The Psychology of Partisanship

[Samson]

Good reads. The way i view it (aside from the sound assertion above regarding cognitive dissonance) many just don't cross check information. They become information loyalists. They will cling bitterly to bias information and don't bother to listen to anything else on a subject.

So yeah, they sincerely believe what they spew more often than not. And when confronted with conflicting information, immediately takes on a defensive position to insulate themselves from inner conflict over their loyalist information source.

YES.

Now, my question is "why"? It's looking more and more, at least what I've seen so far, to be a self-esteem issue. These people have an emotional, visceral reaction to having their views challenged, and react by clinging even more tightly to those views. Such behavior provides them with "a port in the storm", and that feeling is cemented by reinforcement from those who share their views.

.

Interesting from a microanalytical POV.

However, Partisanship in the USA is mainly a result of our have under-representation in the "representative" government: With only 1 representatve per 770,000+ citizens, partisanship is the only alternative.

In other countries with much lower ratios of representation, they normally have three or more political parties, and diluting partisan behaviour.

 

[naturegirl]

Good thread Marc. I find it interesting some of the most partisan don't see themselves as such. When I was young, I was much more liberal. I believed everything the politicians said (maybe I was just naive). What is most interesting is that we have come to believe it's us against them. Compromise to me means you give a little, I give a little and we meet somewhere in the middle.

Not sure if it's the ability to get "real time" information through the multitude of information sources or we have been "programed" to have a certain thought process. As I got older and became aware of the lies and deception coming from both sides, I was caught somewhere in the middle.

I just don't believe the "government" is the answer to anything. I don't care if you have an R or a D next to your name...........my vote goes to the candidate that is most aligned with my core beliefs. In Georgia we had two absolutely wonderful representatives that were Dems, Nathan Dean and Tom Murphy. They went to bat for their constituents. They represented us well and listened to our needs. Mr. Dean has retired and Mr. Murphy passed away several years ago. I voted for them over and over because I knew they shared a vision for our neighborhood and our families.

I've been on both sides and can't say I'm liking all the divisiveness that so dominates our political environment today. I remember the days when both sides worked together, when reaching across the isle was a good thing, it was necessary to achieve the greatness of America. Perhaps one day our elected officials can achieve that cohesiveness again, until then I cringe when it becomes brother against brother and left against right.

Yeah, I think you're right, that many partisans don't see themselves as such. They've just convinced themselves that they have The Truth on their side, that they have it all figured out, and that anyone who dares to disagree is (1) stupid and (2) The Enemy.

I may be placing too much significance in the role that partisan blabbers like Limbaugh and Schultz and Hannity and Maddow and MSNBC and Fox play in this disaster, but I'm convinced they're one of the core problems. As I've babbled a zillion times, these are people who have a literal, direct vested interest in keeping their fans angry at "the other side", keeping the two "sides" separated and motivated.

It's going to take "leaders" to fix this fuckin' disaster, people who have the balls to create consensus at the risk of their precious jobs and/or income. I see no one even trying to do that right now.

.

Partisanship is food for the masses. Why would the ultra rich want to eliminate partisanship? What is in it for them? The ultra rich control most functions of government and benefit greatly from this situation.

Where does it say that change has to be for the better? It doesn't. And there is nothing to guarantee that we in the USA will continue to improve our way of life and governing. matter of fact, I think partisanship has been actively promoted by the very people that benefit the most, the ultra rich. And they are fine with the way we are goverened.

The other odd thing is that there seems to be an an idea forming that there is no such thing as "the truth". All opinions seem to be given the same consideration as "truth". No matter how off the wall the "opinion" is. Or even if it is provably un true.

And finally, I think that my appearence of being partisan is actually a very strong aversion to stupidity and hypocrisy. I like calling people out on both of those.


Still a good thread. I am partisan to good threads.

Zeke, you have been sucked in by the "rich" rhetoric, a partisan rhetoric if I may. You do realize there have always been "rich" Americans, nothing's changed. They have the money to control the elections but as Americans, we hold the power to make a difference. We can outdo them, but only if we're willing to come together as Americans.

Sometimes, stupidity and hypocrisy are woven into the truth, I think Marc pointed that out. Instead of calling someone stupid, why not try to educate them?? Seriously it works, your passion could be used to benefit everyone, including me.

 

[Plasmaball]

Mac1958
Absolutely. And it gets worse as absolutism continues to increase.

sadly this is true, and its pushed by media and government.

I think this situation has changed, and probably always does. When Obama won in 2008, the Dems went into their "spike the ball, we won, you lost, tough shit" mode. Not coincidentally, that was roughly the same time the Tea Party was born. So when the GOP had its huge wins in 2010 (also not coincidentally, the Dems had over-reached during their victory dance), it went down the same road.

So it just keeps getting worse, and right now the GOP is controlled by its absolutists, who are even worse than the Dems behaved when Obama won. If one Republican steps out of line, they're gonna be "primaried" by a hard-liner. That sure as shit doesn't lend itself to a cooperative environment in DC.

True, anytime either side says the other party is destroyed its laughable.

Thanks for that. This is like a food fight that starts with a little goofing around at one table and escalates into a full-on Animal House food riot. Each side just keeps getting worse, and there a few people (the "division pimps") in the media egging everyone on.

We need intellectual cooperation, and all we have right now is emotional, narcissistic food fighting. Worse, both "sides" are waiting for the "other side" to be the first to lead the way, and neither "side" seems capable of doing that.

The problem as i showed is that you can't have this in todays politics. You give an inch and these people take a mile. It shows weakness. I find this is much more of a problem on the left ( weakness) than it is on the right.

 

[Soulless65]

YES.

Now, my question is "why"? It's looking more and more, at least what I've seen so far, to be a self-esteem issue. These people have an emotional, visceral reaction to having their views challenged, and react by clinging even more tightly to those views. Such behavior provides them with "a port in the storm", and that feeling is cemented by reinforcement from those who share their views.

.

And from their information source. I happened to watch some Maddow last night out of sheer "it's on and Im staring at it". The WAY she spins information is hilarious to me. Because that's what these pundits do. They create narratives for information loyalists. Like you said, they have a vested interest in maintaining the partisanship of their loyalists.

So it's a group think thing, that re-enforces their once stop shop "brand" on information.

The pundits' strategy is insidious and freakin' brilliant:

1. Start with a fact
2. Launch into your agenda
3. Avoid, ignore and minimize all contrary information
4. Sprinkle in a few more facts
5. Spin for your side, spin against the other, and create easy straw men
6. Reach your predetermined conclusion based on the above distortions

Your "followers" eat it up, and since you included facts in your presentation, they proudly proclaim that "you speak the truth". It's like freakin' All Pro Wrestling, surely the fans know what's going on, but they choose to completely tune it out. Then they buy into it at a cellular level.

A fascinating psychological/sociological study.

.

Hey I'm a fan of Pro Wrestling and I see that both party's are crap what does that make me

 

[Mac1958]

And from their information source. I happened to watch some Maddow last night out of sheer "it's on and Im staring at it". The WAY she spins information is hilarious to me. Because that's what these pundits do. They create narratives for information loyalists. Like you said, they have a vested interest in maintaining the partisanship of their loyalists.

So it's a group think thing, that re-enforces their once stop shop "brand" on information.

The pundits' strategy is insidious and freakin' brilliant:

1. Start with a fact
2. Launch into your agenda
3. Avoid, ignore and minimize all contrary information
4. Sprinkle in a few more facts
5. Spin for your side, spin against the other, and create easy straw men
6. Reach your predetermined conclusion based on the above distortions

Your "followers" eat it up, and since you included facts in your presentation, they proudly proclaim that "you speak the truth". It's like freakin' All Pro Wrestling, surely the fans know what's going on, but they choose to completely tune it out. Then they buy into it at a cellular level.

A fascinating psychological/sociological study.

.

Hey I'm a fan of Pro Wrestling and I see that both party's are crap what does that make me

It makes you aware!



.

 

[zeke]

Yeah, I think you're right, that many partisans don't see themselves as such. They've just convinced themselves that they have The Truth on their side, that they have it all figured out, and that anyone who dares to disagree is (1) stupid and (2) The Enemy.

I may be placing too much significance in the role that partisan blabbers like Limbaugh and Schultz and Hannity and Maddow and MSNBC and Fox play in this disaster, but I'm convinced they're one of the core problems. As I've babbled a zillion times, these are people who have a literal, direct vested interest in keeping their fans angry at "the other side", keeping the two "sides" separated and motivated.

It's going to take "leaders" to fix this fuckin' disaster, people who have the balls to create consensus at the risk of their precious jobs and/or income. I see no one even trying to do that right now.

.

Partisanship is food for the masses. Why would the ultra rich want to eliminate partisanship? What is in it for them? The ultra rich control most functions of government and benefit greatly from this situation.

Where does it say that change has to be for the better? It doesn't. And there is nothing to guarantee that we in the USA will continue to improve our way of life and governing. matter of fact, I think partisanship has been actively promoted by the very people that benefit the most, the ultra rich. And they are fine with the way we are goverened.

The other odd thing is that there seems to be an an idea forming that there is no such thing as "the truth". All opinions seem to be given the same consideration as "truth". No matter how off the wall the "opinion" is. Or even if it is provably un true.

And finally, I think that my appearence of being partisan is actually a very strong aversion to stupidity and hypocrisy. I like calling people out on both of those.


Still a good thread. I am partisan to good threads.

Zeke, you have been sucked in by the "rich" rhetoric, a partisan rhetoric if I may. You do realize there have always been "rich" Americans, nothing's changed. They have the money to control the elections but as Americans, we hold the power to make a difference. We can outdo them, but only if we're willing to come together as Americans.

Sometimes, stupidity and hypocrisy are woven into the truth, I think Marc pointed that out. Instead of calling someone stupid, why not try to educate them?? Seriously it works, your passion could be used to benefit everyone, including me.

I can only give you an idea of what I find to be uncomprehensible partisanship.

There are those who say that Mitt is a job creator. And I ask how will he do that. And the partisan says "eliminate guvmint regulationa" and I say "which ones" and they say "Mitt is a job creator" and the circle goes round and round. There is nothing to be learned by repeating simple slogans. And that's what partisans do. Repeat slogans. Not ask questions.

Another example I can't figure out. Why is it that a middle or lower middle class working man or woman should care that a person making tens of million of dollars a year might have to pay 3 or 4% more Federal Income tax. I just don't get it. How is it that ultra rich people have convinced middle class people to protect their (ultra rich) income? Partisanship.

Another example; Only a partisan (IMO) would find it acceptable that the person they support could so easily change position on important subjects. Numerous examples exist that show Mitt taking one position and then days, weeks or months later, taking a different position. I don't get it. How could people trust what he says? Partisan is the answer.

And believe me, there exists examples of Obama doimg similar things. Buy I don't think it is as common. Guess that makes me partisan to Obama because I think he will do less harm to me and mine than Mitt. I really don't expect either one to have much positive impact BECAUSE of the partisan Congress.


But I have to ask in regards to the ultra rich (because I know they have been around a long time.)

Do you think we really live in a plutocracy? (I do)

And do you think that extreme greed has become a more common trait of the ultra rich?

 

[Mac1958]

Partisanship is food for the masses. Why would the ultra rich want to eliminate partisanship? What is in it for them? The ultra rich control most functions of government and benefit greatly from this situation.

Where does it say that change has to be for the better? It doesn't. And there is nothing to guarantee that we in the USA will continue to improve our way of life and governing. matter of fact, I think partisanship has been actively promoted by the very people that benefit the most, the ultra rich. And they are fine with the way we are goverened.

The other odd thing is that there seems to be an an idea forming that there is no such thing as "the truth". All opinions seem to be given the same consideration as "truth". No matter how off the wall the "opinion" is. Or even if it is provably un true.

And finally, I think that my appearence of being partisan is actually a very strong aversion to stupidity and hypocrisy. I like calling people out on both of those.


Still a good thread. I am partisan to good threads.

Zeke, you have been sucked in by the "rich" rhetoric, a partisan rhetoric if I may. You do realize there have always been "rich" Americans, nothing's changed. They have the money to control the elections but as Americans, we hold the power to make a difference. We can outdo them, but only if we're willing to come together as Americans.

Sometimes, stupidity and hypocrisy are woven into the truth, I think Marc pointed that out. Instead of calling someone stupid, why not try to educate them?? Seriously it works, your passion could be used to benefit everyone, including me.

I can only give you an idea of what I find to be uncomprehensible partisanship.

There are those who say that Mitt is a job creator. And I ask how will he do that. And the partisan says "eliminate guvmint regulationa" and I say "which ones" and they say "Mitt is a job creator" and the circle goes round and round. There is nothing to be learned by repeating simple slogans. And that's what partisans do. Repeat slogans. Not ask questions.

Another example I can't figure out. Why is it that a middle or lower middle class working man or woman should care that a person making tens of million of dollars a year might have to pay 3 or 4% more Federal Income tax. I just don't get it. How is it that ultra rich people have convinced middle class people to protect their (ultra rich) income? Partisanship.

Another example; Only a partisan (IMO) would find it acceptable that the person they support could so easily change position on important subjects. Numerous examples exist that show Mitt taking one position and then days, weeks or months later, taking a different position. I don't get it. How could people trust what he says? Partisan is the answer.

And believe me, there exists examples of Obama doimg similar things. Buy I don't think it is as common. Guess that makes me partisan to Obama because I think he will do less harm to me and mine than Mitt. I really don't expect either one to have much positive impact BECAUSE of the partisan Congress.


But I have to ask in regards to the ultra rich (because I know they have been around a long time.)

Do you think we really live in a plutocracy? (I do)

And do you think that extreme greed has become a more common trait of the ultra rich?

Zeke, the point is that both sides can give tons of examples of partisanship by "the other guys". And both sides would say "yeah, we do it, but they're even worse," ironically based on their own partisan perspective.


Somebody has to be the grown up and lead. Right now, no one on either side is doing that, they're just pointing the finger.


.

 

[SniperFire]

Partisanship is food for the masses. Why would the ultra rich want to eliminate partisanship? What is in it for them? The ultra rich control most functions of government and benefit greatly from this situation.

Where does it say that change has to be for the better? It doesn't. And there is nothing to guarantee that we in the USA will continue to improve our way of life and governing. matter of fact, I think partisanship has been actively promoted by the very people that benefit the most, the ultra rich. And they are fine with the way we are goverened.

The other odd thing is that there seems to be an an idea forming that there is no such thing as "the truth". All opinions seem to be given the same consideration as "truth". No matter how off the wall the "opinion" is. Or even if it is provably un true.

And finally, I think that my appearence of being partisan is actually a very strong aversion to stupidity and hypocrisy. I like calling people out on both of those.


Still a good thread. I am partisan to good threads.

Zeke, you have been sucked in by the "rich" rhetoric, a partisan rhetoric if I may. You do realize there have always been "rich" Americans, nothing's changed. They have the money to control the elections but as Americans, we hold the power to make a difference. We can outdo them, but only if we're willing to come together as Americans.

Sometimes, stupidity and hypocrisy are woven into the truth, I think Marc pointed that out. Instead of calling someone stupid, why not try to educate them?? Seriously it works, your passion could be used to benefit everyone, including me.

I can only give you an idea of what I find to be uncomprehensible partisanship.

There are those who say that Mitt is a job creator. And I ask how will he do that. And the partisan says "eliminate guvmint regulationa" and I say "which ones" and they say "Mitt is a job creator" and the circle goes round and round. There is nothing to be learned by repeating simple slogans. And that's what partisans do. Repeat slogans. Not ask questions.

Another example I can't figure out. Why is it that a middle or lower middle class working man or woman should care that a person making tens of million of dollars a year might have to pay 3 or 4% more Federal Income tax. I just don't get it. How is it that ultra rich people have convinced middle class people to protect their (ultra rich) income? Partisanship.

Another example; Only a partisan (IMO) would find it acceptable that the person they support could so easily change position on important subjects. Numerous examples exist that show Mitt taking one position and then days, weeks or months later, taking a different position. I don't get it. How could people trust what he says? Partisan is the answer.

And believe me, there exists examples of Obama doimg similar things. Buy I don't think it is as common. Guess that makes me partisan to Obama because I think he will do less harm to me and mine than Mitt. I really don't expect either one to have much positive impact BECAUSE of the partisan Congress.


But I have to ask in regards to the ultra rich (because I know they have been around a long time.)

Do you think we really live in a plutocracy? (I do)

And do you think that extreme greed has become a more common trait of the ultra rich?

Obamacare and Dodd Frank, for starters.

Pay attention, son.

 

[zeke]

Zeke, you have been sucked in by the "rich" rhetoric, a partisan rhetoric if I may. You do realize there have always been "rich" Americans, nothing's changed. They have the money to control the elections but as Americans, we hold the power to make a difference. We can outdo them, but only if we're willing to come together as Americans.

Sometimes, stupidity and hypocrisy are woven into the truth, I think Marc pointed that out. Instead of calling someone stupid, why not try to educate them?? Seriously it works, your passion could be used to benefit everyone, including me.

I can only give you an idea of what I find to be uncomprehensible partisanship.

There are those who say that Mitt is a job creator. And I ask how will he do that. And the partisan says "eliminate guvmint regulationa" and I say "which ones" and they say "Mitt is a job creator" and the circle goes round and round. There is nothing to be learned by repeating simple slogans. And that's what partisans do. Repeat slogans. Not ask questions.

Another example I can't figure out. Why is it that a middle or lower middle class working man or woman should care that a person making tens of million of dollars a year might have to pay 3 or 4% more Federal Income tax. I just don't get it. How is it that ultra rich people have convinced middle class people to protect their (ultra rich) income? Partisanship.

Another example; Only a partisan (IMO) would find it acceptable that the person they support could so easily change position on important subjects. Numerous examples exist that show Mitt taking one position and then days, weeks or months later, taking a different position. I don't get it. How could people trust what he says? Partisan is the answer.

And believe me, there exists examples of Obama doimg similar things. Buy I don't think it is as common. Guess that makes me partisan to Obama because I think he will do less harm to me and mine than Mitt. I really don't expect either one to have much positive impact BECAUSE of the partisan Congress.


But I have to ask in regards to the ultra rich (because I know they have been around a long time.)

Do you think we really live in a plutocracy? (I do)

And do you think that extreme greed has become a more common trait of the ultra rich?

Zeke, the point is that both sides can give tons of examples of partisanship by "the other guys". And both sides would say "yeah, we do it, but they're even worse," ironically based on their own partisan perspective.


Somebody has to be the grown up and lead. Right now, no one on either side is doing that, they're just pointing the finger.


.

And I believe I even said that. But really is comes down to this on Obama.

I believe that Obama will be less harmful to me and mine than Mitt Romney. And I don't believe that is based on "partisanship". I do believe it is based on my experieces under that last Republican adminastration and the fact that Romney is using the same underlings as Bush and promoting the same ideals. They failed (for me and mine) before and there is no reason to think that those same policies will succeed this time.

I don't think that partsian. I think that is good ole common sense.

Keep in mind that the Bush policies DID NOT FAIL for the ultra rich. And I understand why the ultra rich would want to do it all over again.

But Bush's policies hurt me and mine and I do not want a repeat. No partisanship required to come to that conclusion.