Ever get the feeling that republicans see politics as a game?

[RandomKoolzip]

And that Democrats see politics as vehicle for change and improvement?

Republicans seem to approach the realm of elections and campaigns as a Stratego board writ large: power, conquest, strategy, how to best one's opponent, etc, whereas Democrats get into politics because they see problems that need fixing.

I see this especuially since Nixon, the father of republican dirty fighters, entered the scene as Senate candidate in the early fifties. Looking at his campaign, it's almost as if the substance of the issues in his platform is not what really mattered to him, it was the challenge of going to battle and DESTROYING his opponent. All the way uptil and surpassing his tenure in the White House, he wallowed in the blood and misery of his rivals, when it seemed like his rivals sincerely wanted to represent the people, or at least engage in a dialogue about the issues.

Unfortunately, we are stuck with the paradigm Nixon birthed. In each new presidential campaign, the republican candidate looks to new ways to deploy subterfuge, slander, lying, holding on to damaging information until the most vulnerable moment, etc. It's as if they view the whole electoral process the way my older brother viewed games of Monopoly - chants of "you're going DOWN, man!" and insisting he was the banker so that he could steal money when my back was turned. Is the universe really that dog-eat-dog? Is it the WIN you're after, not the presidency itself?

I really think the reason why we're underdogs is because we actually BELIEVE in the things we say, we're not just saying them to piss off the opposition and intimidate voters. THEY turned a legitimate process into a drunken cage match, and instead of decrying said innovation, the media declared "twas ever thus." Time after time, we see the Dem candidate get his nose busted by negative campaigning, and it's getting worse and worse as Rove and his Valkyries descend upon the political process.

What can be done? I've suggested in the past and believed in my heeart that we need to get in the mud and fling filth and pump iron and plot strategy and get nasty like the repubs do, but tonight, after much introspection, I had doubts...I still believe it's the only way we can win, but it still saddens me to think that this bullshit is the cause of so much apathy, that this bullshit has changed the ideals of so many young people that they do NOT view being president and the ultimate American aspiration anymore, that this bullshit is occupying our time by forcing us to fight when we should be regrouping and devising a coherent platform, that this bullshit has made me HATE conservatives for their bellicose ways when I never used to HATE anyone.

And you know what's REALLY sad? Seeing our candidates pull this bullshit on each other.

So, thoughts...IS politics just a huge war game now, or is it still a valid method of improving humanity?


HEY!

Post-script: So, I posted this thread a little while ago in the lounge, and immediately got a freep disruptor reply, which said, "Doesn't matter. Serious matter or game, GOP kicks ass either way."

TO which I replied, "Thank you for proving my point."

The freeper then volleyed. With "Bite me on the ass" (sic)

And of course, I replied, "Again, thank you for illustrating how republicans always take the high road. All you are doing is proving my point."

I think he got the message. After all, responding to this thread with a "Bite me on the ass" is EXACTLY what I'm talking about! I don't think he appreciated me pointing out how he defeated his own intentions.....He shut up and was then tombstoned.

Okay, so...thoughts?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. the base does

it is a damn football game for them.

For the ones in charge is all about POWER. End of discusion, period.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Wrong honey. They view it as WAR and that is why they win

WE VIEW IT AS A GAME as if there will be another game to win if we don't win this one.

It is late, but here is a thread I posted..oh like a year ago or so..check it out.

This is why what Soros has committed to do with his money is SO very important...it is going to take a lot of retraining:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=17043&forum=DCForumID60&archive=

[RandomKoolzip]

3. Thank you, NSMA...great post.

I especially glommed on to your emphasis of the word "PATIENCE."

Seriously, we need to emulate their molasses-slow worm turn. Eduacting on the ground is one way of doing it, but We need contributors of money and airspace, think tanks of our own, and we need the tolerance of being laughed at because we'll be viewed as the "little acorn who wished he was a tree." We are the underdogs now, just like the repubs were in the 70's. They laughed at the Moral Majority once...and then the Moral Majority took power...Do we have the intestinal fortitude to commit to such a long-term project?

The hour is getting late, in more ways than one.....

[necso]

4. More like a mugging.

Unless we put up a "no rules", "no retreat", "no surrender" fight... then it's a war.

Code of the f_ing Samurai. Bushido versus Bush.

[Wonk]

5. Finite games and Infinite games

A finite game is a game that has fixed rules and boundaries, that is played for the purpose of winning and thereby ending the game.

An infinite game has no fixed rules or boundaries. In an infinite game you play with the boundaries and the purpose is to continue the game.

Finite players are serious; infinite games are playful.

(snip)

You can play finite games within an infinite game. You can not play infinite games within a finite game.

more...
http://www.worldtrans.org/pos/infinitegames.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22infinite+games%22+%22finite+games%22

Life (in the broader sense) is an infinite game. Politics is a bunch of finite games. Someone is going to win the Presidency in '04 (for example), and then the next round begins.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. RKZ check this post out too!

I remember that one Wonk! Forgot to bookmark it last time..thanks

[NashVegas]

9. I Love That Book

I've posted about it a few times on DU - everyone with more than a passing interest in politics needs to read it.

Elections are a finite game. You are playing for the title of President (or whatever). To win the finite game, you need to put some "rock & roll," some theatrics to it. And you gotta show you take yourself seriously.

Howard Dean's campaign plays a great infinite game, but he's not going to win the presidency unless he can develop a good finite game as well.

For infinite players, Carse suggests, being overserious will straightjacket you. Think of how comedians can get away with much more pointed political digs than others who come off as shrill.

[Elwood P Dowd]

6. They view it as a business

It's not a Presidency, but instead it's a business venture. The
Bush family and their friends will make billions with him in office.
Now their underlings and political hacks might consider it a game,
but the Bush cabal is in the White House strictly for money reasons.

[slor]

8. Yes, the game called...

RISK !

[Loonman]

10. It is a game

Of course it's a game.

[ma4t]

11. You asked for others' thoughts, here are mine.

I'm afraid that you have a misconception. It appears that you think dirty campaigning, etc. is a relatively recent phenomenon. Any honest reading of history will show that all the abuses you catalog became a factor in presidential elections somewhere around the time John Adams was a candidate.

[RandomKoolzip]

12. I'm not so naive as to think that

dirty campaigning was a completely unknown quantity before Nixon. I haven't read the John Adams book (all the conservatives I know have, and they tell me I should, so I'm suspicious). Before Nixon there was serious graft, there was bribery, blackmail, rumormongering, etc. However, Nixon's early campaigns for Senate and his gubernatorial bids seem to me to usher in a new, more volatile style of smearing...maybe this has something to do with his ascendance coinciding with the set-up of the CIA and the dawning of the cold war, I don't know. All I know is that Nixon's model has been the model used by republicans ever since, while our model has been the more "noble" style that JFK used; the repubs appeal to the "baser" instincts of their base. while the Dems appeal to our higher motives as humans....this is just what I see.


Anyways, thank you guys for the links and the insights..you guys rock me like a hurricane....