Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

'Emotional' politics

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Strange thought that just came to me, but what's better... to think through things in a balanced manner and consider all the arguments, to take the appropriate course of action, or, to follow your feelings, and do 'whats right' - because often whats right isn't what's needed or appropriate in a given context.

I feel that many popular politicians seem to do this 'emotional' politics - like George Galloway having a go at the US Senate. Didn't actually achieve anything, but it felt right and I'm sure most people have wanted to say the same to the American Government.

I mean, looking at it from one perspective, it's better to only make the decisions that will have the greater good, think first and act second making sure the most benefit is gained from every decision. But from the other, sometimes you need to do what's right for no other reason than it's the 'right' thing.

The only reason I bring this up is looking on this board we do get different types of 'politicians' if you allow me to call you that :p. There are some who (not blinded to the fact of the matter, but nevertheless) will take a very emotive stand to all their arguments, decrying politicians and sometimes being a bit sensationalist with reference to such phrases as 'murdering scum' etc. (a clichéd phrase by now).

There are others though, who will just ask for the facts every time, and ask for sources etc. Thinking about it, those who are more emotive are the ones who stick in my mind and the ones who I remember in a debate on here, wading through oodles of comments.

Is there a distinction between the two? Is one more effective than the other in real politics (i.e. if they were in charge of the country)? Would you consider yourself one or the other or both? Or, (last question), does it just depend what the subject is? How we can have a rational debate about taxes and how they're for the greater good (or not), whereas when we get on to rapists many of us are calling out for blood.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd say both...I'm quite a humanitarian, I'd like a society where everyone has an equal oppurtunity to succeed, I wouldn't let my feelings get in the way of that ultimate goal but I'll admit my feelings get the best of me sometimes.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Depends on both counts what you stand for.

    Hitler was most probalby the First. Emotive. This is obvious, as Stalin's failing was assuming Hitler was a cool, calculating, logical man. Which he proved not to be. Hitler acted on emotions, feelings, and allowed them to guide him, not a good choice when you are mad.

    It really depends on a number of other factors: Their beleifs, their intention, and the Media's interpretation of it.

    I'd always say the first myself. But that is what I think, things should be though out before taking action. Otherwise, you could end up with a worse situation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good points.

    Imho emotion should give you the aim, not the method.

    GG is an emotional politician and usually it backfires badly. In the circumstances he was in at the senate, it was the right response and tone to take, so it worked.

    You want what you want because of emotion, you get what you want by using logic and planning.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    to think things through is better.
    feelings and emotions, etc... always tend to have a knack of getting in the way of things.
    i :heart: logic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Politics is always about emotion and feeling. Those who don't feel emotion about political things are simply not being provoked in the right areas.

    There are political arenas in which everyone can be the statesman, and think of the greater good. There are also political arenas in which people will be reduced to calling each other cunts simply because there aren't the words to describe the emotion.

    Man of Kent tends to be quite pragmatic, but he doesn't take kindly to abuse against the NHS. I will swear profusely about New Labour politicians and the police, but will be pragmatic when it comes to other issues. Tal will be pragmatic about a lot of things, but she will defend the most hideous Israeli atrocities because of loyalty to her nation.

    Everyone feels strongly about some things, and doesn't care about others.
Sign In or Register to comment.