29 Responses to “The Ugliest Time of the Year”

1. Sue
   October 24th, 2009 @ 1:00 pm

   There’s nothing better for me than that rarest of all things: a civil political discussion, especially since making the right choices is so important at this critical juncture in our country’s history. I do want to hear the ideas and thoughts of others, but you’re right, the kind of civility that makes for real learning is almost impossible to come by.

   I’m not sure why political discourse is heading in such an argumentative, even mean-spirited direction. Maybe we’re just following the lead of all those “look-out-for-number-one” leaders we keep sending to Washington in (rapidly fading) hopes that they might actually represent us. Perhaps the frustration that leads to arguments has as much to do with disappointment in elected officials we feel powerless to influence as in disparity of opinion. It may just be that it all comes down to a lack of that once empowering feeling that our voices are and can be heard.

   It’s true that the acrimony seems to be spreading even to the local level, but maybe it isn’t so surprising. People learn what they live, and we are living through a period where way too many elected representatives are more concerned about their personal advancement than advancing the interests and ideas of their constituents.

   And, like you, I think it’s a shame.

2. Giggles
   October 24th, 2009 @ 1:04 pm

   I often follow your line of reasoning as well. I’ll look at where each candidate stands, but if they turn ugly, I try to not reward that type of behavior. I don’t want other potential candidates thinking that works.

   In studying what motivates people, there are three general areas people talk about, affiliation, achievement, and power. You can get people in politics motivated by each of those. But people motivated specifically by power are a very interesting group. They want control and they’ll do anything for it and justify what they do. They can actually have physical side effects for not getting it. Oddly, politicians motivated by affiliation are deemed weak and inefficient. Those motivated by achievement can accomplish great things. But politics seems to draw those with power the most. And it gets ugly.

   I stopped watching the tv and limited my radio listening last year, it got so ugly. I don’t need all that mud in my life.

3. Justine
   October 24th, 2009 @ 1:07 pm

   ugh, you guys are so right. Power is so alluring, and it can certainly destroy people, subtly and surely.

   I grew up in a politically active home, but my parent’s always encouraged our debates. They would almost always take a counter-point to whatever I was asserting, and we would civilly discuss the ideas from all sides. I thought that was how it worked everywhere, and am still sadly disillusioned that it’s not!!

4. Kylie
   October 24th, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

   Justine, I love what you have posted on your fridge about when to say something. I think it applies to political discourse fairly well (you have to answer “yes” to two of the three):

   1. Is it kind?
   2. Is it necessary?
   3. Is it true?

   The thing that caught me off-guard and that I had to think about for awhile is that something can be necessary and true and yet not very nice. Those are hard discussions for me because I’m rather conflict-adverse.

   I deplore the current state of political discourse, but I also recognize that sometimes voters need real information; they–I–want to vote on real issues, not on a beauty pageant of nice people who all say the same, nice things.

   The problem I see in much of the political rhetoric is that they answer “yes” to #2 and #3, but it isn’t a solid “yes”–the “facts” are shaky (and how is the average voter ever going to figure that out?), or they answer “yes, it’s necessary,” simply because winning seems “necessary”–a justification that I don’t believe.

   Sorry for the long comment. Obviously I’ve been thinking too much about this lately. Unfortunately.

5. Kylie
   October 24th, 2009 @ 1:33 pm

   I forgot to say that I believe that even if something is true and necessary, it does NOT need to be said in a rude or uncivil manner.

6. Kylie
   October 24th, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

   I’m back. I’m not sure if “kind and necessary” works for politics, either. Better stick with true, too.

7. Justine
   October 24th, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

   Kylie, you are right that kind and necessary sometimes can still lead to painful discussions. I don’t know if it still works in politics. Kind and necessary can lead to damage which is hard to mitigate when there is no place for a heartfelt and earnest discussion among the parties involved.

   But I would probably want to know if a person was behaving in an immoral or illegal way so as to avoid voting for them. It just becomes too difficult to tease out what is actual truth versus what is perceived injustice.

   There seems to be no honest and reliable source of information, and when so many people come forward, claiming to bear ‘the truth’, it just makes me want to walk away from the whole of it.

   Someone told me yesterday that if I stopped caring or being involved as a resident of my town, then I concede every vitriolic point to those who don’t mind and perhaps even enjoy the hurtful discourse.

   I just don’t think it’s worth it at any personal level I can contrive.

8. traci
   October 24th, 2009 @ 5:26 pm

   I am fascinated with local politics especially. I think that it is the one thing I get involved in locally that affects me on a “instant gratification” way. We are lucky that I have never known much of mud slinging, locally. (Alto there were those 2 Senior Cititens running for some trustee job that fist fought at the library debate afternoon. What a hoot!)

   In our house DH can read political blogs and news for 8 – 10 hours easy on a weekend. There are constant video’s being played. The ones where they shout drive me crazy! We don’t have TV so I have been desensitized to these things, and they tend to irritate me faster.

   As much as I like some political discussions in can many times be sticky. In our writer’s group my DH and a new member started “talking” politics. The group finally banned it. Now they “duke” in out on FB. The funny part is that they were commenting back and forth for quite a while, before he realized in was the same person, never knowing her last name.

   Civility I like. What happened to smiling, not arguing, facts, and “if you don’t have something nice to say about someone don’t say anything at all”?

9. Catania
   October 24th, 2009 @ 8:06 pm

   I understand what you mean. We should be able to disagree civilly. I kind of think that all of the cable tv stations make this stuff worse – they spend so much time screaming at each other and name calling. It is what I’m desparately trying to train my children NOT to do.

   And it is soooooo destructive, and usually pointless.

   I do think it is possible to have conflict without contention. Maybe the problem has to do with pride, when we get uncivil, it seems like we usually have to leap to assumptions about the other person first. It is so hard to be so argumentative and uncivil when we really know and love the person with whom we disagree.

   Anyways – I hope things can start calming down for you!

10. Loralee
    October 24th, 2009 @ 8:40 pm

    I have to admit that I get confused and frustrated when otherwise good, kind, and wonderful people don’t agree with my political viewpoint. However, I can’t imagine getting into a heated debate over the issues at a ward function or friendly social gathering. And when issues are discussed, I do think it is possible, and even necessary, to be calm and civil in that discussion. I always think that the person who loses their temper or is nasty does so because they don’t have the facts or a good basis for their arguments…just something to keep in mind.

11. m&m
    October 24th, 2009 @ 9:38 pm

    I often feel honestly at a loss about what to do about politics. I know it’s my duty to be involved and informed, but how can you really be informed with the way things work these days?

    My husband thinks voting records are often one of the best ways to figure things out.

    I also wish more politicians would simply show what they stand for, rather than trying to undercut the other. It seems to me such a waste of time and energy. If voters need to know something about someone’s past, it ought not be the opponent to point it out — such a conflict of interest.

12. Jennie
    October 24th, 2009 @ 10:05 pm

    I avoid politics for much the same reason as you. For the most part politics = contention.

13. Ambrosia
    October 24th, 2009 @ 10:06 pm

    I agree with m&m. I feel being informed requires so much time because I have to review many, many different sources.

    I also used to love politics, but it has become worse than contact sports-mud slinging, back biting, etc. I cringe whenever I hear an opponent attack a candidate on non-issues (like weight, rude!). Frankly, when I see an opponent attack someone with coercive tactics, I will not vote for them. If I don’t like the other guy (or gal) I will just write in my own candidate.

    The history of politics has almost always involved mean-spirited personal attacks. Politicians see positive results with these tactics so will re-use them. It is unfortunate that we, as voters, will respond positively to negative advertisements. I guess, in a way, voters (and the media) have discouraged “polite discourse” because we enjoy seeing action.

14. Loralee
    October 24th, 2009 @ 11:03 pm

    Re: M&M: “I also wish more politicians would simply show what they stand for, rather than trying to undercut the other. It seems to me such a waste of time and energy. If voters need to know something about someone’s past, it ought not be the opponent to point it out — such a conflict of interest.”

    It is a conflict of interest – and nasty and in bad taste – for the opponent to bring up negative things about their opponent. But that is what the media is supposed to do, to “vet” the candidates.
    But the media these days is so biased, it is impossible to really know the candidates. So looking at their voting record (or lack thereof) is going to be your best best…

15. m&m
    October 25th, 2009 @ 2:12 am

    But that is what the media is supposed to do, to “vet” the candidates.

    That to me ends up being part of the political problem, though. The media so often thrives on hype, and so rather than actually giving some decent, unbiased information to help us make educated choices, we get way too much garbage and “wooeey, lookie what dirt we have here (and you heard it first here)” masquerading as news.

    Bleh.

    Soooo, anyway, what do you do with a new candidate that has no voting record?

16. Al
    October 25th, 2009 @ 9:22 am

    I have a free ebook available on my site http://WWW.AcademyOfLocalPoltics.Com. It is titled, Why Your City Council Makes Dumb Decisions and What You Can Do About It. Some may find it interesting. Others may not. But, what the heck it is free.

17. Loralee
    October 25th, 2009 @ 9:59 am

    M&M – That’s exactly what I am talking about when I say the media is biased. I should also mention that they slurp up and regurgitate the negative, and what isn’t negative, they twist to make it so. Unless they are enamored with the candidate/subject. Then all they show is the “good” stuff. The media is twisted out there, too. Is it because that’s what people want to watch? I wish there was a news show that didn’t depend on ratings to stay afloat. And I am NOT talking about a govt. run news organization, which I heard is actually being discussed. That would be scary, for sure.

    And a candidate without a voting record? Depends on what the candidate is running for. But wouldn’t you expect a presidential candidate to have a pretty lengthy voting record??

18. Claudia
    October 25th, 2009 @ 11:16 am

    All this ugliness accounts for the demise of ancient democracies and some not so ancient attempts. I think one has to leave the personal attacks aside and try to focus on the facts and the issues. I admit that is a terribly difficult thing to do.

    Our public discourse has become more strident with the popularity of talk radio and its sister all news all the time TV. I don’t watch the news anymore. I don’t miss it.

19. Justine
    October 25th, 2009 @ 12:51 pm

    Loralee, the media does seem to be complicit in the horrible-ness, doesn’t it?

    I’m also thinking in particular about the politics of lawn signs, and the way that even local elections can divide neighborhoods in unnecessary ways. It seems that if I disagree with policy decisions someone has made, or if neighbor x has a different opinion than neighbor Y, they suddenly cannot be friends anymore.

    What a lamentable loss.

    And in local politics, teasing out the truth is harder than ever because there are so few voices out there. Most towns have only one (if any) local newspapers, and websites that pop up are funded by people with vested interests in one position or another.

    You’re right, government media is not a good idea, but wouldn’t it be nice to have a source of information we trusted?

    That thought brings up another interesting succession. The only source of information I trust implicitly is the Spirit, but don’t some candidates use God as a tool to their ends? There seems to be races to be the most pious and religious, or even the most agnostic and scientific, depending on where you live.

    And honestly, I could pray to know who to vote for, but if that person did or didn’t win, what does that mean? Can it fill me with the aforementioned fiery indignation or rightness? It seems it could be the means of my own downfall.

    oh blah, blah, blah, I’m starting to ramble. Sorry.

20. Giggles
    October 25th, 2009 @ 1:37 pm

    I much prefer the candidates who talk about what they stand for rather than simply how bad their opponent is. Tell me about yourself, not your opponent!!

    My fiancé has strong political opinions in one direction. A good friend of mine has strong political opinions in the other. When the two of them get together it very often comes up. But it is so interesting to watch because they both completely respect the other. They frequently start conversing about politics at parties and everyone else just watches in amazement at how civil they are about it. They have researched their sides and aren’t just repeating things they’ve heard elsewhere. It never turns ugly between the two of them. And that always surprises those around them.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if a civil political discussion wasn’t surprising to people?

21. Merry Michelle
    October 25th, 2009 @ 6:55 pm

    I feel the same way and can’t stand the silly, arguing channels for that reason. I really believe exposure to media in general can cause us to soak up relentless negativity (contention, violence, sex, fear, etc.). Yick! Enough!

22. Sage
    October 25th, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

    We had stake conference today and a new patriarch was called. My husband talked to him after the meeting, asking what kind of direction he received on how to give blessings. One of the things was to completely remove themselves from contention. I found that interesting and perhaps telling about how all this political backbiting truly causes spiritual distress.

    I think it is hard to know who to vote for, but know it is important to do it. Guess I’ll just keep trying to do the same thing you suggested and vote for the nicest candidate.

23. Heather O.
    October 25th, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

    Ah, incivility in politics is nothing new. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, and Senator Sumner was beaten with a cane on the floor of the Senate. At least nobody beat up Joe Wilson when he shouted at the president.

    So sadly, it’s not so much the decline of civility, it’s just now that the media is going 24/7, we get a closer view of it.

    We don’t have a tv, and I have found that I don’t miss the news, either. We get our political news from the newspaper and the mailings of the candidates. I know the newspaper is biased too, but it’s easier to filter through the written word, and at least nobody is shouting. And I find that I actually now read the mailings that pile up in my mailbox, because it’s usually the first I’ve heard of the candidates. It’s a refreshing change from the constant punditry we used to listen to every Sunday morning when we had 1001 cable channels.

    But it’s always a relief when election day comes, and it’s all over.

    My question always is this: how many landfills do all the old lawn signs take up?

24. m&m
    October 26th, 2009 @ 12:05 am

    And I find that I actually now read the mailings that pile up in my mailbox

    I have tried to do more of that, too.

    Loralee, when I asked about voting records, I was thinking more about local politics. Hard when a new person shows up. Sometimes they ride on their newness, which means also trying to distinguish themselves from the incumbents, which usually leads to cutting the opponents down, which….

    Heather, no tv is an awesome life, we have decided. Except sometimes on game days. We may also get TV for the two weeks of the Olympics.

25. Cindy
    October 26th, 2009 @ 7:21 am

    I recently read an editorial in the New York Times that really struck a chord with me. The author was lamenting the extreme polarization of parties, but even more than that, the attitudes of the losing party after the election was over. He likened the current political climate here to the way things were in Israel before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated. (I should explain this more–he said that all it takes is one radical extremist who has heard enough hateful rhetoric to believe that it would be a good & beneficial thing if someone killed the person in question.)

    As I read the article I could see truth in what he was saying. Many of my family members are rabidly conservative. I don’t have a problem with their political stance necessarily–everyone gets to decide where they stand and vote their convictions. But when otherwise rational, church and temple going adults talk like they would actually be happy if someone killed the man elected president of the United States, I am appalled.

    There are a couple of people in my life that I enjoy talking politics with. We have civil and interesting discussions and I feel like I have learned from them and understand more than I used to. But I refuse to talk politics with anyone else, because it is just too ugly.

    And I can get plenty of ugly from my 14 year old…

26. annahannah
    October 26th, 2009 @ 8:46 am

    I am with Justine and giggles. Cindy, me, too.

27. ESO
    October 26th, 2009 @ 12:06 pm

    I don’t notice this in my community. At all. The only place I hear this incivility is on conservative talk radio. If there were liberal talk radio, maybe it would be there, too.

    But in the neighborhood and town? Nah.

28. Amy
    October 26th, 2009 @ 3:51 pm

    I have never been too fond of politics–I am always very uncomfortable with planned contention. But, we moved to Iowa two years ago and had the opportunity of caucusing for president for the first time. I figured it was my civic duty and showed up at our high school library with most of our neighbors from our quadrant of our city. We all sat down at tables there and then they went through each candidate and asked someone from the audience to speak on behalf of each one–telling why they liked the candidate. They said specifically that negative comments were not allowed. People were passionate about their candidates and very aware that their votes would strongly influence who became president of the United States. But, no one was contentious. No one was negative. After each candidate had been vouched for–no speech longer than a couple of minutes–we all wrote our choice on a slip of paper, put it in an empty trash can and turned them all in. They counted the votes and we were done.

    It was a totally remarkable night for me. Eye opening. Politics with purpose, but without contention. I guess it really can be done.

29. Kylie
    October 28th, 2009 @ 8:23 am

    I see that most everyone agrees that politics is getting rude and nasty and that we could/should be nicer. Me, too. I also think that Nate Oman is wise to point out that even being “nice” is not always what it seems–sometimes it’s just being passive-aggressive or a sort of victim/martyr role. Interesting.
    http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/the-nasty-side-of-christian-ethics/#more-9975

Recent Comments

More Kinds of Segullah

Find us on these aggregators

Segullah Sampler of Blogs

• i paint » HOW TO LOSE TEN POUNDS
• Seriously, so blessed! » clearification
• all the little things » OCD
• The Belly Diaries » Home Sweet Home
• brown eyes » How I Know My Kids Love My Cooking
• nienie » Blue Lily's Balloons
• reese dixon » Fettuccine in a lemon cream sauce
• formerly phread » Miraclebody Jeans
• Segullah » Afternoons of Nothing
• Segullah » Afternoons of Nothing

Click here our page of selected recent posts by LDS women around the web, with excerpts.

Footnotes

• Pregnancy Coercion
• 10 Ways Facebook Can Ruin Your Life
• Mormon Concrete Poetry
• When Trees Fall
• “It encourages us to mother not only our children, but ourselves and each other, with loving arms, malleable hearts, and unconquerable spirits.”
• The Girl with Her Fingers in Her Ears
• Mutant Christianity
• Religious Freedom