Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Poisonous Politics of Self-Esteem
04-05-2010, 11:01 AM,
The Poisonous Politics of Self-Esteem
Quote:The Poisonous Politics of Self-Esteem
April 5, 2010
By Robert Samuelson

WASHINGTON -- Some while back, I proposed a concept that did not stick. I called it "the politics of self-esteem." My argument was that politics increasingly devotes itself to making people feel good about themselves -- elevating their sense of self-worth and affirming their belief in their moral superiority. By contrast, the standard view of politics is that it mediates conflicting interests and ideas. The winners receive economic benefits and political privileges; the losers don't. This an apt time to resurrect my rival theory because it helps explain, I think, why the health care debate became so inflamed.

The two theories are not incompatible. They can and do coexist. In fiscal 2010, the federal government will distribute about $2.4 trillion in benefits to individuals. Taxes and regulations discriminate for and against various groups. Politics shapes this process. But in truth, differences between parties are often small. Democrats want to spend more and don't want to raise taxes, except on higher earners. Republicans want to reduce taxes but don't want to spend less. Vast budget deficits reflect both parties' unwillingness to make unpopular choices of whose benefits to cut or whose taxes to boost.

Given this evasion, the public agenda gravitates toward issues framed as moral matters. Global warming is about "saving the planet." Abortion and gay marriage evoke deep values, each side believing it commands the high ground. Certainly, President Obama pitched his health care plan as a moral issue. It embodies "the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care," as he said when signing the legislation. Health care is a "right"; opponents are, by extension, less moral.

Obama's approach was politically necessary. On a simple calculus of benefits, his proposal would have failed. Perhaps 32 million Americans will receive insurance coverage -- about 10 percent of the population. Other provisions add somewhat to total beneficiaries. Still, for most Americans, the bill won't do much. It may impose costs: higher taxes, longer waits for appointments.

People backed it because they thought it "the right thing"; it made them feel good about themselves. What they got from the political process are what I call "psychic benefits." Economic benefits aim to make people richer. Psychic benefits strive to make them feel morally upright and superior. But this emphasis often obscures practical realities and qualifications. For example: The uninsured already receive substantial medical care, and it's unclear how much insurance will improve their health.

Purging moral questions from politics is both impossible and undesirable. But today's tendency to turn every contentious issue into a moral confrontation is divisive. One way of fortifying people's self-esteem is praising them as smart, public-spirited and virtuous. But an easier way is to portray the "other side" as scum: The more scummy "they" are, the more superior "we" are. This logic governs the political conversation of both left and right, especially talk radio, cable channels and the blogosphere.

Unlike economic benefits, psychic benefits can be dispensed without going through Congress. Mere talk does the trick. Shrillness and venom are the coin of the realm. The opposition cannot simply be mistaken. It must be evil, selfish, racist, unpatriotic, immoral or just stupid. A culture of self-righteousness reigns across the political spectrum. Stridency from one feeds the other. Political polarization deepens; compromise becomes harder. How can anyone negotiate if the other side is so extreme?

Dangers are plain, as political scientists Morris Fiorina and Samuel Abrams argue in their book "Disconnect: the Breakdown of Representation in American Politics." Using opinion surveys, they show that polarization is stronger among elites (elected officials, activists, journalists) than the broad public. About 40 percent to 50 percent of Americans consistently classify themselves as "moderates." By contrast, political activists tend to identify themselves as "very liberal" or "very conservative." But it is the political class of activists that "dominate the political agenda" and determine "how the debate is conducted."

Various "disconnects" result. Politics that seems too bare-knuckled alienates voters. Or Congress responds to the passionate party "base" and enacts major programs without wide support. This happened with the health overhaul. A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds tepid backing: 40 percent of respondents think the country's health will improve, but 35 percent think it will get worse (the rest: no change); 35 percent think their own health care will worsen, and only 21 percent think it will improve; 50 percent expect higher costs than without the bill, only 21 percent lower.

American politics caters to people's natural desire to think well of themselves. But in so doing, it often sacrifices pragmatic goals and sows rancor that brings government and the political system into disrepute. The ultimate danger is that the poisonous polarization of elites spreads to the country at large.
There are no others, there is only us.
04-06-2010, 12:05 PM,
RE: The Poisonous Politics of Self-Esteem
I totally agree with you. The political world has become all about me and curse the opposition as bad. Clown obama couldnt have pointed out any better that his ego is his driving force not the good of the people as a whole. Obama care is, as obama said, about him and his presidency, not about the people. Soon the fools that believe in his government take over of the health care industry is good will discover that they wait in lines, get poor coverage, lose the privacy of issues between them and their doctors.
04-06-2010, 01:58 PM,
RE: The Poisonous Politics of Self-Esteem
It's divide and conquer along creating a manufactured morality using the fake left right paradigm and race to draw lines. They do the same with patriotism (War), not being patient zero (vaccines), environmentalism (Carbon Tax), stopping kiddie porn (net censorship), we got nothing to hide (big brother) and now with the morality of health care in helping the poor who were already largely covered by medicare and medicaid.

The media is doing it's job and the people are playing right into it, for the most part.

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." ~Noam Chomsky

.. and welcome to the forum aaronaugusts, nice to have you on board.
There are no others, there is only us.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  WolfPAC - removing money from American politics stiffy 9 3,926 05-16-2014, 06:06 PM
Last Post: SiLVa
  Alex Jones on BBC One Sunday Politics stiffy 15 4,645 06-15-2013, 08:21 PM
Last Post: SiLVa
  The New Science of Politics macfadden 0 1,190 01-23-2013, 09:04 AM
Last Post: macfadden
  Political Ponerology - The Study of Evil in Politics Mami 0 1,236 03-04-2012, 08:13 AM
Last Post: Mami
  Why Americans hate politics. Plutarcus 0 848 10-04-2011, 05:51 PM
Last Post: Plutarcus
  Politics in the Light of Initiatic Science Solve et Coagula 0 719 01-16-2011, 12:43 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  Modern politics and the Facebook paradox TriWooOx 2 1,256 05-18-2010, 04:57 AM
Last Post: mastermg
Video AIPAC leader admits how they control educational programs & politics [Video] SiLVa 0 771 04-16-2010, 10:23 PM
Last Post: SiLVa
  Sarah Palin is the Heidi Fleiss of Politics NickHedge 0 560 04-14-2010, 06:05 PM
Last Post: NickHedge
  UN suggests involving Taliban in Afghan politics TriWooOx 0 591 01-25-2010, 11:13 PM
Last Post: TriWooOx

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)