reading the news and various weblogs today has made me realize how much of a masturbatory act debating partisan politics with people is. in today's political landscape, most people already have their minds made up, and nothing anyone will say will sway them one way or the other, so it's useless to try to persuade people. the breathtakingly narrow view that the mass media provides of everything going on in the world essentially only gives you a view thru the sensationalism keyhole into what the nightly news can use to attract viewers and sell commercial time. news is superficial, sensationalized, and skewed to shock and to get attention. jammed into half-hour slots (minus commercials), the news available to most people isn't worth the electricity being used to run their television. i've been spending hours online lately reading as much news and analysis as i can get my hands on, and i'm only beginning to realize how complex some things are, and how there's no way that anyone who isn't actually there and involved can have any idea of what's truly going on. jamming one day in the life of all six billion people on this planet into 24 minutes (if you're curious, it comes out to 250 million lives per minute — to be proportional, the news should give the activities of everyone in the united states in just under 70 seconds) is just impossible.
and this isn't even going into any biases that may be extant in the media — an entirely different can of worms. (yes, these are important, because those few who have NOT already made up their mind are generally swayed by emotional responses to what they've seen in the news before they go vote.)
political discussion as debate is equally futile. while it may be enjoyable to watch an expert go at it, in the end nothing other than theoretical and perceived wins or losses are changed. true, the audience may be somewhat better informed about a situation, or how some people view it, but it effects no real change.
really, the only way political debate ISN'T pointless is if it's framed as a philosophical discussion of one type or another (such as, 'what is the essence of good government?') — and very few people can separate partisan reality from philosophical underpinnings. the only really good philosophical debates about politics is with people with whom i really had very few disagreements politically. unfortunate, really, because it would be better to learn with/from people who have opinions different from your own.
of course, these views are shaped somewhat by the fact that when i debate politics, i get very into it. as far as i'm concerned, it isn't a debate if you don't disagree. however, i do NOT get emotionally into what i'm discussing. intellectual disagreements should NEVER be taken personally, and i work very hard to make sure i don't do so. i view debate as a fencing contest, to the point where i intuitively sense what offensive or defensive moves are being made, and react to the dance of attack and riposte as well as the intellectual subject matter of the debate.
i suppose it's just general orneryness that makes me enjoy debating people. my great-grandfather barner did much the same thing, and various other relatives (barners, mostly) have always enjoyed confrontation. and while i know that the debate is futile, i'll still do it.
but i'll still loathe that i never get anywhere.
in other news, i have a snoopy band-aid.