What is the cause for a political bias? - Writers Forum

modified7 · 10-16-2006, 02:44 AM

Given the upcoming elections in just a few weeks, the timeliness of this should be reason enough to debate........ I would like opinions as to why grown, successful adults can all attend the same ivy league colleges, and pursue a career in politics, yet look at the same situations in such a different light. I enjoy "Meet The Press", among other shows, and it is this time of year where those campaigning in hotly contested political races agree to meet on the show and debate the issues.
I've had a keen interest in politics for years, but still amazed at times just before an election at the number of well educated, seemingly nice people that can feel so much an opposite about the same issues. Other than party loyalty, it would seem that their should be more in agreement about key issues versus such a steadfastness to hold to completely opposite views. Any opinions would be interesting to read.......

Vee · 11-01-2006, 05:34 AM

Sounds like the nurture vs. nature argument really.

Some believe everyone should help everyone as much as they can and sacrifice some of their own stuff or all of it - altruism.

Some believe they should learn to look after themselves and only offer minimal assistance - classical liberals and conservatives.

Some believe they should be told how to look after themselves and enforce it - fascists.

Some believe everything should be divided equally regardless - misguided communists

That's just a sample.

Its not nature vs nurture question though if u ask me. Its a synthesis of the two.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor · 11-01-2006, 04:04 PM

You talk about political bias, Vee, and make a statement as illogical as to say "misguided communists." You have no problem with fascists, apparently, but communism is misguided.

To the OP, the problem you are having is you are confused. Two people who have the exactly same backgrounds and genetics will agree on issues. The people you are talking about have similiar backgrounds, but the backgrounds are not identical and their genetics differ.

TsuTseQ · 11-01-2006, 04:18 PM

I was thinking the same thing about the misguided comment. So much for an unbiased explanation.

journyman161 · 11-01-2006, 05:06 PM

I think in politics it has little to do with the personal beliefs & more to do with polarising the voters. By coming out with strong opinions, vivid statements & demonising the stance of their opponent, they force the electorate into an either/or situation which suits party politics very well.

Unfortunately, it works & I think it works because the electorate in general is not taught to value independent thought nor how to actually think in any real fashion, so 'authority' & herd instinct lead them around by the nose.

The only chance you get to see a politician's real views is when they stand as an independent, or on occasion, when they are in their first term of office & don't know any better. Once the system has them you get to see a performance, not the person or their real views.

Funnelling the views of the public in this way, shades of grey in any issue gets lost & the choices in any issue become black (them) or white (us) - the rhetoric is spent trying to get the public to decide which side is black or white. The classic case is GWB's 'You're either with us or against us' which simply wasn't the case.

Extremists & politicians love to make things black & white - it gives them leverage & means they don't have to worry about the finer points of things. In the same way, the US is being castigated in the middle east as satanic, & all the good things they've done are washed away in the tide of hatred over the political machinations they have performed.

It goes further than that - there has been a long standing battle going on through history as the 'shades of grey' societies have tried to stand against the more emotive 'black & whites' - unfortunately, with the lack of true statesmen these days, politics has become the tool of the black & whites & the vitriol, fake or otherwise, is designed to sway opinions rather than presenting cogent cases for consideration - ie. they appeal to emotion rather than reasoned thought processes.

Personally I think we need to bring back assassination as a form of voting. Or maybe, slightly less extreme, there should be a commission to which a member of the public can go when they feel their politician has lied to them or cheated them. They can then, for a modest processing fee, take out a licence to hunt that politico. On issuance of the licence, the pollie gets told the licence is granted (but not to whom) & the hunt is on for the specified period - say 1 week. If the pollie is alive at the end of that time, he gets to keep his seat & the case is closed.

This could be prime-time TV, advertising rights would eclipse national debts & there would be excitement in the political process. Politicians would have a reason to strive for openess & honesty & true representation of the people who elect them & finally we might see some accountability... We'd actually have an evolutionary force being applied to the leaders of countries.

And as a plus, I am positive places like North Korea, Iran & Iraq et al would all jump at the chance to join such a democracy.

Sorry, rave over now... *grins*