastard running against me! I bet he hasn't stopped beating his wife!"