A gift from Jerry.
Volokh Conspiracy: Political Partisans and Sports Fans
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(144)
-
▼
May
(13)
- Medicare to Pay for Sex Changes?
- How to Fix the VHA?
- Kicked Out of School
- Veterans Administration Problems: Root Cause
- Humans are Prejudiced
- MN Holding Tail, Trying to Wag Dog
- Impeach the President?
- MN DFL Spend Spend Spend
- Teach For America and the U of MN
- Social Security is NOT a Ponzi Scheme ?
- Control and Governments
- Keep America Beautiful
- Political Partisans and Sports Fans
-
▼
May
(13)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
12 comments:
It's an odd sort of article, compromised by it's initial assumptions.
"The answer I gave in the article is that political fans are similar to sports fans in so far as both have little or no incentive to be truth-seekers."
The immediate answer is that truth is irrelevant to the fan experience. A Packers fan isn't a fan because the Packers are true, it's simply an arbitrary choice one makes which is neither true nor false. I don't have much experience with political fans, I am in fact doubtful as to whether they exist, but if they did, I am sure the same considerations would apply.
The fact is, when you are involved in politics, as opposed to being a fan, there is a strong incentive to be a truth seeker, or at least a seeker after information. You have to know what's going, to be to events. You have to know that you don't have a monopoly on truth, and be willing to steal the other side's best ideas, as no doubt football teams learn from each other.
One thing the guy is confused about is the basic difference in experience. While I might be a fan of the Vikings, I am not on the team. Where politics is concerned, I am on the team, although it's often the case that I am not at all, a fan.
--Hiram
The article confirms my premise that, in any given election, 75% of the voters walk into the polling place with one and only one piece of information – their party preference. Roughly half of those will vote Democrat regardless of any other factor, and the rest will vote Republican. 20% will make a decision based on some emotional assessment of the candidates, or something said about the candidates by the opposition, and about 5% will make a reasoned conclusion about which is the better candidate.
The article confirms my premise that, in any given election, 75% of the voters walk into the polling place with one and only one piece of information – their party preference.
I really disagree. While the average voter's knowledge may be less than encyclopedic, they know a lot, surely a lot more than a typical fan knows of the intricacies of football.
For myself, it is party that matters. I have never seen why I should vote for a candidate who is personally wonderful but who is an advocate of things that I oppose.
--Hiram
"...they know a lot,..."
According to The New American Democracy, "barely a third of the citizenry can recall the name of their [U.S. House of Representatives] representative, and even fewer can remember anything he or she has done for the district. Only about one in ten people can remember how their representative voted on a particular bill." According to the American Thinker, only 27 percent of citizens can name both of their U.S. senators.
I say, if you don't even know the fellow's name, you shouldn't be voting for (or against) him. And yet, with Congress holding an 8% approval rating, 90+% of them get re-elected. You cannot tell me that is a well thought-out vote.
"...why I should vote for a candidate who is personally wonderful..."
Ah, but these days that isn't what happens, is it? Elections are decided by negative advertising attempting to convince you that one candidate is the devil incarnate, so you will vote AGAINST that person. Fear is a much stronger motivator than rational policy preferences.
According to The New American Democracy, "barely a third of the citizenry can recall the name of their [U.S. House of Representatives] representative, and even fewer can remember anything he or she has done for the district. Only about one in ten people can remember how their representative voted on a particular bill."
House members are largely interchangeable. I don't know why there is a reason why people should be expected to know them. And as someone who knows quite a bit more than average about these things, I don't make it a point to follow how my congressman votes on individual bills, and I don't think it's necessary that I should.
It's the big things that matter, the procedural stuff I leave to junior staffers.
--Hiram
"Elections are decided by negative advertising attempting to convince you that one candidate is the devil incarnate, so you will vote AGAINST that person."
Elections are decided by a lot of things. Lots of folks will tell you they are decided by negative advertising but many of those folks are in the business of producing negative ads. One of the easy things to say is that decisions are motivated by greed v. fear. Where elections are concerned, greed really isn't an issue for most of us. Unlike the Mitt Romneys of the world, our tax rates aren't going to be reduced to 13 percent. But fear is very much the relevant factor. The Republican Party, the last time they held the White House, very nearly destroyed the economy. I am deeply fearful that given the chance again, they will finish the jot they started.
--Hiram
"The Republican Party, the last time they held the White House, very nearly destroyed the economy."
Obviously, negative advertising works. And party affiliation is the driving force in most congressional elections, NOT individual candidates' issue positions.
Obviously, negative advertising works.
Pointless wars and an economy on the brink of collapse, IMO the commercials weren't nearly negative enough. The Bush administration was the ultimate refutation of Republican ideology.
--Hiram
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Did you base that opinion on the negative advertising you heard, or on some collection of objective fact? Because in my mind, the opinion is not supported by factual information. It can only be sustained by being a "fan" of one political viewpoint, IMHO.
Did you base that opinion on the negative advertising you heard, or on some collection of objective fact?
I based my opinion on living through the nightmare of 2008, when our nation's economy and financial system was brought to the brink of collapse.
--Hiram
"The brink of collapse," eh?
Please explain which "Republican policies," exactly, suddenly turned 30 quarters of economic growth into "the brink of collapse."
I'm starting to think you are more of a partisan "fan" than one to whom the truth is relevant (your words).
Post a Comment