lemon boy
09-09-2008, 12:41 PM
Just an observation/theory:
Politics and policy ("PnP") are what guide people's voting choices even if they claim otherwise (especially if they do).
I have long noticed a trend where people with a particular (note: I'm not singling out one leaning, all do so IMO) political leaning will use non-PnP issues (character, experience, religion etc…) as a discussion/debate point, mostly with people they see as politically opposite or those they view as not politically committed for some reason. I think it's seen as an exploitable weakness with the former and a reasonable line of discourse with the latter.
This has been so noticeable the last 6 months or so that I've been casting about for a label to slap on the behavior, the best of which I've hit upon is: pink flamingo. Basically, tacky stuff that one side attempts to decorate the other's house with. In the end, it is really the house that is important although the pink flamingos can sometimes obscure it. Not perfect but it's stuck in my head.
This round I've been trying real hard not to get sucked into debates about the flamingos (it's hard) and readily admit to a bit of gloating while one side reconciled their cognitive dissonance over planting a whole raft of them and then having to take them all back.
I would allow that during primaries these issues are a bit more dispositive, after all each of the candidates should be generally within the same basic policy framework.
And political strategists use the flamingos in an amazingly cynical way.
I also don't think it can accurately explain all political behaviors but I think as a model it does indeed fit and explain a lot of behaviors. I also think it's useful to recognize that if you decide to discuss a pink flamingo with someone who has decided to plant that flamingo- you won't change their mind about the flamingo regardless of how completely you are able to rebut said flamingo, because again that person does not, regardless of professions otherwise, really base their decision on the flamingo - it's the house. Perhaps the important thing is merely to rebut the flamingo for the benefit of some marginal percentage of people for whom they might actually matter? Or perhaps it's just a waste of time to rebut them and rather the best thing to do is plant more in the opponent's yard? Meh. Neither strikes me as that great.
So if you're knocking yourself out trying to figure out why somebody is arguing so forcefully about a pink flamingo, just remember they don't really care about the flamingo: it's about the house.
Politics and policy ("PnP") are what guide people's voting choices even if they claim otherwise (especially if they do).
I have long noticed a trend where people with a particular (note: I'm not singling out one leaning, all do so IMO) political leaning will use non-PnP issues (character, experience, religion etc…) as a discussion/debate point, mostly with people they see as politically opposite or those they view as not politically committed for some reason. I think it's seen as an exploitable weakness with the former and a reasonable line of discourse with the latter.
This has been so noticeable the last 6 months or so that I've been casting about for a label to slap on the behavior, the best of which I've hit upon is: pink flamingo. Basically, tacky stuff that one side attempts to decorate the other's house with. In the end, it is really the house that is important although the pink flamingos can sometimes obscure it. Not perfect but it's stuck in my head.
This round I've been trying real hard not to get sucked into debates about the flamingos (it's hard) and readily admit to a bit of gloating while one side reconciled their cognitive dissonance over planting a whole raft of them and then having to take them all back.
I would allow that during primaries these issues are a bit more dispositive, after all each of the candidates should be generally within the same basic policy framework.
And political strategists use the flamingos in an amazingly cynical way.
I also don't think it can accurately explain all political behaviors but I think as a model it does indeed fit and explain a lot of behaviors. I also think it's useful to recognize that if you decide to discuss a pink flamingo with someone who has decided to plant that flamingo- you won't change their mind about the flamingo regardless of how completely you are able to rebut said flamingo, because again that person does not, regardless of professions otherwise, really base their decision on the flamingo - it's the house. Perhaps the important thing is merely to rebut the flamingo for the benefit of some marginal percentage of people for whom they might actually matter? Or perhaps it's just a waste of time to rebut them and rather the best thing to do is plant more in the opponent's yard? Meh. Neither strikes me as that great.
So if you're knocking yourself out trying to figure out why somebody is arguing so forcefully about a pink flamingo, just remember they don't really care about the flamingo: it's about the house.