Possible mind-killing property: you are telling people to give up on their sides. That means that no matter what people’s identities are, you’re attacking them.
The reaction to this post has been completely different than what I expected, and this theory seems to explain it. An earlier, unfinished draft got better feedback—perhaps the difference is the list of examples at the end, priming thoughts of disliked candidates (whichever side of the issue those candidates took)?
I think I’ll take that out. I’m editing this paragraph
Don’t waste time talking about abortion, gun control, taxation, health care, military spending, drug laws, gay marriage, or any other contentious political issue, unless that issue is actually going to be on an upcoming ballot that you are going to vote on directly. If you’re voting on politicians, talk about the politicians themselves—their integrity, their intelligence, and their rationality. That’s what really matters, and that’s what should win your support.
to instead say
Don’t waste time arguing about issues which already have entrenched positions, with intelligent people on both sides, unless the issue is actually going to be on an upcoming ballot that you are going to vote on directly. If you’re voting on politicians, talk about the politicians themselves—their integrity, their intelligence, and their rationality. That’s what really matters, and that’s what should win your support.
That would be better; I think the phrase “with intelligent people on both sides” especially will allow people to exclude their pet issue by thinking that everyone on the other side is stupid.
I don’t think it fully solves the problem, though I think combining it with the idea of voting for parties makes it much more sensible.
As Vladimir M points out we really don’t elect people to directly exercise power. Popular issues really only are pursued when a sympathetic party has a supermajority (at least in the US). But even if that is a more useful political metaphor, selecting from two parties which both have serious flaws is unlikely to create a strong signal for rationality.
While your argument is certainly valid and interesting in terms of having political arguments I don’t think it’s sensible to use for actual voting.
The reaction to this post has been completely different than what I expected, and this theory seems to explain it. An earlier, unfinished draft got better feedback—perhaps the difference is the list of examples at the end, priming thoughts of disliked candidates (whichever side of the issue those candidates took)?
I think I’ll take that out. I’m editing this paragraph
to instead say
That would be better; I think the phrase “with intelligent people on both sides” especially will allow people to exclude their pet issue by thinking that everyone on the other side is stupid.
I don’t think it fully solves the problem, though I think combining it with the idea of voting for parties makes it much more sensible.
As Vladimir M points out we really don’t elect people to directly exercise power. Popular issues really only are pursued when a sympathetic party has a supermajority (at least in the US). But even if that is a more useful political metaphor, selecting from two parties which both have serious flaws is unlikely to create a strong signal for rationality.
While your argument is certainly valid and interesting in terms of having political arguments I don’t think it’s sensible to use for actual voting.