HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why SHOULDN'T ours always...

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 04:57 PM

Why SHOULDN'T ours always be better than theirs?

We get this meme thrown at us all the time. Why would anyone argue it's not true?

I mean once you set aside issues of ethics and possible criminality, deviances which aren't really reflective of something like a group of politicians, why would we not expect that sentiment to hold?

Our politicians and OUR group share values, the "betterness" we judge them to have REALLY ought to be quite biased in their favor because what we judge them on as being better is based on shared value of what's better.

Our affinity to those values is, after all, what makes us US, and the lack of other parties sharing those values is what makes them THEM.

How could it be otherwise? So what's happening? Why is the sale of what should be a no-brainer subject needing such a strong sales push?



And what is it that must be overcome? What requires what looks like over an wrought need to indoctrinate people with "OURS ARE ALWAYS BETTER THAN THEIRS?" when primae faciae ours really should be better on values simply because those are assumed to be OUR VALUES.

What went wrong?? Why isn't it patently obvious that in the rigged system that favors elevating view of self ours really should be better on values simply because those are assumed to be OUR VALUES.

Something seems to have gone wrong for anxiety to be so high that the meme demands repetitive reinforcement. Is it possible that some democratic politicians don't really share with the base the values that would make faith in the meme a slam-dunk?

Is it possible that people are afraid that some democratic politicians have gone too far??

I mean obviously Rahm is a jerk and his jerkiness about the liberal base being fucking retards with nowhere to go isn't really a threat to the meme... or maybe could it be it is because it's become something of accepted wisdom among the campaign advisers and their candidates?

I mean if our politicians don't share our values, the system of chauvinism that ought to default to ours are better than theirs' based on our values might be greatly under stress.

In that case there really might be a desperate need to patch the exploit in our governing system that let people who don't share our values try to exploit intragroup loyalty to shared principles and beliefs.









3 replies, 610 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why SHOULDN'T ours always be better than theirs? (Original post)
HereSince1628 Mar 2015 OP
HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #1
Igel Mar 2015 #2
HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #3

Response to HereSince1628 (Original post)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 06:43 PM

1. No thoughts on why this meme is being catapulted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Original post)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 07:41 PM

2. I find this post to be muddled.

1. Yes, "our" side should be better than theirs. It's my expectation.

2. That does not mean that I assume our side is better than theirs. I refuse to make this assumption and not examine it. If two politicians make the same claim, with the same evidence for or against them, I give neither side more credence. Otherwise I'm setting myself up for being duped.

3. I start with the assumption that all politicians, like the rest of us, are humans. If they make an assertion, I expect it to have evidence. Because, after alll, if our side is better, that includes the willingness to rely on evidence. If I set myself up to be swindled and duped by blindly trusting (D) politicians, that constitutes a moral hazard, now doesn't it, setting temptation in front of them. It's foolish when (R) partisans do it. It's foolish when (D) voters do it.

4. When push comes to shove, I hold (D) politicians to no higher standard than (R) politicians. To do so tips the playing field in ways that make me highly uncomfortable. It means that if there are two groups that are equally corrupt (or pure) I'm going to punish my side and let theirs skate. That strikes me as foolish.

At the same time, I hold (R) politicians to no standard higher than I hold (D) politicians. This would violate (1). At the same time, it would say that corrupt "my side" is better than a lesser corrupt "their side." I have serious trouble drawing boundaries like that--I always have, mostly because as soon as you have that kind of deeply felt boundary you start excusing wrong-doing and engaging in judgment that is too harsh, even if it is self-serving. Winning is then more important than truth, and power for power's sake wins out over the common good because we, of course, can't possibly be wrong on any point. (Our self-confidence and self-belief can be a bit overwhelming at times.)

Now, if I'm interested in the common good, that's different from a particular good. And "self-serving" is pretty much the definition of a "particular good." A lot of people really tend to confuse their particular good with the common good; it's quick and easy thinking, but often doesn't pass the sniff test. It doesn't examine not just what we get short term, but long-term effects, conquences for other people, how other people will react and alter the outcome in ways we didn't want to predict or couldn't figure out.

I find there to be no paradox in my views. My assumptions I question routinely because I'm human; and I find no requirement that my expectations be met for me to still support "my" side because I know they're human. Therefore I don't give (D) politicians passes; I don't engage in purity purges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 08:59 PM

3. I agree with you. I think critical thinkers do the same

SO why is it propagated so vigorously? Yesterday it was repeated 5-6 times in a single thread. When we run into things that we think are generally true, we rest our critical thinking we lower our defenses, we reduce our anxiety...


The meme -should- be true. It's generated by a judgment that ought to be biased in it's favor...

But its like a computer subroutine that was written to provide good service but that's vulnerable to exploitation. Viruses are meant to propogate such exploitations, repetitions of memes can do the same.

Why would people do that? As an hack/exploit, it can provide some cover via the surface truism for more pernicious stretches of the truism. It's an insincere apology of sorts...even if we feel the strain of a politician going outside the shared values, the meme is meant to soothe concerns...but OURS are better than theirs...even if sometimes ours violate what have been shared values.

And it's apparent that dem politicians do this, because over the years at DU there has been a LOT of conversation about dissatisfaction with DINOs.

That suggests the effects of the exploit were noticed but there wasn't much of a fix. And there really can't be when the accepted wisdom the party tries to run on is meant to benefit from the exploit. Being unfettered by shared beliefs with the base provides freedom for politician...freedom for example to triangulate, freedom to move toward things campaign donors want...so long as the 'ours are better than theirs' meme is in place and still functions to assuage anxiety about DINO like behaviors.

One of the most arrogant of the exploiters has a name-- Rahm Emmanuel-- he has said liberals are retarded (perhaps because we so easily fall for the exploit???) and have no where to go...(haughty arrogance based on hegemony of the exploit among party leadership).

Popularity of Elizabeth Warren challenges the assumption there can be no alternative, Chuy Garcia demonstrates the alternative is competitive. Bernie Sanders suggests alternatives can be grafted into the party...

The meme needs reinforcing to protect the exploit.

They need more repetitions of the assurances that those politicians at the margin of our shared beliefs, and our tolerance, are still better than theirs.

We are getting those repetitions.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread