(no subject)
Mar. 11th, 2023 12:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
primeidealAnother of the "thoughts I've been turning over in my head for a while but wanted to put down in one place":
Some time ago (I'm thinking on the order of magnitude of, like, decades here, not millennia), politics was more of a niche business; for an average person, even an intelligent person, it wasn't easy to get information and make up your mind about the issues that people were discussing in the capital. "Should we raise the tariffs on X? Should we increase the budget of Y?" Eh...who knows, that's complicated and far away. But, you do have a local politician who represents your area to the broader country as a whole, and hopefully that person is somewhat decent and tries to do a good job representing his (usually his, could be her) constituents. Representative Smith stands for us and brings jobs to our district and solves our casework for us...I'm gonna trust that he knows what he's talking about, when it comes to X.
To some extent, I suspect that may have been true even for relationships that weren't explicitly political as well. I don't know a whole lot about Y, but, my neighbor Katie has always struck me as being a responsible, level-headed person, and she knows a lot about Y; if I wanted to learn more, I could ask her opinion, and I would be inclined to put weight in what she thinks.
Now, people have a lot more access to information, and can figure out where they stand without having to defer to a local politician. This makes them more informed when they cast their votes. It's not enough to say "I like Smith because he voices the concerns of our district"--sure, but anyone could do that. I want to vote for Jones over Smith because Jones' opinions, on topics like X, Y, and Z, are closer to mine. In many ways, this is good, because it allows voters to take a more direct role in expressing their beliefs and priorities. However, it also can lead to more polarization and gridlock than in the past. (And, obviously, all the problems that come up with the limitations of a two-party system, in that just because I agree with Jones on 80% of the issues doesn't mean I support his platform for the other 20%.)
And, again, I suspect there is something similar happening in non-political relationships. I don't ask Katie about Y because I value her opinion; I ask her about Y because I already know how I feel about Y, very strongly, and if she doesn't have the right answer, I don't want to be her friend. Now, it's fine if other people do the same to me--I just wish that they'd skip ahead to the litmus test part so we don't have to waste time on fake friendship before the inevitable disappointment!
(I may be off-base here because I wasn't around back in "the day" that this refers to; speculation only.)
Some time ago (I'm thinking on the order of magnitude of, like, decades here, not millennia), politics was more of a niche business; for an average person, even an intelligent person, it wasn't easy to get information and make up your mind about the issues that people were discussing in the capital. "Should we raise the tariffs on X? Should we increase the budget of Y?" Eh...who knows, that's complicated and far away. But, you do have a local politician who represents your area to the broader country as a whole, and hopefully that person is somewhat decent and tries to do a good job representing his (usually his, could be her) constituents. Representative Smith stands for us and brings jobs to our district and solves our casework for us...I'm gonna trust that he knows what he's talking about, when it comes to X.
To some extent, I suspect that may have been true even for relationships that weren't explicitly political as well. I don't know a whole lot about Y, but, my neighbor Katie has always struck me as being a responsible, level-headed person, and she knows a lot about Y; if I wanted to learn more, I could ask her opinion, and I would be inclined to put weight in what she thinks.
Now, people have a lot more access to information, and can figure out where they stand without having to defer to a local politician. This makes them more informed when they cast their votes. It's not enough to say "I like Smith because he voices the concerns of our district"--sure, but anyone could do that. I want to vote for Jones over Smith because Jones' opinions, on topics like X, Y, and Z, are closer to mine. In many ways, this is good, because it allows voters to take a more direct role in expressing their beliefs and priorities. However, it also can lead to more polarization and gridlock than in the past. (And, obviously, all the problems that come up with the limitations of a two-party system, in that just because I agree with Jones on 80% of the issues doesn't mean I support his platform for the other 20%.)
And, again, I suspect there is something similar happening in non-political relationships. I don't ask Katie about Y because I value her opinion; I ask her about Y because I already know how I feel about Y, very strongly, and if she doesn't have the right answer, I don't want to be her friend. Now, it's fine if other people do the same to me--I just wish that they'd skip ahead to the litmus test part so we don't have to waste time on fake friendship before the inevitable disappointment!
(I may be off-base here because I wasn't around back in "the day" that this refers to; speculation only.)
