Mack and I have a running debate about the usefulness of appealing to emotion in the political process. He’s for it and I’m against it.
Today is yet another reason why I’m against it. Because days like today are when it backfires. We’ve become so used to seeing politics be emotional, that we have no qualms against politicising emotional issues.
Twenty-some defenseless people being gunned down in cold blood is an emotional issue. It should strike a chord in all of us. It should drive us to mourn for the state of mankind and in sympathy with those who will never see their loved ones again. But we’ve had our emotions played to by every issue to come tumbling down the pike that we almost have no emotions left. We don’t know how to sit quietly and mourn any more. We have to allow one hour for overwhelming by chaos, an hour to gather the details, an hour to mourn and then we politicise.
America in the 21st century seems to be a place where grief exists primarily as an engine for political argument. I have one emotion left for all this, and that is anger.
I’m actually on Mack’s side on this one on the larger question (how could I not be?)…
With a respectible waiting period.
Let’s at least bury the dead first.
But an American political landscape uninformed by emotion sounds way too German to me (no offense, Aunt B).
I’ve got too much William Jennings Bryan in me, I guess. Emotion is what I do.
But I ain’t commenting on guns, or any other political aspect of this atrocity. My heart hurts too much.
politics, as most things are, is an emotional arena. we’re passionate about what we believe. it should be emotional.
having said that, no, this isn’t the right time to bring up discussions of a political nature. in 2 weeks, in a month, in a year, maybe. until then, all you’re doing is playing the WRONG emotions: heartache, fear, panic, sorrow, anger, etc.
[...] Thinktrain Rex Hammock The Coyote Chronicles mLog R. Neal An American Front Porch The Freedonian Katherine Coble Mel’s Diner Say Uncle Elephant Biz Jay Bush Spread It Around: These icons link to social [...]
I agree with you on this one. It doesn’t mean I won’t post about it later but I need time to process.
I also need to call a friend of mine to make sure everyone is okay.
The whole blogging community will debate.
But for me at least, I need some time.
And then, I really want to hear Mack’s position but right now I’m too numb.
The president is speaking. Going to watch.
Oh, I’ll have plenty to say about it. I’m sure Mack and Say Uncle and Nate and I and you and John H. will go round and round about it. But not today when there are parents who don’t even yet realise their children are dead.
Right now I need all this to mean more than just another talking point.
AMEN to what Kat just said.
I am in total agreement with you, Mrs. Coble. These people who are politicizing this terrible tragedy in order to promote their pro/anti-gun agendas are cold, selfish, insensitive human beings. We, as a nation, should just mourn the loss of these people right now…They deserve as much.
I don’t know what enrages me more – the guy killing these people or the way some people use this massacre to promote their agenda….
Sickening, just sickening.
“But not today when there are parents who don’t even yet realise their children are dead.” – yes, yes indeed.
Right now I need all this to mean more than just another talking point.
Amen.
Agreed.
This is a tragic day.
I wholeheartedly agree that now is not the time to be politicizing the tragedy that occurred little more than hour from where I am.
That said, I have to disagree that we shouldn’t allow emotions to enter into our political ideologies. Emotions are part of what makes us human. I think if we refuse to let emotion have it’s part in our various life philosophies (which include our political ideologies), then we are cheating ourselves.
I’ve often said that devoid of emotions, I’d be a total libertarian. I might quote a few lines of “I, Robot” to sum up the way I’ve looked at libertarianism:
We’re humans, emotions are part of the package. I disagree with politicizing tragedy, but I don’t want to live in a world where people don’t allow their emotions any say in their world view.
dolphin, we share the same sentiment.
And, I’m sorry if I offended any Germans earlier. I was trying to think of a good example of a society governed totally devoid of emotion. And I fell back on the sterotype of the very logical and clean and orderly Germany
After all my preaching, I should never take the shortcut of stereotypes.
Still, I wouldn’t want to live insuch a place.
Emotion caused us to sit idly by while the Patriot Act stripped us of our rights. One example of the negative role emotion can play when it comes to setting national policy.
I think it’s just fine for emotion to help form our own views, but it certainly needs to be checked a bit when we start to talk about policy.
Jeff, while I don’t totally agree with you on the Patriot Act issue, I do agree that emotion needs to be “checked at the door” when policy is being made – on both sides of the aisle.
Policy should be all about logic and common sense, not emotion.
OK, let me try this from a logical point of view.
How are these two statements different:
1) The extreme exception of massacres is reason enough to ban guns
2) The extreme cases when bad law is actually passed because of emotion is reason enough to banish emotion from political discourse.
I know it’s not perfect, but I’m a visitor to this left-brained world.
I’m sorry I’ve not been more present in this discussion. I think that many of the nuances of my original thesis aren’t here because I haven’t put them here. (funny how that tends to happen…things don’t get understood if you don’t say them.)
The main thrust of the conversation was yesterday over at Tiny Cat Pants.
Here’s the relevent stuff of what I said:
So I guess what wasn’t clear in my post and my not yet be clear is that I don’t advocate an abcence of emotion, but neither do I advocate sole adherence to the dictates of emotion.
Kat, our legislative and judicial processes are designed to temper the emotional aspect of things, yet not squelch them totally. With the exception of the Patriot Act, I’d say most laws, even ill-conceived laws, are passed soberly.
I think arguments based on emotion are appropriate in the general populace. The immigration issue is white hot, but what do we have on the legislative front nationally? Nothing, nada. The process tempers, as it should.
Lest you forget, although our nation was founded on Laws and Logic, that founding would not have been possible had there not been a first emotional reaction. They still call it a great colonial temper tantrum overseas.
I think arguments based on emotion are appropriate in the general populace.
Sure. Anyone can talk about whatever they want.
Do they accomplish anything? Just anger, from what I’ve seen. Why go through all that if we’re not progressing toward a solution on the given issues? For the sport?
So I guess what wasn’t clear in my post and my not yet be clear is that I don’t advocate an abcence of emotion, but neither do I advocate sole adherence to the dictates of emotion.
That we agree on. I’d add one more criteria though. I advocate not for the sole adherence to the dictates of emotion NOR the sole adherence to the dictates of logic.
I think laws ought to be based primarily on logic, but I think there are positive things to be gleaned from emotion and “gut-feelings” as well. That’s why we have such things.
“These people who are politicizing this terrible tragedy in order to promote their pro/anti-gun agendas are cold, selfish, insensitive human beings.”
Yes, people that care about human life are cold, selfish, and insensitive.
As I’ve said before (@ tiny cat pants…I think), morality isn’t rational!
However, I’m not sure that new gun-”control” laws will solve the problem.
“Policy should be all about logic and common sense, not emotion.”
Again, morality isn’t logical; although, I do agree with the said statement, which of course, creates a paradox.
Hello Kat,
Nice to meet you, but I wish that it weren’t under either circumstance that it is (the first being the J L Kirk travesty, the second being the Virginia Tech tragedy). I’ve been reading your blog all day long, but I’m sure that I’ve barely scratched the surface of content. There is every chance that you know about the following folks, and you may have received this exact email this evening, but just in case… When you’re up to reading it, I thought I’d share, for anyone who isn’t familiar with these guys (mostly gals):
“Greetings Liberty Belles and Beaux,
“According to the latest news reports, 33 people were killed and 29 injured during a shooting rampage on April 16, 2007 at Virginia Technical University. Previously, the deadliest campus shooting in the country took place in 1966 at the University of Texas at Austin, in which 17 people, including the gunman, were killed.
“The general approach to preventing these types of incidences has been to ban the possession of firearms at all schools and colleges. The perpetrators of massacres like the one at Virginia Tech and Columbine prove what gun owners have been saying all along: Criminals, by their very nature do not obey the law.
“Read more on this subject and others on our website at http://www.libertybelles.org
including:
* Why you should own a gun
* PA: Gun bill up against critics
* Orlando Women Take Precautions Against Crime
“and more!
“Thank you for your support.
“Jennifer Freeman
Liberty Belles
http://www.libertybelles.org
Putting the Second Amendment first.”
My “name” is a long story. I started to launch into it, but then accidentally lost it, so I’ll try again later. I may need to email you parts of it, as it involves some local Tennessee libertarians (or Libertarians, as each case may be). The groupthink, hypocrisy, and holier-than-thou attitudes of almost all of the ones I met eventually turned my stomach and turned me away from anything to do with libertarianism (lower-case or upper-case ones).
That is all for another time. For now, our energy, our hearts, and our prayers need to be directed elsewhere…
Blessings,
FSL
Eliyahu,
Let me clarify what I was trying to say earlier…it’s funny how we know what we want to say, but when it comes time to say it, it just doesn’t come out right.
I just meant that those who were politicizing this issue while the tragedy is still fresh are cold and selfish…I’m all for a good debate on whether we should or should not have gun control, but now is not the time for it. Parents just lost their children; husbands/wives just lost their spouse. Now is the time for mourning; there will be time to debate the gun control issue.
Now with that said, I agree with the Columbine parent who came out and said that gun control is not the solution. To be honest, I don’t know what the solution is. But it is apparent that society views human life as worthless…and it’s being taught all around this nation and around this world.
I’m looking forward to hashing this out sometime again soon. I had a number of commenters on my thread yesterday. I heard about what happened, and so I wrote down my immediate thoughts. It wasn’t a long diatribe, and clearly wasn’t political. I don’t think this issue is political, or at least it shouldn’t be. I wasn’t attempting to score points for our “team”. I use my blog to vent sometimes, like every single one of the commenters over there do on occassion. I’d like to know that I am allowed to process things in my own way.
I’d like to know that I am allowed to process things in my own way.
Of course you are….I say as though I’m in any position to tell a person what they can or can’t think.
I should probably not have linked to you, because I didn’t even mean to make this about “Look, Mack’s talking about guns and he shouldn’t be.” That wasn’t my intention.
My whole thought process actually started with reading the comments over at SaysUncle (to which I also linked) where several people were already talking about how this dooms gun-rights legislation, etc.
As any person on either side of the Gun issue knows, any thing like this will bring Gun Talk to the forefront for awhile. I was upset that the gun talk over at SaysUncle had begun before we even knew how many people were dead…as SU said himself “let’s not dance in the blood of the dead.”
That got me to thinking about the discussion you and I had the day before about emotion in argument, so that fueled this post. In fact, I think I wrote this BEFORE I read your post. I can’t remember though.
Anyway, I didn’t at all write this as a smackdown for any specific person who was talking about the guns yesterday. (Despite what Kleinheider says.) I wrote this as a continuation of my thought processess about the use of emotion in political dialogue.
I will say, though, that to ME personally this
does sound pretty political.
I don’t think this issue is political, or at least it shouldn’t be.
Gun rights/ Gun control is NOT a political issue? How do you figure?
And maybe I read it wrong, but that entry does sound like a call for a discussion of gun control.
It’s ok. It really is ok.
Everybody has their own way of dealing with the shock. Our grieving process goes all over the map with it.
One moment I was mourning sadly, the next I was laughing at irreverant jokes, the next minute I was angry about the whole gun control thing, and next all of those emotions started their cycle again in a different order.
All of those emotions are a way of grieving at the tragedy.
…and it’s all okay.
Ginger, you are absolutely right. Everyone does have their way of dealing with it. And I agree with you about the emotions being all over the map.
Sometimes we have to laugh between the crying, otherwise we’ll become numb and desensitized…