The "whats relevant?" problem

How do you define political relevance? When election year rolls around - how do you come to a conclusion on who you vote for?

Certainly - there are the "cookie cutter" arguments that we get shoved down our throats every 4-6 years.

• Social Security
  
• The economy
  
• War
  
• Abortion
  
• Gun Control
  

Every year - its the same thing from the same politicians.

They never have a straight forward answer on any of these topics.

Social Security - "needs fixed" but never a "how"

The economy - "is in bad shape" but never a real reason "why" and NEVER a real lesson economics that say "valleys have to happen to create mountains" in the economic scale.

War - either its noble, or its pointless.
Abortion - It goes like this: "Well, i think its wrong, but its ok in certain cases" or "well i think its wrong in all cases, except for a certain few" and those "few reasons" are always sculpted to cater to the audience being spoken to at that moment


I could go on forever.


So who decides what's relevant?
I'll even define a little further

What is relevant for intellectual debate on the forums of ATS? And who decides it?

Certainly - there are certain issues that 99% of us could all agree on, as it pertains to THIS forum, that have no place in any discussion at all.

• Obama is the antichrist
  
• McCain is not a citizen
  
• Obama is not a citizen
  
• McCain is too old
  

just to name a few.


So. To start my argument, lets start with a few "cookie cutter" presidential talking points.


1.) The economy.
Sure - you could create a thread about why McCain claims he had an economic plan, or why Obama doesnt have one, or why both have a crap one, etc. That makes for good talking points, but at some point - that thread is going to reach a demise. Either because everything that can be said, has been said, or because nobody was very interested in that talking point to begin with.

So - now comes the counter thread and the supporting thread.

The counter thread typically takes a complete reactionary stand to the original thread. IE: If thread #1 was "mccains economic plan sucks" then thread #2 would be "obama's economic plan sucks"

The supporting thread is a completely new way of approaching the same conclusion as the original thread.

John McCain's economic plan sucks because he admits he doesnt know much about economics.

or

Barack Obama's economic plan sucks because he wishes to institute multiple tiers of new taxes which will inhibit economic growth on wall street.


Now you're going to further that by ADDITIONAL tiers of supporting/reactionary threads to this round #2 of threads.

And so on and so on.




But



If each new "tier" ultimately reaches the same conclusion - is it not an appropriate talking point?

And if it's not - then what is?

What is important to me - may be incompetent to you. And vise versa.





Does MSM decide the talking points for us?

Certainly - in this country alone - TV rules the masses. Very few households in this country anymore have less than 1 TV, and most have more than 3.
In fact, when you come across a family that DOESN'T have a TV - some almost enter a "taboo" mentality with that household as if they were under quarantine and to be avoided at all costs.

Suffice it to say : Americans are addicted to TV.
TV is addicted to 24-hour news coverage.

The "sports center" of the political world. Covering the same thing over and over, to the point of exhaustion.

Certainly the casual political talker is going to talk about issues that he or she see's on TV.

You see this a lot of some of the older generation.

When i would visit my wife's father and grandfather, i was taken aback by how little they truly knew about political discussion like we have here on ATS.

They were only taking in what the media fed them. And no more.


So you can certainly argue that the MSM has very little influence in the quality of debate here on ATS.


There are exceptions to that rule, of course.



Do the politicians themselves choose the talking points and what are relevant issues?

Certainly - the issues of 2000 were drastically different to those of 2004. And even more so of 2008.

2000:

In the campaign, Bush criticized the Clinton administration policy in Somalia, where 18 Americans died in 1993 trying to sort out warring factions, and in the Balkans, where United States peacekeeping troops perform a variety of functions. "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building," Bush said in the second presidential debate.[26] During his campaign, Bush also pledged to bridge bi-partisan gaps between the Democratic and Republican parties as well.[27]

Ralph Nader was the most successful of third-party candidates, drawing 2.74% of the popular vote. His campaign was marked by a traveling tour of "super-rallies"; large rallies held in sports arenas like Madison Square Garden, with retired talk show host Phil Donahue as master of ceremonies. After initially ignoring Nader, the Gore campaign made a big publicity pitch to (potential) Nader supporters in the final weeks of the campaign, downplaying Gore's differences with Nader on the issues and claiming that Gore's ideas were more similar to Nader's than Bush's were, noting that Gore had a better chance of winning than Nader.

On the other side, the Republican Leadership Council ran pro-Nader ads in a few states in an effort to split the "liberal" vote.[28] In the aftermath of the campaign, many Gore supporters claimed that many of Nader's voters would have supported Gore, thus siphoning off enough would-be Gore votes to throw the election to Bush.
Source

Compare that with the political issues of 2008 and you can see a drastic difference.


Certainly - in this instance, the candidates have more say over the media in what they talk about - though the media has more say over what gets played for the masses.

Ultimately - i say you can rule out the candidates as the creators of talking points - because you have open debates, with questions from real people in 'town halls' across the country.



I believe that it is we - the members of ATS - who decide what is a relevant talking point.

You can choose what ever you want to talk about. Its all fair game. But i believe more so important than what you talk about - is how you talk about it.

Telling me that Barack Obama is the antichrist isnt going to muster any support for your side, except for other like-minded people as yourself.

Telling me McCain is too old is the same exact argument.



But

If you feel as though McCains experience as a senator qualifies him for POTUS, and Obama's lack of experience in comparison is a matter for concern, then you should construct a thread discussion WHY.

Sensationalism, such as "obama is an elitist snob thats why" doesnt work. It only contributes to the feces smeared occasionally on the front page.


It is people like you and me that decides what gets talked about and what doesnt on ATS.


Be the change you wish to see Applies here just like any other forum in all of ATS. And in certain instances, more so. Threads that complain about lack of material are, IMO, only contributing to the problem.

Make your own contributions that agree with your standards of important issues. Stop ridiculing others for trying to do the same.

It doesnt require moderator influence. It requires positive and quality member interaction.

If you see a thread you disagree with - i feel as though you have a right to express your disagreements in that thread.

However


if you see a thread that you do agree with - i believe you have a sort of obligation to support that thread.

Especially if you're going to be a petitioner on a campaign in opposition of the decision 2008 forums.

It is a false statement to make that there are no issue-centric threads in all of the decision 2008 forums.

There are issue-centric threads
There are retaliatory and supportive sub-threads of each issue-centric thread there is.

Horribly constructed? Well, most certainly, some of them are.

But most often, most of them are not.

They are properly constructed, and support that persons opinion. If you want to participate, you're allowed to disagree. Disagreeing is encouraged, as it sparks intellectual debates.

Or so says my opinion.

We decide what is relevant.

If you choose to make the decision that there are no relevant issues - then why not create a thread and tell us how and why you came to that conclusion?

If you think that no issue-centric threads exist - create one that suits your own style and fills your requirements for a quality thread.

For the hundreds of people who are outspoken against the decision 2008 forum as a medium for intellectual debate, there sure are very few people here fighting in this forum to make it that way.

Contribute your own forms of relevant talking points.

Because it becomes very discouraging to the rest of us to see that our efforts are going UN-noticed.


Just remember. If you find that the decision 2008 forums are disgusting, then its possible that you, yourself, haven't helped contribute to the solution.

To those that have helped in this cause, i thank you.

McCain or Obama, it doesnt matter.
Quality and context is what does.


Now that you've heard my rants on the issue

How do you feel about it?


What makes for a relevant talking point?







[edit on 8/12/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Would you consider any of the following a "valid" issue to discuss as a POTUS nominee

• Infidelity
  
• Refusal to renounce racially degrading rhetoric
  
• Spousal abuse
  

All of which, of course, are glimpses into a persons personality.

Nobody expects perfection from a politician that i know of - though im sure some exist.

But would you consider these viable commentary for a political election.

If no - why?

I guess deciding "what is relevant" isnt really a problem at all.

Or perhaps it is...the biggest problem.

We can have discussions WHY these boards suck

but we can't have discussions on ideas how to improve them?

"deny ignorance" ?

..indeed.