NationStates Jolt Archive

This was inspired by the thread asking about the word liberal's political swear word status. Thinking about it, I started realizing that, given how firmly entrenched the venom between liberals and conservatives is these days, and given the media's propensity for sensationalism, we cannot count on civility in politics to make a comeback of it's own accord. Therefore, I decided to start something off, and see if I can make it pick up steam. I have written up two pledges; one for conservatives, one for liberals. They do not differ from each other except in the names of the political groups. The pledge, essentially, states merely that, by signing, you promise not to engage in mudslinging, unfounded attacks, or other political nastiness.

Here is what I propose: download the appropriate pledge. Print it, sign it, and put it up someplace visible. Even if you don't feel you "really fit" into one group or the other, pick the one that most suits you. Then, advertise the pledges to your friends, family, debate partners, everyone. Spread these; they will have no impact if you don't, but they can have an enormous impact if a lot of people do. Finally, stick by the rules of the pledge, in all your political discourse. The most immediate impact this can have, if people participate, is making this forum a friendlier place for everyone, with less insulting, less flame-baiting, less aggravation.

This is activism, mematics, and nonpartisan community political involvement all rolled into one, and that is exactly why it can work. I ask only for a few minutes of your time, a sheet of paper, and the willingness to suspend cynicism long enough to talk about it to the people you know. Will you join me in this?

If you will...
For liberals:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/daajenai/pledge-lib.jpg
For conservatives:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/daajenai/pledge-con.jpg

Edit: I should have made this more clear. This pledge is in dealing solely with American politics. You don't need to respond and tell me you aren't going to sign because you aren't American; I essentially only want to know why people don't want to sign so that I can fix errors of mine so that more people will want to.

I have also recieved replies saying the type in the pledges is too small to read. So, here is the text:
I, _____, hereby renounce the vicious animosity between conservatives and liberals that has come to characterize politics in the United States, and pledge, on my honor;

I shall refrain from political mudslinging and insults, both overt and veiled.

I shall not make needlessly inflammatory statements about [lib/con] individuals, nor shall I make accusations toward them that I know or suspect are untrue.

I shall denounce at every turn attempts by [libs/cons] to make inflammatory statements or engage in mudslinging toward [libs/cons].

If a [lib/con] makes an inflammatory statement or engages in mudlsinging toward myself or other [libs/cons], I shall not retaliate in turn, but rather turn the other cheek and keep my political statements and actions civil.

I shall promote civil discourse between groups of differing political ideologies at every opportunity.

I shall always bear firmly in mind that [libs/cons] are people, with wants and needs similar to my own, and that the only necessary difference between myself and [libs/cons] is one of opinions.

I shall not name-call, or otherwise insinuate that [libs/cons] are [common political insults], or are somehow anti-American.

I shall respect the ideological difference between myself and [libs/cons] as such, rather than characterizing it as a battle of good versus evil.

I will never use the word "[lib/con]" as an insult.

All of this I pledge. It is to be understood that this applies in all forms of communication, including but not limited to verbal, written, and online discourse.

Signed,

No, because I can't be arsed. Besides which, I suspect this is the American definition of liberal, rather than the actual one.

Given that this is in regards to American politics, yes, it is the American definition.

No, I am a Libertarian Socialist. :p

Given that this is in regards to American politics, yes, it is the American definition.
Well, no I'm not either then. At the risk of confusing people, I'm closest to the Liberal Democrat Party.

No, I am a Libertarian Socialist. :p
A what?

http://www.politicalinformation.net/encyclopedia/Libertarian_socialism.htm

http://www.politicalinformation.net/encyclopedia/Libertarian_socialism.htm
Oh, an anarchist. I was confused because usually libertarians believe in capitalism.

I have to choose no because I refuse to sign something that is going to limit my ability tell a conservative OR a liberal that I think they're a dumbass. No conservative would come out with an idea like this so I'm guessing (apologies if I'm wrong here) you're a liberal, or something akin to a liberal. Like I said in my post in the thread you're refering to, liberals have to start standing up and telling conservatives to STFU kiss their left-wing liberal asses!

That's the thing, though. Getting nasty about it won't solve jack. It'll just turn people off to politics even more. Additionally, at least read the pledge before you comment on how it may or may not restrict you. I know several conservatives who will be willing to sign, and if people from both sides sign up, there's no need to tell anyoone to kiss anyone's ass.

But I like telling people to kiss my ass. Sometimes it works. :D

Seriously, of course you're right, and it would be a beautiful place if we could all just get along. I just read too many threads on this forum and watch too much tv and doubt that all of us signing the pledges will stop the ranting from both sides that all too often goes on in the world - let alone this forum. I know, I'm a cynical prick. Sorry 'bout that. I'm a dreamer that's been slapped down by conservatives, liberals, christians, atheists, et al one time too many. Thanks, my fellow humans!

ps - read both pledges. I'm sure there might be some conservatives out there who'd sign that, but most wouldn't. Ditto for Liberals, but I'd guess more would be willing to then conservatives. Regardless, beautiful idea. Nice solution. Just aint gonna happen (IMHO). Please, people, prove me wrong.

Niceness and civility?

Oh please.

Neither have any place in politics.

Couple lines from Winston Churchill, none of which are nice or civil:

"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

"I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents."

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened"

You would wish to not have such gems?

Come the revolution, your kind will be first up against the wall, mate.

And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Niceness and civility?

Oh please.

Neither have any place in politics.

Couple lines from Winston Churchill, none of which are nice or civil:

"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

"I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents."

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened"

You would wish to not have such gems?

Come the revolution, your kind will be first up against the wall, mate.

And I mean that in the nicest possible way.


See what I mean. Thanks for proving me right.

Niceness and civility?

Oh please.

Neither have any place in politics.

Couple lines from Winston Churchill, none of which are nice or civil:

"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

"I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents."

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened"

You would wish to not have such gems?

Come the revolution, your kind will be first up against the wall, mate.

And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
None of those tidbits bear anything close to the venom poured forth in today's American politics. Taken in comparison with the pundits and editorializers you see day to day around here, Winston sounds like a kindly old grandmother. As do you, actually. If American politicians and pundits talked like this, I wouldn't be complaining at all.

No cause I won't be able to respect it. When a conservative says muslims should all be burnt by nuclear fire - I saw that - I treat him a nazi. Not that every conservative is like this of course.

No cause I won't be able to respect it. When a conservative says muslims should all be burnt by nuclear fire - I saw that - I treat him a nazi. Not that every conservative is like this of course.
But what does that gain you? Either the individual will get angry at the comparison, or they will say that yes, they do espouse Nazism. Either way, you've accomplished nothing in the way of preventing that statement from recurring. The only way to do that (short of violence, of course, but that's repression of free speech and should always be avoided) is to convince them that such a stance is wrong, which will not happen by making character attacks or getting sputteringly angry. People say all kinds of strange stuff in politics; the only way to change their minds is to roll with what comes and deal with it in a mature way.

None of those tidbits bear anything close to the venom poured forth in today's American politics. Taken in comparison with the pundits and editorializers you see day to day around here, Winston sounds like a kindly old grandmother. As do you, actually. If American politicians and pundits talked like this, I wouldn't be complaining at all.
Um, if you actually look at ol newspapers and accounts about old elections in the US hte stuff from the last election was quite tame.

Really. That's quite interesting. This election cycle, I saw a truly astounding number of claims that one side or the other was simply out to destroy America and all that it stands for, for no other purpose than sheer hatred. Yes, I saw the claim go on both sides. I am curious to know what that is "tame" in comparison to.

Bump

No, I won't sign on, because no matter what I say, or how intelligently I say it, or how kindly I put it, either a conservative or a liberal (or someone else - you know there are more political stances than two) will take offense, and swear mightily that I have violated my oath.

I could say something as simple as, "I prefer cheese sandwiches to those made with peanut butter," and someone would claim that I was handing them flame-bait.

No, I will not sign because

1) It's America-centric. Liberals and conservatives also exist in other countries.

2) There are more than two political ideologies.

3) Inflammatory remarks can be fun. I agree that it sometimes goes too far, there are certainly times when it pains me to see others ignoring reasonable arguments and responding with flames. But if everyone was perfectly civil, it might get a bit boring.

I could say something as simple as, "I prefer cheese sandwiches to those made with peanut butter," and someone would claim that I was handing them flame-bait.

Flamebait!

No, because I can't read it. It's illegibly small when I follow the link.

I want to see more partisanship and vicious mudslinging on the part of liberals. My feeling is that conservatives have actually been rewarded for their dispicable tactics, so why should we liberals step onto the playing field with one hand tied behind our backs.

The problem with this "pledge" is that it takes a "plague on both your houses" attitude, without acknowledging that dirty politcs in the past 15 years has overwhelmingly been carried out, and has benifited, conservatives, led by Karl Rove and his ideological godfather, Lee Atwater.

Republicans have been so extreme with their scorched earth politics that GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona recently warned: "The Republicans had better hope that the Democrats never regain the majority."

He's right.

I vote no.

Politics is always a touchy subject.

Read about Jefferson winning in 1800 and you will see it was more nasty then it was with the Shrub.

All the Pledge will do is make people keep their opinions to themselves. It will not change thought.....

Besides, "civility" always benifits the status quo. Bostonians in 1773 weren't "civil."

There is a great dialogue in Woody Allen's Manhattan about this topic:

Isaac Davis: Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Y'know, I read this in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, y'know, get some bricks and baseball bats and really explain things to them.
Party Guest: There is this devastating satirical piece on that on the Op Ed page of the Times, it is devastating.
Isaac Davis: Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point.

No, I am a Libertarian Socialist. :p
a contradiction.

a contradiction.

...or not.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI1.html

If I could get a real sense that conservatives actually were human beings, then I might sign it. However, until the conservatives stop acting like they own the world and Jesus is the undisputed king thereof, I will continue to treat them like retarded monkeys and throw wet socks at them whenever I get the chance.

The conservative answer to all life's problems?

More guns, more Jesus, fewer taxes.

Hmm. I'm fairly conservative, but it's more guns, more ammunition, more targets.

The conservative answer to all life's problems?

More guns, more Jesus, fewer taxes.

Well, more Jesus wouldn't be such a bad idea considering he was an Anarcho-Pacifist hippie. If only most Christians practised what Jesus preached...

No I won't. I can't read it.

By the way a real "no mudslinging, lets stick to the issues, no personal attacks", pledge was made in the Oklahoma Senate race. In the Republican primary, two of the three candidates took the pledge. Only one of them stuck to it and he won the primary.

During the general election, both the Democratic and Republican candidates took the oath. Only one stuck to it, and he won.

So, there may indeed be something to be said for taking the oath and sticking to it.

If only most Christians practised what Jesus preached...

AMEN!

No, I won't sign on, because no matter what I say, or how intelligently I say it, or how kindly I put it, either a conservative or a liberal (or someone else - you know there are more political stances than two) will take offense, and swear mightily that I have violated my oath.

I could say something as simple as, "I prefer cheese sandwiches to those made with peanut butter," and someone would claim that I was handing them flame-bait.
And? Let them claim as they may, the whole idea behind this is to put pressure on all sides to take the high road. And yes, I do know that there are more than two political stances; I describe myself as a liberal-libertarian with anarchist ideology. However, most people can say that they generally agree more with liberalism or conservativism.

No, I will not sign because

1) It's America-centric. Liberals and conservatives also exist in other countries.

2) There are more than two political ideologies.

3) Inflammatory remarks can be fun. I agree that it sometimes goes too far, there are certainly times when it pains me to see others ignoring reasonable arguments and responding with flames. But if everyone was perfectly civil, it might get a bit boring.
1. Yes, it's America-centric. I live in America, and it's American politics I'm commenting on. I should have made that more clear in the initial post, but I apparently underestimated the number of people on this forum from outside the US. My apologies.
2. Addressed above.
3. So you are content to continue with it going to far and seeing people respond with flames over reasonable arguments, for the sake of a bit of fun? If so, I think your view of politics in general is rather warped.

No, because I can't read it. It's illegibly small when I follow the link.
Not much I can do about that, unfortunately. It's size 11 font on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper. I will, however, post the text of it here, if you wish.

I want to see more partisanship and vicious mudslinging on the part of liberals. My feeling is that conservatives have actually been rewarded for their dispicable tactics, so why should we liberals step onto the playing field with one hand tied behind our backs.

The problem with this "pledge" is that it takes a "plague on both your houses" attitude, without acknowledging that dirty politcs in the past 15 years has overwhelmingly been carried out, and has benifited, conservatives, led by Karl Rove and his ideological godfather, Lee Atwater.

Republicans have been so extreme with their scorched earth politics that GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona recently warned: "The Republicans had better hope that the Democrats never regain the majority."

He's right.
You want to see more than the sheer hatred aimed at Bush that turned so many people off to the left in the past few years? The mudslinging has been predominantly by conservatives in some areas. In others, I would go so far as to fear for the safety of conservatives. I also direct you to http://www.whyyoulost.com as a bit more lengthy discussion of the inaccuracy of your statement.

If I could get a real sense that conservatives actually were human beings, then I might sign it. However, until the conservatives stop acting like they own the world and Jesus is the undisputed king thereof, I will continue to treat them like retarded monkeys and throw wet socks at them whenever I get the chance.
How very mature of you. At least go so far as to say some conservatives, will you? Unless you live under a rock and only talk to extremists, you know patently well that that does not apply to all, or even most, of those who describe themselves as conservative.

The conservative answer to all life's problems?

More guns, more Jesus, fewer taxes.
Please, at the very least, do not hijack my thread to flame or flamebait. Take it elsewhere, unless your intent is to prove exactly why both sides of the political spectrum are implicated in this.

No I won't. I can't read it.

By the way a real "no mudslinging, lets stick to the issues, no personal attacks", pledge was made in the Oklahoma Senate race. In the Republican primary, two of the three candidates took the pledge. Only one of them stuck to it and he won the primary.

During the general election, both the Democratic and Republican candidates took the oath. Only one stuck to it, and he won.

So, there may indeed be something to be said for taking the oath and sticking to it.
Allright, I will edit the first post, and include the text of the pledge, so that more people can read it.
Thank you for providing the example, too. I'm glad to see that not only am I not alone in thinking such things can have an impact, but there is precedence for it working.

By the way, the death toll of the number of Americans Bush has killed is at 1,273. When the Republicans stop killing Americans (and Iraqis) I'll think about a pledge.

What is the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?

George W. Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam.

Again, please take it elsewhere. You have ample space to argue about Iraq in the many threads that have been dedicated to it. This thread is about pressuring both sides (which includes yourself) to be civil.

Look at your poll. Nearly 300 people have looked at this thread and only 4 want to take a pledge to be civil. You wanted to know if people are interested in ending the division and animosity between liberals and conservatives.

The answer is a resounding NO.

Look at your poll. Nearly 300 people have looked at this thread and only 3 want to take a pledge to be civil. You wanted to know if people are interested in ending the division and animosity between liberals and conservatives.

The answer is a resounding NO.
There are a number of reasons why you are incorrect.
First, you fail to take into account those people who may have read the thread, but not posted or voted. This can be for any number of reasons; lack of time, lack of motivation, or perhaps simlpy wanting to consider it before committing.
Second, this forum is not the effective microcosm I had thought. The percentage of people of non-standard political leanings present here is much higher than in the general populace. You also fail to take into account non-Americans, which also seem to take up a sizable percentage of forum-goers here.
Third, sure, only 4 (now) people have voted yes. However, only 18 have voted no. Out of 300, that is hardly resounding.
Fourth, you and I are driving the number of views up pretty well on our own. Not all of those 300 are unique viewers.
Fifth, I never asked if people want to end the animosity. I asked if people want to end the animosity in the way I have outlined. People may want to, but in other ways.

So basically, you are quite wrong. Additionally, you should know that I am a hopeless optimist; I've been pushed around, flamed, yelled at, called names, dismissed, and laughed at by people on all sides of the political spectrum. And yet, I am not a cynic, nor will I disgrace myself by resorting to such low blows as I have been hit with in the past. Even if NationStates in general does not want to resolve the animosity, I will (and indeed, have already started to) take this message, these pledges, elsewhere. I'm recruiting every politically active individual that I know, and I'm going to be quite stubborn about it. You just watch, and we'll see how far I can take this.

Again, please take it elsewhere. You have ample space to argue about Iraq in the many threads that have been dedicated to it. This thread is about pressuring both sides (which includes yourself) to be civil.

It's a Quixotic quest my friend.

Dirt and crap flinging have been part of the election process since it was formalized.

As mentioned in the 1800's election; Jefferson was labeled a coward who would flee on a moments notice.

Grover Cleveland was accused of falther an illigetimate black child.

This election for all it's animosity was rather tame.

I am all for name calling. The brazen lies will be sounded out quick.

A pledge to be nice only means that the both sides promise not to raise issues. In fact there should be laws saying the debates can't have agreed topics as both sides make deals not to discuss certain things.

Throw the dirt!

Might make elections more interesting.

It's a Quixotic quest my friend.

Dirt and crap flinging have been part of the election process since it was formalized.

As mentioned in the 1800's election; Jefferson was labeled a coward who would flee on a moments notice.

Grover Cleveland was accused of falther an illigetimate black child.

This election for all it's animosity was rather tame.

I am all for name calling. The brazen lies will be sounded out quick.

A pledge to be nice only means that the both sides promise not to raise issues. In fact there should be laws saying the debates can't have agreed topics as both sides make deals not to discuss certain things.

Throw the dirt!

Might make elections more interesting.
You misinterpret me.
Am I emailing these pledges to politicians? No. I know quite well how little that would amount to, even if they signed. I'm taking these to the general populace. I still find it difficult to believe that this election cycle was "tame," given that again, I heard commentary from both sides that make your examples sound very weak indeed. It's the people making such commentary, the random politically active individual, that I'm after. Politics and mudslinging might be joined at the hip, but it does not need to extend to the general population. Let the politicians do as they please; they will anyway. I want more civil day-to-day political discourse, not a smear-free elction (which truly would be a Quixotic goal).
Also, you fail to note the distinction between being mature in discourse and being nice. I am aiming only for the first; to deny mature discourse its place in politics is to admit that you consider politics valuable only for the entertainment it provides, as it is the lack of such maturity that keeps the issues from being discussed, not it's presence.

I want nothing more than to be able to sign your pledge, but alas, I cannot becuase I honestly and truly believe that George W. Bush is anti-American. Even if he's not trying to be, everything he does reflects it. How can one put into effect a bill such as the USA PATRIOT Act, one which strips American citizens of all thier fundamental rights, not be considered anti-American?

I don't want to start an argument on this thread that doesn't belong here, so if you disagree with me, I'm making it clear here that this is merely my opinion. If you want to argue about it, there will be other threads in the future where we can debate this, and plenty of them. Or start you own.

Bump

*ahem* Not letting this die yet. Bump.