New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard

New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/)

- Political Discussion (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/12/political-discussion.html)

- - Political Newbie Advice (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/12/56712-political-newbie-advice.html)

Political Newbie Advice

This thread is meant to be a thread on principles and working analytical style, for the benefit of any who are new to politics and political passions. This is not meant to be controversial in and of itself, nor is it dependent on my own political viewpoint or favorite sources of information. In fact, I have had discussions especially with Real World, with whom I disagree on about everything, regarding a small subset of these ideas... and was horrified to find myself pretty much in agreement with him on the principals.

This is a thread on methodology for the newcomer. Campaigns are starting up, candidates are starting to buy their commercial time, and 08 is right around the corner. So, when digesting the raft of claims, counter-claims, and the like, what are good principals to go by?

1) The more sources, the better. The greater the spectrum of views you take in, the more likely you are to build a comprehensive mental picture of who means what by what they're saying.

2) 95% of the world is not American. Read foreign sources as well. Granted, we all root for the home team. But to get an objective impression of the Pats' chances this year, I don't go to our fan-site. I look at the Vegas line. Similarly, getting a spread of opinion (especially on foreign policy,) is a valuable adjunct to home-grown sources.

3) Track down some claims, all the way to the source. Yes, question everybody and everything. But don't rely on debunkers and debunkers of debunkers. Grab a claim on a key argument, drawn from something important to you or something in the news, and is fact-based. When both sides are reacting to a document, get the actual document. A report or summary is often a good starting ground. This gives you an idea who is spinning the full document how. The more often you do it the better. But [Your favorite news source] spin, [you favorite candidate's spin], etc., needs to be calibrated in a hands-on way. Even if you don't have the time to do it regularly, doing it a couple of times is incredibly instructive.

4) Take note of Ad Hominem arguments. A politician's political stances are what will affect his handling of his office. His record reflects his stances. Where he gets his money bears on how he will perform in office. Etcetera. But ad hominem attacks ("Against the man," as opposed to countering his arguments,) are almost completely content-free from a learner's/voter's/activist's perspective. What are his views? What is his record? Do you agree or disagree with him? These are the important things. The more ad hominem attacks, the more bankrupt the argument from first principles tends to be.

5) On Every Issue, Somebody's Gut is Dead Wrong. We've been talking for a while in this country about the importance of "the gut" in the field of politics (i.e., instinct, first-blush reactions, etc.) But on every issue, "guts" seem to align on at least two sides (that's why they're called issues.) The brain is the best analytical organ we've evolved, not the gut, even using gut as shorthand for "subconscious systems of value judgment." The conscious, reasoning mind is at least one thing that separates us from the lower animals. You may not trust the conscious reasoning mind either... but I'd hold it in higher esteem than something my cat has evolved to an equal level as me.

And those are my ideas for dipping a toe into that cesspool that is politics.

Good night, and good luck.

PFnV