A hypothesis on the nature of politics

People engage in political discourse not to determine whether what they believe is right/wrong or better/worse, but to further their own political party and to essentially ridicule their opposition. 

If there were some way to determine that a large percent of Mexicans would vote Republican upon (illegally or not) immigrating to the US, I hypothesise that Republicans would suddenly become the party advocating for the rights of Mexicans to be here, whilst Democrats would argue along the "pro-wall" stance. 

Another perhaps more applicable example is the vaccine. We get a ghost of evidence for my theory when Kamala Harris alluded to the COVID vaccine as the "Trump Vaccine".

I can almost guarantee that, if Trump were to remain president and he had pushed strongly vaccine mandates, the left would be the "anti-vaccine" (perhaps to a lesser extent) and the right would be the "pro-vaccine" party. I can almost hear the "my body my choice I'm not taking the Trump Vaccine" chants stirring on the streets.  

I think this polarisation can be observed in the fact that the left and right share not a single commonality. What are the chances of this? On not a single issue, whether it be age old (abortion), or current (Rittenhouse), there is literally no agreement that we can ever observe. Ordinarily, two individuals should be able to find some common ground, but never in politics. 

I hold that, though this is unprovable but nonetheless, I stand by it. 

4. Commonalities 

1. Fails because totalitiarianism is in and of itself an extistential risk. Bryan Caplan writes about this exstensively in the last chapter of Global Catastrophic Risks.

2. Probably fails as well. Poorly developed AI ranks under only deliberate misuse of nanotech, nuclear holocoaust, or that we are living in simulation and it gets shut down.

3. While capatalism sees a long term profit from survival, it is almost always more profitible in the short term to exploit. This is why a 'greed is good'  form of capatalism has largely evolved.

4. The risks seem self explanatory. 

Here is a good summary of why we are not going to wipe our selves out due to climate anytime soon. 

1. People engage in discourse to further their own agenda

This is true, but only of public discourse, where convincing others is the primary objective. In private conversations, I believe people are much more willing to compromise. 

2. Mexican’s Voting

I think that @Bones is missing a major aspect of this by ignoring the difference between illegal and legal immigrants. Conservatives support legal immigration because there is a test which virtually guarantees immigrants support the constitution, while illegal immigrants tend to be less integrated into US culture and lean much further to the right.  

Both parties will always keep their current stances because no matter what, having a higher ration of legal immigration to illegal immigration will be good for republicans, and vice versa. 

I believe Republicans will probably continue to support lower immigration levels to further their own interests as well. Even if they are becoming more Conservative overtime, over 50% are still voting democrat. I think there is a natural alignment between conservative values and low immigration. Immigrants will naturally change the culture which conservatives try to conserve at high levels.

3. Vaccine

Generally I agree, however I do not believe that there is a world where the vaccine would be embraced quickly by the right. Republicans have a fear of big government, and anything that sounds like it could implement a totalitarian regime. Trump created the vaccine, and he continued to push it even after leaving office. I doubt the response would have been much different even if he had been in office from the Republican side. 

@Reece101 brings up a good point that the left trusts health professionals, however Fauci would have been FIRED if Trump stayed in office much longer, and the messaging may have been different. Still provaccine, but probably less vocal. I bet many of those who gave into the social pressure would have held off for longer. Remember, this is the bunch that is terrified of eating non-organic food and GMOs despite what the scientists say. 

4. Commonalities 

This is very true, even with very far out there things that everyone should be able to agree on. For example, take the two issues of pedophiles and women. Republicans have now accuse the left of being pro-pedophile, and have cited the fact some of them have adopted the term MAP (minor attracted person) to refer to pedophiles, and have made the assertion that this is the direction that the mainstream left is heading; drag babies to drag shows, indoctrinate their children into trans-gender ideology, and read their toddlers sex education books with graphic depictions of sex. Meanwhile, Leftists believe that Republican’s are trying to carry out an all out assault on women’s rights, and truly believe that within a couple of years the US could be indistinguishable from the handmaids tale... a book that Conservatives also claim is left-wing satanic propaganda. In fact, abortion advocates on the left say we already live in this world because women no longer have a constitutional right to an abortion, so they are cursed by pregnancy, and the patriarchy forces them out of the workforce and society as a whole .

5.  

All this, when we can probably all agree that pedophiles are bad and women deserve rights. Unfortunately, it has created a bit of a reverse self-fulfilling prophecy. Parents on the far left read their children wildly inappropriate books, and take them to drag shows. The only reason this happens is because parents feel politically motivated to go against bigotry and create what they see as an open-minded child, and this would not occur in the first place if we did not make unfounded accusations which would later come to pass. Let’s just hope that the same thing does not happen with women’s rights.

Trying to convince others can be the primary objective both publicly and privately. Compromising should be secondary. Approaching from a level-headed perspective tends to be preferable in both instances, if the goal is to pull people over. 

While commonsense ground on Rittenhouse should be that he shouldn’t have gone out larping

I think that @Bones is missing a major aspect of this by ignoring the difference between illegal and legal immigrants. Conservatives support legal immigration because there is a test which virtually guarantees immigrants support the constitution, while illegal immigrants tend to be less integrated into US culture and lean much further to the right.  

I believe Republicans will probably continue to support lower immigration levels to further their own interests as well. Even if they are becoming more Conservative overtime, over 50% are still voting democrat.

Trying to convice others always is the objective, the only question is who you are convincing. In private you are convincing the person you are talking to. In public you try to convice the observers. I agree that compromising is secondary, however the participants in a debate are more likely to comprimise in a private debate. This is because people try to destroy their opponents in public debates, or even just try to win rather than develop their own ideas. Both models of debate are good and necessary.

2. Mexican’s Voting

It is not so much that all immigration negatively impacts culture, and more that mass illegal immigration negatively impacts culture. This is because America has a very specific culture based on it's history, and this is why we value things like freedom of speech and the right to bear arms more than in many other countries. With a large influx of immigrants who are not yet familiar with this context, it can create pockets in America that are not integrated into the common culture. This is not the only way we move away from conservatism of course, and the greatest threat to it is probably left-wingers born within the country. 

I should not that I do not always agree with the general Conservative analysis of this issue, as in the long term the demographics is destiny argument does not hold up. If anything cultural/family values that are preserved within the immigrant population may do more to counter leftism in the long run. In fact, while a lot of immigrants do lean left politically they almost all lean right culturally.

3. Vaccine

I am not sure if it has grown or shrink, I know nationally that 70% of Americans are opposed. I do suspect this number has probably shrunk because of the "listen to the science" narrative put forth by the left in response to Covid. 

4. Commonalities

For sure, and I think the reason that these posistions are advocated by anyone is simply because of the urge to disagree. With the sex education example you brought up, Republicans have become opposed to it on the grounds that it is transing the kids, which is only true in the first place because the GOP accuses the left of being in favor of transing children which eventually actually lead to the defense of transing the kids. Ovbiously with this issue, there is the religious element, but even in the past kids recieved "the talk" which was primarily about abstinence.  

You are actually conforming to the very archetype which I condemn in the post. The very fact that you say "shouldn't have gone out larping" is merely to proselytize your political agenda to others. The debate about Rittenhouse isn't whether he should have "gone out larping", it is "was Rittenhouse in the right when he fired at addressing protesters". The only reason this whole "larping" thing has come out is because those who believed Rittenhouse was wrong (a belief which I argue as one based on ridiculing their opposition and furthering their own position) have realised that they were terribly mistaken and thus, in an attempt to salvage dignity, argue that he is still in the wrong for "larping". You would never tell someone who gets viciously raped in front of their children that they "shouldn't have been larping", because the elephant in the room is the rapist. Yet in the world of politics, we go to such disgusting lengths to preserve the integrity of our ideology. 

The topic was common ground. No one would have been shot and killed if Rittenhouse stayed home that night and the rioters didn’t riot. 

This is not extistential because of extinction, but more because totalitarianism prevents development. 

I may have been slightly confused about this point, but I do not think that we can rely on cooperation from the government. Governments are far more likely to be the cause then the solution. 

You are correct that in the long term climate could be an issue, but if it is not an issue by 2100 it will most likely be because we are able to control it. With enough warning time we should be able to prepare, and it is unlikely this would lead to premature extinction or anything of the sort. It is a risk, but it is very down low on the list. 

There have been spirutual revolutions in the past such as the great awakening, however these have never been universal or accepted by an entire population

This is possible, but there is an extreme risk as I have pointed out with totalitarianism.

I disagre that all government has to work towards a common goal.

Regulatory agencies put a check on capatalism, current emerging tech has the potential to drastically reduce transportational and agricultural emmissions, and we are probably not heading towards a cataclysmic event. 

Rambling.

1. 

Obviously, you do not want to revert to ad hominem attacks, but publicly winning an argument (or “destroying” your opponent) is not harmful. Ideally, when you win an argument, it can convert more people to your side. It really depends on what is meant by destroying an opponent. If it simply means that you clearly won, or if it means you acted in poor conduct. 

2. Mexican’s Voting

By nature, the left is the greatest threat to conservatism (cultural stability), because by definition a leftist is progressive. Which simply means they want to tear down the systems which they consider being oppressive. Leftists want change, right-wingers want to keep core systems in place. 

Republicans do not hold all the political power. First, political power does not simply refer to the government. Politics encompasses anything that is of interest to the public. This includes institutions such as schools, hospitals, or university. The right does not control a single one of these to my knowledge. Especially educational institutions which shape the future generations.

Specifically, looking at the government also shows great power in the hands of the left. Democrats control the Presidency, Senate, and House. Liberals have power that goes almost completely unchecked in liberal states like California and New York.

I agree that race has nothing to do with the levels of division in the country, as there will always be something new to create division over. Racial division in America is dead, and we have moved over to other identities included within the LGB+ group.

4. Commonalities

I agree that transgenderism and drag are two separate categories, but there are trans children and also children who go to drag shows.

Abstinence education works. The problem with other forms of education is that they just end up having sex in any ways which kind of negates the entire purpose. Sure, for the first few times, you will probably get lucky using ‘safe’ methods. But these methods only work around 95% of the time, so in the long run it only makes so much of a difference. But I agree with you that no education is bad because they need to know they should avoid sex in the first place, and otherwise they will end up just doing it with no second thought or any form of protection.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/02/abstinenceonly_education_works.html#:~:text=Two%20years%20after%20completing%20the,only%20programs%20are%20not%20effective.

Now you're just spewing bs. "The mother wouldn't have been raped if she just stayed home". You are prevaricating in order to preserve your ideology. 

Now you're just spewing bs. "The mother wouldn't have been raped if she just stayed home". You are prevaricating in order to preserve your ideology. 

Why do you have to create such an analogy? You’re generalising two seperate scenarios that aren’t applicable to how people should behave. 

The same rough scenario (of Rittenhouse’s actions leading up to the riots) can be applied across the board. It doesn’t mean shit they’re criminals. You’re essentially advocating for extrajudicial justice in the form of taking another life. Where will that lead?

It doesn’t mean shit they’re criminals. 

You said he shouldn’t have gone out larping all whilst ignoring the fact that he was literally assaulted by a gang of weapon wielding thugs. I argue that this is the same as me saying she shouldn't have gone out larping when confronted with a rape victim. See how the issue is that, in both, I ignore the elephant in the room, that is, someone's rights being infringed? 

I'm advocating nothing of the sort - my argument is that politics is merely a congregation of people who illogically defend their side without considering the evidence, a proposition which you are proving. 

1. I think we generally agree here. I am just saying the point in public debates is to proove that you are correct and convince others more than your opponenet. 

2. Mexican’s Voting 

I do not think the Conservatism that I am describing is dead in any sense. It is not that nothing can never change, but that our core systems and culture should be preserved rather than overhauled. This is a belief shared by the vast majority of Americans. 

Federal legislative power is exclusively controlled by the left currently.

Division exists, but I think that very little or no racial division exists. There are quite frankly not enough racists in America to make this a serious problem, and people are starting to loose interest

I am sure that there is still a fair amount of alleged racism, but most of this is simply not racism. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who openly admitted they hated black people, or any other race for that matter. I am not sure what bigotry you are reffering to. 

3.  Commonalities

I agree that there should be more research, but my point was more just that logically abstinence has to be taught because birth control is not very effective.