• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Majority of Americans Are...

What do you think?

  • I'm smarter than most Americans

    Votes: 12 33.3%
  • I'm not smarter than most Americans

    Votes: 1 2.8%
  • Most Americans don't have enough knowledge to justify their opinions

    Votes: 20 55.6%
  • Most Americans do have enough knowledge

    Votes: 3 8.3%

  • Total voters
    36
No vote, of course..Too few options.
I'd say that the words the patriot writes also apply to him.
The only smart ones are those who balance their listening/reading time between the liberal and conservative viewpoints
, and then drawing their own conclusions..
But who has the time for this? Both sides lie and spin.
 
I didn't participate in the poll because I don't think it is quite that simple.

I talk politics with people quite a lot.
Some are intelligent but politically uninformed.
--- sometimes this is due to a lack of intrest. Sometimes they know they are uninformed. Sometimes they don't.
Some are not especially intelligent, but possess considerable information about political issues... which they often mis-analyze or mis-characterize.
Some are smart and well-informed, and these come in all idelogical flavors.

I think it is very hard to nail down what the "Average" American is like, in terms of intellect and political knowlege. I've met janitors who could have an hour-long discussion of politics and bring informed insight to the conversation. I've met university professors who were ignorant of politics yet held arrogantly stubborn positions that had no basis in reality.

No truer words.
If something like "national health care" works well in Japan, Germany, England, France, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Italy,India,China, Brasil, Canada, why are we last to have it?
But our existing system(semi-socialized) seems to work OK, at least a million Mexicans think so. But, IMO, "OK" is not good enough.
 
The majority of Americans are like the majority of people around the world. Too many people feel like they are important or someone in the world yet they are nothing but space. This forum is an excellent example of people who believe they are smarter than the rest. A little bit of elitist attitude for people who don't have much in the world or have not seen much of the world?
 
So if a person visits with a couple of neighbors and one decides to run and the others agree to support him, do they all go to prision or just the candidate?

The main purpose of my suggestions is to illustrate the difficulty of obtaining a non-partisan society, not to actually effect one. #1 isn't necessarily an option I would support. However, outlawing political parties is different from outlawing all political organization. Parties involve institutions and protocols that one man and his neighbors don't have.

Yeah, those countries that have a parliament have done so much better than the USA.

No country is perfect. Countries with parliaments have an easier time dealing with political polarization though, as compromise is much easier to effect.

I don't think it is a stretch to argue countries with parliaments have done better politically, especially in domestic politics, because it is easier to represent the many nuances in the spectrum of viewpoints. Economically and militarily, the United States enjoys advantages other nations don't have.

The United States is actually worse than average at politics. No subtlety. But we are powerful and important enough we don't have to be particularly good to exert influence on world affairs.

Thought police.... another great idea. :roll:

Probably the least totalitarian of my suggestions. This is a "change from within" sort of thing. Also the one least likely to work.
 
Last edited:
The main purpose of my suggestions is to illustrate the difficulty of obtaining a non-partisan society, not to actually effect one. #1 isn't necessarily an option I would support. However, outlawing political parties is different from outlawing all political organization. Parties involve institutions and protocols that one man and his neighbors don't have.

But political parties serve a necessary purpose: to help like-minded voters coalesce around specific candidates. If there are ten center-left candidates on the ballot who split 70% of the vote, and one center-right candidate who takes 30% of the vote, then the center-right candidate will win even though he may have been the last choice of the majority of voters. Political parties help to prevent this from happening, by holding primaries so that the voters can all rally behind an acceptable candidate, even if that candidate isn't everyone's first choice.

Morality Games said:
No country is perfect. Countries with parliaments have an easier time dealing with political polarization though, as compromise is much easier to effect.

I don't think it is a stretch to argue countries with parliaments have done better politically, especially in domestic politics, because it is easier to represent the many nuances in the spectrum of viewpoints. Economically and militarily, the United States enjoys advantages other nations don't have.

The United States is actually worse than average at politics. No subtlety. But we are powerful and important enough we don't have to be particularly good to exert influence on world affairs.

I agree. I think that in general, a parliamentary system works best. I've heard our presidential system described as "America's most dangerous export," because when developing countries try to implement it, they almost invariably descend into strongman politics, military coups, or civil war.

With that said, the presidential system works well enough in the United States that I wouldn't want to mess with it.
 
The main purpose of my suggestions is to illustrate the difficulty of obtaining a non-partisan society, not to actually effect one. #1 isn't necessarily an option I would support. However, outlawing political parties is different from outlawing all political organization. Parties involve institutions and protocols that one man and his neighbors don't have.
At what point does a political organization become a party?



No country is perfect. Countries with parliaments have an easier time dealing with political polarization though, as compromise is much easier to effect.

I don't think it is a stretch to argue countries with parliaments have done better politically, especially in domestic politics, because it is easier to represent the many nuances in the spectrum of viewpoints. Economically and militarily, the United States enjoys advantages other nations don't have.

The United States is actually worse than average at politics. No subtlety. But we are powerful and important enough we don't have to be particularly good to exert influence on world affairs.
What nation has as their goal to be good politically? What does being good politically even mean?


Probably the least totalitarian of my suggestions. This is a "change from within" sort of thing. Also the one least likely to work.
You don't get a diverse group of people to think alike without coercion?

.
 
I'm not smarter than most Americans. I may be more attuned to politics than most Americans, but most Americans probably have better sense on a vast majority of things than I do.
 
So the questions are do you think you're smarter than the average American in this broad context and do you think most Americans don't have the knowledge necessary to justify the certainty of their opinions.

Regarding political issues I believe I am more politically informed than most Americans. Americans finding politics not that interesting does not mean they are stupid.Most of us who go to political forums are the equivalent to Trekie nerds or the sports junkies. There are some exceptions like we do not dress like or collect clothes of Rachael Madow,Glenn Beck, Steven Colbert,Jon Stewart,Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh or some other Political commentator or influential personality. Instead of Jerseys and action figures we read political science books, we might have vote for so and so signs and political buttons. Our nerd conventions would be the political rallies.Instead ball games we have local,state and federal elections be the elections and our Superbowl or world series would be the November elections once every few years.
 
With that said, the presidential system works well enough in the United States that I wouldn't want to mess with it.

As third-world nations like Iran improve technologically and economically, you might change your mind. American success is based on our uncontested power in the world economy and military matters. When we had trouble in Vietnam, people could chalk it up to any number of happenstances that didn't necessarily imply the United States has limited ability to back up our assertions of strength. Our troubles in post-war Afghanistan and Iraq have displayed our most damaging weaknesses to the world. They know we can't actually engineer democratic societies, or keep our nation's borders safe, without great and lumbering difficulty. That reduces the threat we pose, which is one reason why North Korea and Iran are so bold.

Not to say the United States isn't strong. We are still the most powerful nation in the world and, pending events I can't foresee, will retain that position for at least a couple more decades. Even after that, we will still be part of a plurality of strong nations and alliances.

At a certain point, the United States needs to be good at politics.

At what point does a political organization become a party?

When it obtains the ability to punish dissenters and force conformity to a series of narrow, ideologically charged viewpoints -- aka, a platform.

You don't get a diverse group of people to think alike without coercion?

Generally, no. That's why it is the least likely. Also the morally superior route. Persuading people to improve on their political reasoning is better than legislating around their ignorance, but also less likely to work.

What nation has as their goal to be good politically? What does being good politically even mean?

Flexibility. A diverse repertoire of diplomatic and logistical skills. The United States military and economy are moderately flexible. Our governments are not. Generally, our foreign policy is based on the expectation of obedience and respect due to our military and economic strength. But you can't always expect obedience and respect.
 
Last edited:
The Majority of Americans Are...

...waking up.

Better late than never.

.
 
...


When it obtains the ability to punish dissenters and force conformity to a series of narrow, ideologically charged viewpoints -- aka, a platform.
If our mythical one dudette and her few neighbors agree to only allow those that agree with them to attend their meetings, they are now a political party. I think you might want to reconsider how you are going to decide who is just a member of a political organization and who you are going to send to prison.



Generally, no. That's why it is the least likely. Also the morally superior route. Persuading people to improve on their political reasoning is better than legislating around their ignorance, but also less likely to work.
So if someone disagrees with your political reasoning, it is because of their ignorance? Gotcha...

Unless everyone starts out thinking the same, seems to me you have people holding partisan positions.




.
 
I would further clarify by saying that I think that regular Americans are perhaps far more perceptive of the impact of legislation and governance on their daily lives than I am. Not just because of age or inexperience, but because I think there is a general competence in real-life impact. As far as the political process goes, yeah, they are probably not generally informed or come to bad conclusions, but I do not disagree that there is at least something to the notion of common sense governance.
 
If our mythical one dudette and her few neighbors agree to only allow those that agree with them to attend their meetings, they are now a political party. I think you might want to reconsider how you are going to decide who is just a member of a political organization and who you are going to send to prison.

So defined. I don't consider such an organization to be a political party as we have them in the United States anymore than I consider a seed a plant.

Political parties excel in popular governments. One might expect them to exist in a reduced form in the House of Representatives, but more as a loose coalition than a solid voting bloc; people are just too different across regions for groups like the Democratic and Republican Parties to plausibly represent their views. Are in the interests of New England conservatives fully in tune with their counter parts in the Bible Belt? In the original plan, the Senate is supposed to be filled by the state legislatures, the electoral college is supposed to exercise authority independent of the popular suggestion, and the courts are supposed to be far removed from politics. It results in an environment where careful deliberation enjoys greater authority than sentiment. The ability of national poltical parties to manipulate election outcomes in state's across the Union, through endorsements and funding and influence with the media, compromises regional interest in favor of a codified platform people can only partially agree with.

So if someone disagrees with your political reasoning, it is because of their ignorance? Gotcha...

Unless everyone starts out thinking the same, seems to me you have people holding partisan positions.

Disagreement between two people implies one or both are ignorant. That's why people generally resent it when others disagree with them.

I wouldn't expect people to have the same intepretations, but less attatchment to their conclusions would be a help. Partisanship is partisanship until, "My view is the right one," moves to, "My view is the right one no matter what."
 
Last edited:
So defined. I don't consider such an organization to be a political party as we have them in the United States anymore than I consider a seed a plant.
But they are engaged in the actions you said would show them to be a political party. Does the fact they are few in number make them only a political organization?

Political parties excel in popular governments. One might expect them to exist in a reduced form in the House of Representatives, but more as a loose coalition than a solid voting bloc; people are just too different across regions for groups like the Democratic and Republican Parties to plausibly represent their views. Are in the interests of New England conservatives fully in tune with their counter parts in the Bible Belt? In the original plan, the Senate is supposed to be filled by the state legislatures, the electoral college is supposed to exercise authority independent of the popular suggestion, and the courts are supposed to be far removed from politics. It results in an environment where careful deliberation enjoys greater authority than sentiment. The ability of national poltical parties to manipulate election outcomes in state's across the Union, through endorsements and funding and influence with the media, compromises regional interest in favor of a codified platform people can only partially agree with.
A lot of words. What exactly do they say about your desire to criminalize political parties?



Disagreement between two people implies one or both are ignorant.
Or... maybe folks with different views see things from different perspectives.

So you think half the USA citizens are just ignorant and just need to be reeducated?

That's why people generally resent it when others disagree with them.

I wouldn't expect people to have the same intepretations, but less attatchment to their conclusions would be a help. Partisanship is partisanship until, "My view is the right one," moves to, "My view is the right one no matter what."
So who decides what the proper view is?

.
 
A lot of words. What exactly do they say about your desire to criminalize political parties?

The federal government can't function under the strain of political parties. Ideology isn't supposed to be as important as it is.

Or... maybe folks with different views see things from different perspectives.

Indeed. That's why I suggested a parliament instead of a bicameral legislature. Parliaments are based around doing what people want to the utmost extent possible. Bicameral legislatures are based on filtering it with what is reasonable.

So you think half the USA citizens are just ignorant and just need to be reeducated?

Not the way I would put it, but the condition characterizes more than half the American people. And you probably can't fix it with education anymore than you can make lifelong Cowboys fans into Green Bay Packers fans.

So who decides what the proper view is?

I said people need to be less attached to their views. Right and wrongness doesn't play into it. Please stop strawmaning my arguments.

People need to recognize that they probably aren't consistently right. As such, emotional attachment to their opinions is insincere.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom