DP is perhaps one of the more sensitive issues for American liberals

I think there are a large number of potentially subconscious factors contributing to this sensitivity.

1. Embarassment.

Being practically the only civilised democratic western nation that still practices the death penalty must be be an incredibly frustrating thing to people who are against it and simultaneously liberal and drawn to the image of Amercia as a protector of liberties and civilised behaviour. I think I can feel embarassment here.

I don't think it makes an awful lot of sense to be embarassed about something over which you have not much control. Democracy is basically a bureaucratically glued-up version of mob rule and if everybody wants DP in the States, that's it. It's an illogical reaction to any crime, in my view, but there you are.

2. Stubborn-ness.

Those liberals who do support the death penalty (and there are some, it seems, suprisingly) may be annoyed with the softer approach to liberalism *in general* partially because it makes the party look "soft" and prevents the snaring of a few extra numbers for the vote machines (As a tangent, that's just really dumb, policy rigging for votes, if its true. What's the point in adjusting your policies to make your party popular? What's the point in BEING in power if all you're going to be able to do is the same thing everyone else does?), or may actually *make* the party soft and let it get walked all over in policy decision-making (backing down after calling a spade a spade in Congress). The Anti-Soft Brigade are generally a stubborn lot and feel they need to stick to their guns so that they don't get walked all over by both sides. Which in some issues I think is very understandable, justifiable and actually correct. But not in the case of the death penalty. Actually, I consider myself to be a staunch Anti-Soft Brigader on the subject of how to argue with right wingers, for example (be as rude as you like is my take), but this approach is not a cure-all.


3. A sense of betrayal.

The protection of the innocent is usually a core value for liberals so taking risks with people's lives around their guilt or innocence makes the whole thing a very difficult subject. There's obviously a great deal of anger with eye-for-an-eye reactionariness, primarily because of the anti-DP perception that the possibility that the court might be wrong (which happens all the time) isn't even being considered by the pro-DP crowd. This is a betrayal of a core liberal stance. Live and let live, guys, that's the anti-DP stance, vengeance cures nothing. (Which is true). And to claim a liberal view-point and support the death penality seems completely alien to an anti-DPer like me. I don't get the rage that the other anti-DPers get as I don't react to killing the same way, for me the core problem is one of innocence and how to adopt the most *appropriate* reponse to a crime rather than just lashing out but to other anti-DPers it's much more of a gut feeling thing and they will feel actively betrayed by liberal compatriots who support the death penalty.

T'would be wise to remember this.

4. "Society is not to blame"...

It's been a staple of liberalism that a difficult social context must be considered as a factor in assessing the seriousness of a crime, but we should note that it is not a staple for ALL liberals. The libertarian liberals note the existence of ordinary people in the same social context as the perpetrator who live entirely decent lives, so "why should we all pay for some murderous bastard to live on our tax dollars?" People are responsible for their actions.

This root contrasts deeply with the roots of the opposing position (that the relationship between individual and society is complex) which is that we are all responsible for each other, regardless. In fact, they are diametrically opposed and unresolvable, as far as I can see, and also are fairly deeply entrenched as roots of opinions when they manifest....

:)

Now, all of that's all very well, but I wish somebody other than me had said it, because it doesn't really explain the vitriol of the past 24 or so hours, much of which I will have missed and I don't think, perhaps through not being American at this crucial period of American political history, that I can understand that vitriol very well.

I have no problem with any of us posting grossly insulting diatribes against the RW or Freeperland (as anyone who knows me on this board would tell you I could rant for my country) but I really don't think it's a terribly good idea to get into it with *each other*.

How about:

"Okay, dude, TIME OUT! I've obviously made you really angry. That's okay, but my position is also held very strongly by me, so let's take this slowly. We've nothing to gain from alienating each other, have we? WHY do you believe what you believe?"

Easily said, bm. :eyes: However, I do think it would be a bit more *efficient*.

Of course, there are some positions with which this simply won't work... and some posters will simply waste your time by using the discussion to rationalise to themselves their badly formed opinions into well-formed
nonsense.

Also, there are things that can be said to which I am sufficiently sensitive that I will simply put someone onto ignore straight away... but it's rare, and I think it should be a last resort. I get the impression that there are a lot of over-reactive types clogging things up right now.

Hm.

Well, I'm not entirely sure why I posted all that other than that I'm at work on Saturday without being paid and am getting tired of typing up clinic letters.

Whistles innocently... dons asbestos toupee....

and i'm going to enjoy what comes after:popcorn: .

It all seems reasonable enough to *ME*, of course...

:hide:

but i still love a good fight.
:yoiks:

Obviously, this is a good thread. Thanks for your words, baby_mouse.

It has kinda sunk, though...