There are three types of political stance in the world..

[rousseau]

Since I've been on social media I've noticed that when it comes to politics you can fit people into one of three categories:

1) Apathetic. People who really couldn't give two shits and whose political opinions are all superficial.

2) Active. People who have an internal drive to 'make change' and can be a little self important about it.

3) Active but detached. People who care about selective political issues, are active, but can maintain a level of emotional detachment from them.

From what I've seen people are predominantly either number 1 or number 2. Any time any political thing happens people either have no opinion at all about it, or have to go on a tirade. I wonder why that is, and I wonder why it's so supposedly noble to constantly participate in politics? I can't understand not being interested in your surroundings, as in number 1, but I also can't understand being constantly pre-occupied with politics. There's just so many more interesting things to think about besides the latest black kid who got shot, or what Russia is doing, especially when your impact is so small anyway.

 

[bilby]

1) Meh.

2) How can you even think such a thing!!!1!!one!!

3) I guess you might be onto something here.

 

[gmbteach]

I hear you rosseau.

I have had little interest in politics as an adult. Not being required to vote until I became an Australian Citizen probably did that for me.

Now, I feel strongly about some issues and not others. Having said that - I do have a very strong sense of what is needed in our country - and do get upset when the current leaders do cockamamie things.

Here's hoping that Australia has woken up to the fact that the current leaders (both state and federal) are a bunch of loonies out for their own agenda and vote in the party that supports the people first, themselves second.

 

[Togo]

My perspective...

The realisation that got me interested came a few years ago. I'd been a member of this board for roughly a decade, but had never much poked my nose out of the Philosophy section. Several of my friends are in positions in government, or the military, or various intelligence services, and I started discussing these things with them. I also contacted my MP for the first time, about an issue that I thought was both important and easy to fix (a fairly obscure piece of financial legislation that I'd run into at work.) And at work, I became involved in some aspect of government regulation of the markets.

And something struck me. The people I was dealing with, people I'd always imagined must surely have some solid understanding of how things worked that exceeded my own, didn't really understand what they were doing. The guy whose job it was to create government bonds knew about as much as I did about bonds. They guy working out how to track emissions from transport, basically had to come up with a model from scratch. The MP, a considerably more important person than I had first grasped, knew very little about the legislation I was talking about, despite being prominent member of the committee that had drawn it up not six months previously. The intelligence guy had a somewhat cartoony vision of international politics, as a result of years of being encouraged not to get too engaged in politics, and talking about current events only in the vaguest terms for fear of revealing something he shouldn't. These people are not ignorant, nor are they stupid. But they simply don't have access to a magical source of comprehension that we all lack.

Here on these boards we get a discussion very much like the ones that they have. This board tends to attract people with fairly.. interesting opinions, but then government isn't exactly a neutral apolitical environment. The point is that the world is being run by people listening the same sorts of arguments as we get on some of these threads, and sometimes at roughly the same level of depth and attention to detail. Maybe you can see now why I'm mainly interested in arguments that can be repeated and understood by lots of people? Because those are the ones that will go on to run our world.

A year or so ago I set out to find out who exactly was the final authority on an issue in the UK banking rules that I deal with. They're not well written, being scribed by groups at a European and UK level who not only don't talk to each other, but in some cases are actively opposed in their aims. I traced the through to the people at the various regulatory bodies, who in turn listened to various industry experts in banks and exchanges and financial institutions, who in turn got their opinions from arguments advanced by specialists in their areas, either in house or consultants and contractors. I found out that they are basically coming from someone I knew in Lloyds, an accounting firm that was relying on two guys I knew who often traded arguments with each other, and... me. There are few things more horrifying that trying to work out how the system works, and discovering it's based on an email you sent a few months ago, in a bit of a hurry. Not because I'm some kind of genius, not because I'm particularly important, but because I'm in an area inhabited by accountants and mathematicians, and most of them can't write clear explanations for things. So the industry consensus on how the rules work turns out to be the same guestimate email I sent out a few months ago, spelling mistakes and all.

I'm not the only one. A few years back a group of tin* traders I knew were trying to work out between them some of the basic drivers of the tin market, which went through calm periods, and then frantic periods of trading. In particular, there was one week every year where nothing ever happened. They spent months trying to tie this back to some kind of industry or global event, and eventually decided to all meet and talk about it. They discovered two things. 1) Between them they or their clients held just under 90% of the tin in the world. 2) they all went on holiday in the same week.

These people aren't the 1%. Most of them are probably the 10%. But they're running (a small part of) the world, and they know about as much about global events as we do. In some cases, probably less.

Politics isn't irrelevant. It's a shorthand - broad brush inaccurate statements that allow people to approximate good decisions. And that's what the world is run on.

If that scares you as much as it scared me, then maybe you'll get more interested in politics like I did. I'm presently trying to join a political party, but the local party is run by people who know each other, and meet by common arrangement, so the public listings of their meetings isn't accurate. I literally can't find these people. But I'm pretty sure they won't know any more about politics than you guys do, and probably less. I don't like politics, particularly, but what the heck else can I do?

(*The name of the commodity has been changed to protect the innoc... ok, to protect the guilty)

 

[untermensche]

I would say that most people fit into a different category.

Caring greatly but feeling powerless and alienated and lied to with no consequences, and therefore completely detached.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I thought you were going to say
1) Righty
2) Southpaw
3) Wide stance

But this works too.

Since I've been on social media I've noticed that when it comes to politics you can fit people into one of three categories:

1) Apathetic. People who really couldn't give two shits and whose political opinions are all superficial.

2) Active. People who have an internal drive to 'make change' and can be a little self important about it.

3) Active but detached. People who care about selective political issues, are active, but can maintain a level of emotional detachment from them.

From what I've seen people are predominantly either number 1 or number 2. Any time any political thing happens people either have no opinion at all about it, or have to go on a tirade. I wonder why that is, and I wonder why it's so supposedly noble to constantly participate in politics?

To your first question, it's actually the case that people in the third category rarely speak up unless directly prompted to do so. These are the people who registered but did not vote in the midterm elections.

Second category people tend to be activists and/or extremely active in their party's or ideologies' cause. These are the people who DID vote in the midterm elections.

The first category are people who never pay any attention to politics at all. These are the people who never vote or IF they vote only vote in the presidential race and pretty much flip a coin for all the other candidates.

Liberals tend to be category three more often than not, primarily because they care about certain issues for purely intellectual reasons and are emotionally detached from the get-go (e.g. "I'm pretty sure single-payer healthcare would work way better than simple insurance reform"). Conservatives tend to fall into category two because they passionately believe that things are all screwed up and need to be changed; they BEGIN with an emotional investment which can shift from issue to issue even if some of those issues contradict each other (e.g. "I am passionately against conctraception! I am also passionately against abortion! I am also passionately against sex for any purpose other than reproduction! Also, the government should stay out of our bedrooms and private lives and should not interfere with out healthcare choices!").

 

[Tigers!]

Here's hoping that Australia has woken up to the fact that the current leaders (both state and federal) are a bunch of loonies out for their own agenda and vote in the party that supports the people first, themselves second.

Mind telling us which political party supports the people first, themselves second? I have lived in Australia all my life and I grow tired of waiting for that party. But be quick. The Victorian election is tomorrow and I need your input.

(I reckon I already know which party you will say but please humour me to confirm my powers of perception)

 

[gmbteach]

Here's hoping that Australia has woken up to the fact that the current leaders (both state and federal) are a bunch of loonies out for their own agenda and vote in the party that supports the people first, themselves second.

Mind telling us which political party supports the people first, themselves second? I have lived in Australia all my life and I grow tired of waiting for that party. But be quick. The Victorian election is tomorrow and I need your input.

(I reckon I already know which party you will say but please humour me to confirm my powers of perception)

IMO, the Labor Party supports the workers, and therefore the majority of Australians, as they want to see the best working and living arrangements for the majority of the people. The LNP, IMO, want to see a return to the old Feudal Class system where there rich have the majority of the resources and power, while the lowly servants/peasants/lower class are kept in their place and provide all the services.

The ideal society should have those that work hard in laboring roles, the middle class semi-professionals, and the upper class who employ them. The LNP, from what I have seen, prefers to eliminate the middle class and keep only the laborers on low incomes and not able to finance themselves into a better lifestyle, and an upper class who 'controls' them through owning as much as they can, and restricting their chances.

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[bilby]

Mind telling us which political party supports the people first, themselves second? I have lived in Australia all my life and I grow tired of waiting for that party. But be quick. The Victorian election is tomorrow and I need your input.

(I reckon I already know which party you will say but please humour me to confirm my powers of perception)

IMO, the Labor Party supports the workers, and therefore the majority of Australians, as they want to see the best working and living arrangements for the majority of the people. The LNP, IMO, want to see a return to the old Feudal Class system where there rich have the majority of the resources and power, while the lowly servants/peasants/lower class are kept in their place and provide all the services.

The ideal society should have those that work hard in laboring roles, the middle class semi-professionals, and the upper class who employ them. The LNP, from what I have seen, prefers to eliminate the middle class and keep only the laborers on low incomes and not able to finance themselves into a better lifestyle, and an upper class who 'controls' them through owning as much as they can, and restricting their chances.

Correct me if I am wrong.

As Shane Maloney says, "There is no such place as Melbourne. The Australian Labor Party exists only in the imagination of its own members…"

 

[Tigers!]

IMO, the Labor Party supports the workers, and therefore the majority of Australians, as they want to see the best working and living arrangements for the majority of the people. The LNP, IMO, want to see a return to the old Feudal Class system where there rich have the majority of the resources and power, while the lowly servants/peasants/lower class are kept in their place and provide all the services.

The ideal society should have those that work hard in laboring roles, the middle class semi-professionals, and the upper class who employ them. The LNP, from what I have seen, prefers to eliminate the middle class and keep only the laborers on low incomes and not able to finance themselves into a better lifestyle, and an upper class who 'controls' them through owning as much as they can, and restricting their chances.

Correct me if I am wrong.

My perception was correct. Sadly that does not help me choosing whom to vote for tomorrow in the Vic. election.

I am greatly disappointed in both parties. After 30 days I say to myself - Is that it? Is that all we are offered? Neither party gives a damn about me, my family and the state in general. They are appealing to that narrow base that both have and damn everyone else. Where is the vision, the hope? It is all so process driven.
I have the misfortune to live in a safe Labour seat. Labour will do nothing as they have taken us for granted for years decades and continue to do so. The Liberals won't do much because it is a safe Labour seat. Oh to live in a swinging seat. Both parties will promise and usually deliver.

My vote is a precious thing and yet I am forced to waste it upon dross.

 

[Togo]

Here's hoping that Australia has woken up to the fact that the current leaders (both state and federal) are a bunch of loonies out for their own agenda and vote in the party that supports the people first, themselves second.

Mind telling us which political party supports the people first, themselves second?

There are plenty of them. Unfortunately, because they don't support themselves first and foremost, you've never heard of them, and they're not going to get elected.

 

[fromderinside]

Mind telling us which political party supports the people first, themselves second?

There are plenty of them. Unfortunately, because they don't support themselves first and foremost, you've never heard of them, and they're not going to get elected.

Oh Comeonada.

U have training so U no there are no otherfirsters left in the world.

We're talking social systems which are there primarily to keep those in charge in charge. Its only when there is enough sparks to cause fires that things get done, or conversely, when there is so little minding that a things done. Unfortunately humans are probabilityists so not much happens. Something about keeping waves from forming I think.

 

[gmbteach]

IMO, the Labor Party supports the workers, and therefore the majority of Australians, as they want to see the best working and living arrangements for the majority of the people. The LNP, IMO, want to see a return to the old Feudal Class system where there rich have the majority of the resources and power, while the lowly servants/peasants/lower class are kept in their place and provide all the services.

The ideal society should have those that work hard in laboring roles, the middle class semi-professionals, and the upper class who employ them. The LNP, from what I have seen, prefers to eliminate the middle class and keep only the laborers on low incomes and not able to finance themselves into a better lifestyle, and an upper class who 'controls' them through owning as much as they can, and restricting their chances.

Correct me if I am wrong.

My perception was correct. Sadly that does not help me choosing whom to vote for tomorrow in the Vic. election.

I am greatly disappointed in both parties. After 30 days I say to myself - Is that it? Is that all we are offered? Neither party gives a damn about me, my family and the state in general. They are appealing to that narrow base that both have and damn everyone else. Where is the vision, the hope? It is all so process driven.
I have the misfortune to live in a safe Labour seat. Labour will do nothing as they have taken us for granted for years decades and continue to do so. The Liberals won't do much because it is a safe Labour seat. Oh to live in a swinging seat. Both parties will promise and usually deliver.

My vote is a precious thing and yet I am forced to waste it upon dross.

I understand your frustration. We also live in a safe labor seat, and in terms of local elections, I didn't even have to vote last time because no-one stood against the candidate. It does feel like saying 'what am I voting for?'

 

[arkirk]

Mind telling us which political party supports the people first, themselves second?

There are plenty of them. Unfortunately, because they don't support themselves first and foremost, you've never heard of them, and they're not going to get elected.

Peculiar isn't it? We all know of the duopoly in the U.S. Nothing else even registers on the radar. Nothing else gets press. Nothing else is allowed to debate. There really is only one party in America and that is the CARBON FUEL AND FERTILIZER PARTY. That pretty much controls the other parties. As long as we have people believing their work can all be done by nature, we will continue to be controlled by polluters and war mongers. The OP missed one other type...the type that is pissed with the sound of silence. Being allowed only to vote for A or B is no empowerment at all.

 

[boneyard bill]

Since I've been on social media I've noticed that when it comes to politics you can fit people into one of three categories:

1) Apathetic. People who really couldn't give two shits and whose political opinions are all superficial.

2) Active. People who have an internal drive to 'make change' and can be a little self important about it.

3) Active but detached. People who care about selective political issues, are active, but can maintain a level of emotional detachment from them.

From what I've seen people are predominantly either number 1 or number 2. Any time any political thing happens people either have no opinion at all about it, or have to go on a tirade. I wonder why that is, and I wonder why it's so supposedly noble to constantly participate in politics? I can't understand not being interested in your surroundings, as in number 1, but I also can't understand being constantly pre-occupied with politics. There's just so many more interesting things to think about besides the latest black kid who got shot, or what Russia is doing, especially when your impact is so small anyway.

I disagree with your scenario, especially number one. Some "apathetic" people may hold very superficial views, but others are quite sophisticated but still refuse to participate because it does no good. These are the people who have given up.

However, I've also known many, many active people who don't know shit from shinola about the issues. They're usually very dedicated Democrats or very dedicated Republicans. But if they ever express an opinion rather than just talk about personalities, they may often hold views contrary to their party preference. One famous example actually involves a candidate. Joe Ferguson, the State Auditor in Ohio was the Democrat candidate against Robert Taft, Sr. in 1950. He was asked what he thought about the Formosa situation. At that time, the media still referred to Taiwan by its Japanese name, and Formosa was very much in the news because Chiang Kai Shek had just fled there after his defeat on the mainland. "Jumpin' Joe" Ferguson, as he was known, responded to the question by saying, "I'll carry it. I always do."

Joe Ferguson was a very dedicated Democrat who had had a fairly successful political career, but knew absolutely nothing about political issues. He left the auditors office but came back to win it again in 1970 when he was about 80 years old.

 

[Emily Lake]

Liberals tend to be category three more often than not, primarily because they care about certain issues for purely intellectual reasons and are emotionally detached from the get-go (e.g. "I'm pretty sure single-payer healthcare would work way better than simple insurance reform"). Conservatives tend to fall into category two because they passionately believe that things are all screwed up and need to be changed; they BEGIN with an emotional investment which can shift from issue to issue even if some of those issues contradict each other (e.g. "I am passionately against conctraception! I am also passionately against abortion! I am also passionately against sex for any purpose other than reproduction! Also, the government should stay out of our bedrooms and private lives and should not interfere with out healthcare choices!").

I believe that the existence of this forum disproves your theory here, Crazy Eddie. It's very strongly populated by liberals, many of whom seem to fall very strongly into category two!

I think that Rousseau is missing a 4th category: Those who are interested theoretically. I think that there are some people who are not detached emotionally... but also aren't active politically. These are the idealists, the people who will argue to the death about a concept or a principle, but who aren't particularly invested in the every-day application and running of the country. It's the ideas behind the policies that interest them, the abstractions that form the basis for our laws and regulations.

I suggest this as a fourth category, because I believe this is where I fall. I vote, and I sign the occasional petition. But I don't do anything that would otherwise be considered "politically active". But there are topics that I care very deeply about, and (as some may have noticed ) I will argue quite strongly for some position. I'm far from detached. But I will never get out there and campaign for any particular person, and I'm very unlikely to get out there and campaign for any particular issue. It's the ideas and the concepts that get my motor running.