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.
= new reply since forum marked as read
