Why it's hard to be a nice person in politics

[Baroque Mongoose]

Wow. Zeitblom, your blog is amazing. I've tried to subscribe to it but I'm not sure if the system has let me.

You also make so many good points in this post that I'm not sure which one to agree with first!

[Zeitblom]

Originally Posted by Baroque Mongoose

Wow. Zeitblom, your blog is amazing. I've tried to subscribe to it but I'm not sure if the system has let me.

You also make so many good points in this post that I'm not sure which one to agree with first!

Glad you enjoy the blog. It is good to be able to vent after all the years when I was politically restricted.

[haydnguy]

Well, I was going to give you a long version but a big reason why it's hard to be a nice person in politics is because, at least in the states and for now, "attack politics" works. What it really does as much as anything is galvanize your own base.

Attack politics doesn't really change too many peoples minds, especially if someone like Sarah Palin does it too much. What it does is gets your own voters to the polls. If you don't do the same, you risk your own voters not voting and thus losing.

Of course, in the process it raises a lot of bad feelings but to a typical politician, that's a small price to pay to be elected.

EDIT: I wanted to say too that another benefit of attacking is the fact that attacking others takes the focus off yourself. i.e. you don't have to answer questions, take positions on issues, etc., thus avoiding stumbling mistakes.

[Baroque Mongoose]

That's a very mixed "benefit", though. I suspect it works best if you've already got a very polarised electorate, so that they will vote for a candidate because of their party affiliation even if they aren't impressed with the candidate. Where there are a lot of floating voters who have to be won over, attack politics is not going to work so well, because the floating voters are all going to think to themselves, "well, this candidate isn't actually saying anything positive - all they're doing is attacking the other candidate. They can't be much good, then."

[haydnguy]

Originally Posted by Baroque Mongoose

That's a very mixed "benefit", though. I suspect it works best if you've already got a very polarised electorate, so that they will vote for a candidate because of their party affiliation even if they aren't impressed with the candidate. Where there are a lot of floating voters who have to be won over, attack politics is not going to work so well, because the floating voters are all going to think to themselves, "well, this candidate isn't actually saying anything positive - all they're doing is attacking the other candidate. They can't be much good, then."

Your exactly right. When I was a young man (college age), when asked people would normally say that they voted for the man. And generally they did. Now people vote much more along ideological lines. So the candidates job is to keep their base riled up and win over enough of the middle to win. That last part, as you indicate is the tricky part.

[haydnguy]

Alex, I would be interested in your view on what I said. Thanks.