Parker'sSire on 27/3/2007 at 03:40
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
See, I find this weird, because whatever you think of Democrat or Republican, there's two very different ideologies at play there.
Exactly. And most people I speak to actually fall within a range somewhere in the middle of those ideologies. Almost 50% of the registered voters in Massachusetts are "unenrolled"; no political party affiliation (as of 11/06).
They move away from both parties (though the other half of the voters here are now almost completely Democrat). Many of the Democrats here are enrolled as such because they have always been enrolled as Democrat.
I just got off the phone with my mom (a very lively 82 yrs) who just admitted. as I was typing this, that that was the case with her. She also mentioned that when she took some type of "see what you really are" type of political quiz/test, it turned out that she had more Republican leanings than she had Democrat.
The two political ideologies in the states cover way too many issues at way too far extremes to be viable as true belief systems anymore. Many people don't believe that the myriad of problems/issues can each and all be addressed, much less solved, by a blanket approach from one extreme idealogical point of view.
You'll find people who want to tighten the borders and get tough on
illegal immigration, but also believe that a strong military is neccessary in the current world. Someone else may not believe that abortion is murder or that the government has no right to dictate what is moral or not, but will also believe that they should be proud to be US citizens are are not the apologists that the Democrats seem to be. Another might support Bush in the Middle East, but also believes in supporting embryonic stem cell research.
And so it goes...
I, personally, think that most truths ( I didn't say "facts") and many answers lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, or at least rarely at the extremes of most arguments. And that goes for many of the points argued in TTLG.
The 2 political parties seem to exist as opposites for the sole purpose of existing as opposites. It's feels almost as if they come up with positions solely to serve to differentiate them from the "enemy", like military uniforms.
Even my landlady, who is currently an alternate to go to the Democratic National Convention, when forced to actually discuss issues in a non-partisan discussion will inadvertantly agree with some of the positions of the opposite party (as voiced by me) as well as those of her own party (also voiced by me).
As you can probably guess, when I have discussions with "Democrats", they think I'm a right wing conservative nutcase, and the "Republicans" think I'm a left wing bleeding liberal. I simply don't think that the same approach works in every situation. But all that they can see is that I don't agree with them, therefore, I'm the "enemy".
But that does make me a good manager, producer, and session player. :)
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
What happened here? Is ideology really dead?
No. But I'm not sure that the traditional ways of defining the scope of an ideology are applicable anymore. One conservative radio personality (note that I do not write "Republican"; there are plenty of those here) likes to repeat the idea that "anyone under 30 yrs old who does not hold to a Democrat type ideology has no heart, and anyone over 30 who still steadfastly holds to it has no brain".
Given the number of unenrolled voters in the US who want nothing to do with either party (I still think it's around 30%.. someone correct me if I'm wrong), there is more than enough room for a third point of view, a third party. Something that the powers-that-be would never allow, even if it was the desire of the people or for the good or survival of the country.
And that's just one more reason that few people actually believe what politicians of either party say or claim; neither group has any real credibility anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirFreddieMis none other than Alfred E. Neumann.
Too late. He's already been there for 2 terms.
mopgoblin on 27/3/2007 at 03:54
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
What happened here? Is ideology really dead? Do people actually not care what fundamental rules political parties use to formulate their policies any more? It's absolutely baffling to me, so if anyone can shed some light on the matter, I'd appreciate it.
Well, a lot of people might not care why they get the policies they want, as long as they get them. Furthermore, you can't always trust a party to keep the promises they make, or even be sure that they actually have the ideology they say they do (look at New Zealand governments from the mid-80s to early 90s, for example). Sometimes you can get a reasonable idea of what the individuals will do if you look at what they've done in the past, though.
Parties also tend to shift towards the centre in a two-party system. After a while, their primary goal is often to stay in power rather than to implement their policies. And if there are only two parties, the strategy that gets you the most votes is usually to get closer to the centre (median) than the other party, particularly on issues where the distribution is already quite narrow, so that your policies are closer to those of more than half of the voters. It's no use if they want to do one thing, but do something else to get more votes.
Finally, electing a president is a bit of a special case. Electing someone to a parliament (or the equivalent) may affect the balance of power in the legislature. Unless that person is pretty high in the pecking order, they're not going to have much of a say on policy and will generally do as they're told. A president doesn't have cabinet/caucas/whips telling them what to do all the time, and any association with a party should only give you a rough idea of how they'll behave.
Myoldnamebroke on 27/3/2007 at 09:29
Quote Posted by Parker'sSire
Exactly. And most people I speak to actually fall within a range somewhere in the middle of those ideologies.
See, what I think this is about is similar to what we're seeing in the UK. It's the decline of the political party as a broad church of ideas, shaped by a particular philosophy at its heart. People seem to expect parties to provide manifestos tailored specifically to themselves, and I think the growing disengagement from politics of a large section of society reflects this. I'm a member of a political party, and I disagree with an awful lot of what it does and advocates, and I'll happily admit as such. But the values at the core are what I share, and I do my bit as a generally politically aware and active citizen to shape the direction I want to see the party go in.
While we have representative democracy and not direct democracy through referendums, we have to accept we're never going to find a party we agree with 100%, but you can agree with the attitude they enshrine and do your bit to be involved with the debate. Without an engaged civil society we get uninspired parties and a proper lack of democracy - if lots of people are involved, the parties themselves become a filtering mechanism for putting across the views of large sections of society and allowing others to consider them. We get the parties we deserve - it's up to us as citizens to change them - and at the moment the pick and choose attitude towards political parties is just feeding back and creating more apathy as people and parties become more disconnected.
SD on 27/3/2007 at 15:16
What Monbee said.
I think if a person honestly believes that Party X is right 50% of the time and Party Y is right 50% of the time, then they ought to ask themselves why their opinions are so incoherent. I think if they scratch the surface, they'll discover that their beliefs are riddled with contradictions.
Say what you like about liberals, conservatives, socialists, Democrats, Republicans etc (and I frequently do) but their political stances are defined by a structured and coherent set of underlying principles. Of course, even within political parties there is always disagreement, but this is more a matter of disagreement over the application of a set of principles rather than disagreement on what those principles constitute (I could easily provide liberal arguments for and against the Iraq war, for example).
I think it's a crying shame that these days, people rank transient party policy more importantly than they do the philosophies that shape that policy. It's that sort of attitude which allows the worst kind of populist, opportunist politicians to thrive.
fett on 27/3/2007 at 20:40
[old school]Bill N' Opus in 2008![/old school]
Rug Burn Junky on 27/3/2007 at 20:57
Quote Posted by Parker'sSire
As you can probably guess, when I have discussions with "Democrats", they think I'm a right wing conservative nutcase, and the "Republicans" think I'm a left wing bleeding liberal.
Actually - based on the shit you've written, my guess is that you are naive, uninformed, and not very intelligent, which is a far worse failing than being an ideologue.
Quote:
they should be proud to be US citizens are are not the apologists that the Democrats seem to be.
HURRRRR. Go go retarded talking points! Cuz liberals hate amerikkka, amirite?
Quote:
One conservative radio personality [...] likes to repeat the idea that "anyone under 30 yrs old who does not hold to a Democrat type ideology has no heart, and anyone over 30 who still steadfastly holds to it has no brain".
I hadn't realized that Winston Churchill* has gotten a gig on conservative talk radio.
*even if he'd never actually said it and it's only been mistakenly attributed to him, it's long predated talk radio and most certainly wasn't from whomever you think it's from. Which you would know, if you were, you know, well read.
Carini on 27/3/2007 at 21:37
Fred Thompson in '08
Rogue Keeper on 28/3/2007 at 08:17
Homer Simpson
Chimpy Chompy on 28/3/2007 at 08:54
What exactly is a Democract Type Ideology anyway? I hear some Americans (well, mostly grumpy bloggers) calling them freedom-hating-socialists, and meanwhile the guardianistas here in the UK snark about them being right-wingers.
Convict on 28/3/2007 at 13:28
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Say what you like about liberals, conservatives, socialists, Democrats, Republicans etc (and I frequently do) but their political stances are defined by a structured and coherent set of underlying principles. Of course, even within political parties there is always disagreement, but this is more a matter of disagreement over the application of a set of principles rather than disagreement on what those principles constitute (I could easily provide liberal arguments for and against the Iraq war, for example).
tbh I'm confused by the underlying principles of the UK Tories who IIRC wanted to get some Lib Dem guy + his policies on gay and trannsexual agenda as well as things like trying to be more socialist than UK Labour.
