How is it that you can justify this...?

Question

Pointing out the personal flaws and social faux pas of individuals associated with a political party to diss the policies and political views of the Party itself?
Think of it this way, if you put 80 flies in a jar of honey and one moves toward the lid, does that mean they're all thinking of escape? For the time being I've grown weary of pointing out how incredibly inane and moronic it is to take personal low-blows and insults and try to turn them into social or political commentary. So I've decided to ask a somewhat intelligent question, that is as non-offensive as I can possibly make it w/o dumbing it down or seeming condescending.

functionary01 you make a very interesting point, that I had thought about but really hadn't considered.... hmmm.... Each individual of the party being the only representative worth crediting, would indeed impy that the individuals actions would or at least should dictate the party's general morale. The ensuing consequence and the reaction from within the party is the only feasible standard by which the party itself can be judged. WIth only a statement of policy, and an implied notion of what it should be, the only substantial representatives of morale are the members therein. Brilliant! thanx!

John Q I wasn't aware that you existed until u answered my question, but thanx anyway. Though a few of those questions do raise a valid point.

Answer 1

From a purely practical standpoint, a political party is made up of individuals. Those individuals are directly influencing the party's politics, particularly if they happen to be an elected offical, or are campaigning for election to a seat which would put them in a position of power.

If you examine the views of the Republican and Democrat parties in the US over the last few decades, you discover that their platform is not static. It's been a source of amazement to some, to discover that the Republican views of yesteryear are far more in line with the Democrat views of today, than they are with the modern-day version of their own party. Those great changes happen because the individuals who comprise the party change it from within.

You can't truly treat the parties as entities in their own right. And, the people who represent the parties need to be held accountable for their actions. I do agree with you about purely personal insults, like criticizing a person's appearance, or the kind of asinine name-calling so prevalent among political commentators today, but judging a person's behavior is something we all do when we evaluate a person's character.

Like it or not, personal integrity is one of the characteristics we use to judge the value of an individual. If the person themselves is badly flawed, their views become suspect as well. That their views may influence the politics of their party is of very real concern.

Answer 2

In any political party, certain individuals rise to the top, and before anyone knows it these people become the voice of the party. For me, nothing is more distressing than to see any organization become the voice of one person, but in the US this is exactly what happens. Whether it be a labor union, a publicly held corporation, city government, political party, there always seems to be one individual in control.

The charter of that organization soon will find itself bending to the rhetoric layed out by that individual, so it comes natural for an opponent to offer criticism to both the individual and the party.

If your weariness is because we get caustic in our commentary or remarks of individuals or parties, think for a minute about the level of players we have to deal with today. Take for example the guy that spear headed the re-election efforts of the democratic party, Rahm Emanuel. This is not exactly the guy you would want as principal for a day at your local elementary school! This is one of the foulest mouth scum bags that Chicago ever regurgitated. If he's not f--kin this or that, in mixed company, he's flippin the bird with his 1/2 middle finger to anyone who might disagree with him. Now, this is a guy that studied ballerina as a young man, so it appears that his other distasteful traits are designed to show his political cronies that he is, in fact, a macho man.

When I think about the democratic party, I think about Rahm Emanuel, and that makes me angry. I'm angry because this is the best they can find to represent them, therefore they become a part of his legacy. I'm using this as an example to illustrate a point, not to single out an individual, but in this case, the shoe sure fits!

Answer 3

Sadly, that is the current tone of our political climate. Mainstream news has conditioned us to think of politics as a "touchy" subject that shouldn't be discussed in polite conversation. So we listen to the pundits that agree beligerantly with our own opinion and emulate the way they carry on the conversation by condemning the other side (the candidate that can publicly throw the most dirt wins). What you have to ask yourself, is why the system has become set up like this?

Answer 4

It is part and parcel of US politic I guess.

If you have a Republican President then some posters will ask "How come the President is a stupid "%*&*!".

If you have a Democratic President then some posters will ask "How come the President is a stupid "%*&*!".

People love to find flaws, real or imaginary, in their political opponents. Yahoo Answers just reflects those views.

Answer 5

Because it is fundamentally easier for an adversary to use an emotional attack than a logical one.

Then, by proxy, they extend the emotional attack to the entire party. Despite the fact that it is completely nonsensical, people will follow it because it apeals to their emotional side.

The surest way to get people to support you is to appeal to their beliefs and convincing them that your opponent is against their beliefs. People in power know this and use it extensively in their efforts to remain in power.

As evidence, all you really need to do is look at the answers people post in this section. It becomes quite obvious who is using critical thinking skills to analyze the questions and those who are just posting their emotion-based beliefs.

~X~

Answer 6

I can see your point.

For my part, I have never asked the insulting questions that come across the board here, especially in Politics & Government.

I do, however enjoy "rising to the occassion" as it were, and answering them in their own rhetoric with a reflecting insult. I justify it with the 4th grade argument of "they started it."

Answer 7

How uninteresting.

Get used to it. Polarization + politics + people = MODERN POLITICAL AMERICA

Answer 8

If you are referring to my questions..I stand by what I am asking. Cons are anti-science, pro-discrimination, and pro-violence. Hey don't shoot me I am just the piano player