“I feel like making offerings to some “non-partisan” stance is falling into the two-sets-of-ideas mindset. I’m not interested in a Republican/Democrat debate, because I think the Republican stance completely lacks credibility and is disingenuous. I don’t particularly believe in the Democratic stance, but at least there’s room to discuss. All of which is not to say that conservative values lack credibility, or that holding those view is a disingenuous stance. But in letting the parties serve as placeholders for ideas, we discard genuine discussion.”

To my mind, this is the real insight that you article could benefit from stressing further. Swap the positions of Republican and Democrat in the paragraph, and I could see myself saying it…but then that’s really the rub, isn’t it?

I think the bigger issue at stake here is the fact that presidential elections steal the voters’ collective focus from the (still somewhat effective) representation they should expect from Congress. Local representatives, in most areas, have to campaign with a much more tangible agenda. Neither Obama nor McCain will accomplish 90% of their “platforms”, and that’s by design. “Party platforms” are an all-you-can-eat buffet, there’s something there for everyone, but if they made you eat some of every dish, nobody would eat there.

If I were the king of the forest…. I would make the presidential ballot a multiple-choice survey that asks the voter where they stand on the top 5 issues (pick any 5 really) and casts their vote for the candidate they are most aligned with. It would be a terrible system for choosing the next president, but is arguably more accurate in choosing the one who the majority of the people “agree with”. This could eliminate the primaries as well as the first 2 years of campaigning. I suggest we use the free air time to show reruns of Fraggle Rock.

I tell everyone when asked who I will vote for that I will not vote and give the above reasons why. As well as the fact that it is not the people who cast votes that decide these contests, it is the people who count them.

Modern life is a return to serfdom. I do not think there has been a clean election in this country in 60 years. Most “progressive” people tell me I am doing exactly what they want me to do by not voting, but I think the opposite is true. First off, by voting you are giving a completely corrupt and criminal government recognition and validation. Secondly, if more and more people chose not to vote, and this brought down the number of eligible voters down to a laughable number, that would create more political upheaval than if even more people validate the “choices” thrust upon us.

I don’t know, I’ve really given up on any kind of political “change” here. Really step back and think about this: As the white house moves from GOP to DEM and back, what real changes are there in foreign policy and most domestic policy that is not window dressing like tax rates and other minor things? Clinton killed almost as many people in the middle east as Bush. (Of course we get more dead and maimed for our money with the GOP in charge).

In other news, Feline Lukemia still has no cure.:)

The notion of a non-partisan stance is, as Ian points out, simply not possible when it comes to these two parties; as an editorial in today’s nytimes points out, mccains choice of palin is either very cynical or an unforgivable blunder; this isn’t some government position up in alaska, it’s the vp position of a country that is not only the most important economic power in the world, but one that’s been warmongering for five years.

i couldn’t help thinking of the end of the movie Billy Madison, when the debate moderator says to Adam Sandler, “Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

I also believe that a useful discussion needs to start with some common understandings between the people. Finding the person I disagree with most and debating them serves no point. Finding them and trying to understand where they are coming from is interesting in a kind of scientific way, but without some common understandings it isn’t constructive. It might tell me about the world as they see it, but it does little to inform my own opinions.

As to political specifics, I think McCain is a very troubling figure, but Palin is beyond the pale, and I can’t respect anyone that with genuine and well-informed support of her. At some point I feel the need to set aside positions I find despicable — I can rail against those ideas, but it doesn’t improve my own ideas. And I’m not going to hide the fact I find the Republicans despicable. The whole idea “the truth is somewhere in the middle” is wrong. That’s the entire point I was trying to get across. First: there are no ends to the lines of thought so that you can measure to the middle. Second: there is no single line of ideas that can have a middle (it isn’t even 2D or 3D). Third: truth and falsehood exist, and all perspectives are not equally valid. Also, debating with lies is a losing game — you can’t win the debate, and you won’t come out any smarter trying.

As to religion, it was not my intention to disparage religion. It was more my intention to allude to, say, the medieval politics of the Catholic church. To practices and philosophies that are enforced but not put to any consideration, that are accepted without critical thought but still made a requirement of “true belief.” And… well, that could describe certain religious doctrine, and I suppose I’m okay with that, as I do not have respect for intellectual obedience. But that’s certainly not all religion, not even most religion, and if I implied that I’m sorry for the offense.

“But [someone who likes Palin] is almost certain to be ignorant, disingenuous, or just deeply wrong-headed, and I can’t have a reasonable discussion.”

I do not pretend to like Palin, or even to be informed enough to have an opinion. But the idea that the opposite side is so ignorant or deeply wrong-headed that you can’t have a constructive discussion with them…

Frankly, I think the potshots at Palin and McCain in your article detract from the more interesting point of your article, which I agree with. Also, the comparison to religious doctrine offends me, as I do not subscribe to any religious doctrine for the reasons you mention. Dogmatic and institutional doctrine has those properties, but the idea that all religious doctrines are dogmatic or institutional is wrong.

Again, I really appreciate the main thrust of the article. Political debate in this country is completely stagnated, as is religious debate. Unless you happen to find someone with whom you can be open (a rare treasure, indeed), both debates belong to certain institutional views that no one is allowed to challenge. What disappoints me is the degree to which you broadcast those views in this article.

Narrowing the spectrum of the political discussion is a very conscious decision of the US government, achieved by tight control over mass media.

I’m currently reading Hegemony or Survival (which I much recommend), in which the author suggests that the narrowing of the spectrum, or the “taming the beast” (the public), is a key weapon of the ruling class of any type of government, from despotism to (fake) democracy, to keep themselves in their position. In dictatorships this is more easily achieved by means of force, in democratic countries it happens by means of propaganda.

The author also suggests that both Democratic and Republican parties, during their election campaign, stick to an arranged script, which makes it hard for the issues that really matter to enter the public discussion. The public is trained through the media to be like-minded. People with opinions outside the spectrum are easily dismissed.

Similarly - though not on purpose - I found myself in a packed bar in Brooklyn, surrounded by people cheering Biden and booing and laughing at the obviously scripted and well-trained Palin. Everyone was proud to react as such and I found very little difference in the crowd.

Like-minded groups are not the place for honest discussion.

Our politicians and our media have their parts in this, but so do we - Every last one of us. Without us, the members of politics and the media can’t feed their loved ones. Feeding their families and feeding their BS are one in the same.