Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Ideological Politics in a Realpolitik Mask?

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 9:39:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This won't be a particularly long OP, but it has been my general observation that American politics are currently in a kind of interesting dilemma. In essence, I would observe that, although the issues that are divisive within American politics are clearly those that are part of an ideological split, we have somehow become afraid to accept the fact that our politics are currently, at their root, political moralism/ideology-based politics. Instead, we seem to try and put a mask of Realpolitik and political realism on it. I still don't understand why. For instance, one ideological gap would generally be seen with the level of government assistance that should be given to the middle class and working class. However, although this can be traced as an issue of ideology--the role of the government in financial aid/the amount of taxes that the government can impose--it only usually boils down publicly to other issues, like who contributes more to the economy, what creates more jobs, etc.

Am I wrong in this observation? Do you agree that we're for some reason afraid to admit that our politics have become moralist and ideological? Or are we open and accepting of that ideological root?

Further, should politics ultimately be rooted in moralism or realism? I am a stringent adherent to politics as a moralistically and ideologically rooted issue--something that, by accepting it as ideological, and even embracing it, there will be an overall more varied and free marketplace of ideas and ideologies that don't require needing to be dressed up as realism or Realpolitik.

What do you all think?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 9:46:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What happens is that whenever someone chooses a position, they want to come up w/ the most justifications for that policy as possible, even if they choose the position before they got the information. Than usually the information they receive tends to be confirmation bias stuff.

No ideology is really immune from this. It seems as if that humans would rather fill in the gaps and pretend they know the stuff, rather than admit to not knowing.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 9:50:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 9:46:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
What happens is that whenever someone chooses a position, they want to come up w/ the most justifications for that policy as possible, even if they choose the position before they got the information. Than usually the information they receive tends to be confirmation bias stuff.

No ideology is really immune from this. It seems as if that humans would rather fill in the gaps and pretend they know the stuff, rather than admit to not knowing.

Well, then wouldn't this ultimately support the transition into looking at politics as an ideological practice? Basically, couldn't we say that by just looking at it as a battle of ideologies and morals, then the need for realist confirmation would be reduced?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 9:55:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 9:50:29 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/8/2013 9:46:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
What happens is that whenever someone chooses a position, they want to come up w/ the most justifications for that policy as possible, even if they choose the position before they got the information. Than usually the information they receive tends to be confirmation bias stuff.

No ideology is really immune from this. It seems as if that humans would rather fill in the gaps and pretend they know the stuff, rather than admit to not knowing.

Well, then wouldn't this ultimately support the transition into looking at politics as an ideological practice? Basically, couldn't we say that by just looking at it as a battle of ideologies and morals, then the need for realist confirmation would be reduced?

I think its a function of both ideology and realism. Perhaps people value different things over one another: equality vs. economic prosperity, individual freedom vs. equality, collectivism vs. indviduals, but there's always tradeoffs to each one though and I don't think people would want total starvation if it meant total equality. It's rare to find people that are rigidly dentological, except philosophers. There's also some universal that most people believe in for policy, like decreasing human suffering. The question is what policy best serves that goal.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 9:57:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 9:39:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This won't be a particularly long OP, but it has been my general observation that American politics are currently in a kind of interesting dilemma. In essence, I would observe that, although the issues that are divisive within American politics are clearly those that are part of an ideological split, we have somehow become afraid to accept the fact that our politics are currently, at their root, political moralism/ideology-based politics. Instead, we seem to try and put a mask of Realpolitik and political realism on it. I still don't understand why. For instance, one ideological gap would generally be seen with the level of government assistance that should be given to the middle class and working class. However, although this can be traced as an issue of ideology--the role of the government in financial aid/the amount of taxes that the government can impose--it only usually boils down publicly to other issues, like who contributes more to the economy, what creates more jobs, etc.

Am I wrong in this observation? Do you agree that we're for some reason afraid to admit that our politics have become moralist and ideological? Or are we open and accepting of that ideological root?

Further, should politics ultimately be rooted in moralism or realism? I am a stringent adherent to politics as a moralistically and ideologically rooted issue--something that, by accepting it as ideological, and even embracing it, there will be an overall more varied and free marketplace of ideas and ideologies that don't require needing to be dressed up as realism or Realpolitik.

What do you all think?

No, it's the complete opposite. Take the 2012 elections. Obama is a Kissinger-style realist who does his best to appear compassionate, centrist, and open-handed to foreign countries while gradually pulling out of the Middle East. Romney needed to sow conflict with Obama (otherwise, what platform does he have?), so he needs to appeal to a fringe right-wing group and criticize Obama for being liberal, not supporting Israel, not being aggressive enough in the Middle East (the importance of which he needs to emphasize, hence his retractment of the Russia statement) not supporting the free-market, etc. It's ridiculous. Politics always works this way- if the way forward is clear, demagogues will obscure it to advance their own political interests.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 9:06:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bumped, because I think Eltan wants it back.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 11:48:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 9:39:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This won't be a particularly long OP, but it has been my general observation that American politics are currently in a kind of interesting dilemma. In essence, I would observe that, although the issues that are divisive within American politics are clearly those that are part of an ideological split, we have somehow become afraid to accept the fact that our politics are currently, at their root, political moralism/ideology-based politics. Instead, we seem to try and put a mask of Realpolitik and political realism on it. I still don't understand why. For instance, one ideological gap would generally be seen with the level of government assistance that should be given to the middle class and working class. However, although this can be traced as an issue of ideology--the role of the government in financial aid/the amount of taxes that the government can impose--it only usually boils down publicly to other issues, like who contributes more to the economy, what creates more jobs, etc.

Am I wrong in this observation? Do you agree that we're for some reason afraid to admit that our politics have become moralist and ideological? Or are we open and accepting of that ideological root?

Further, should politics ultimately be rooted in moralism or realism? I am a stringent adherent to politics as a moralistically and ideologically rooted issue--something that, by accepting it as ideological, and even embracing it, there will be an overall more varied and free marketplace of ideas and ideologies that don't require needing to be dressed up as realism or Realpolitik.

What do you all think?

The OP is reversed. It's realpolitik masked in ideology. What matter is what we are capable of doing, regardless of the ideology that compels us to act. Example: the right to life is something we hold to on a moral and ideological basis, but in reality, no one actually has this right...we will all die. So, what we do is what we can do to protect this right - that is reality.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?