Bitter and Twisted I: Liberalism vs Conservatism

[Arrian]

Differences of political opinion aren't just about people seeing things differently. People see things differently because of their economic interests. That determines what their opinion will be.

Sometimes this is the case. Other times, however, people's opinions can directly contradict their (apparent) economic interests. This is most likely much rarer than a confluence of the two, but there isn't a real good way to measure it.

After all, one could argue that a corporate CEO being a Democrat is contrary to that CEO's econonmic interests (because the Republicans are more likely to pander to big business), but then again perhaps the CEO figures that the Democrat's approach will mollify the oppressed, exploited workers and thus provide him with a better chance of maintaining his exalted, lordly, oppressive status. So which is it? Frankly, you don't know, because you aren't inside the CEO's head.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Sometimes this is the case. Other times, however, people's opinions can directly contradict their (apparent) economic interests. This is most likely much rarer than a confluence of the two, but there isn't a real good way to measure it.

After all, one could argue that a corporate CEO being a Democrat is contrary to that CEO's econonmic interests (because the Republicans are more likely to pander to big business), but then again perhaps the CEO figures that the Democrat's approach will mollify the oppressed, exploited workers and thus provide him with a better chance of maintaining his exalted, lordly, oppressive status. So which is it? Frankly, you don't know, because you aren't inside the CEO's head.

-Arrian

Betcha he's not a communist.

[Arrian]

Of course not. That's contrary to everybody's interests.

-Arrian

[Lord Merciless]

In the US, moderates constitute the largest group and are the decisive force in any national election. Those who piss them off are guaranteed to lose the election.

[Whaleboy]

I dread to think what the extremes are...

[Berzerker]

Being a moderate imo is about taking a dialectic of different approaches and applying the synthesis.

Moderates don't make such calculations, they merely support some positions promoted by liberals while supporting other positions promoted by conservatives, i.e., support Affirmative Action and gun rights.

Such is not my field of interest, but as ideals cannot be transplanted into the real world without a spasm of failure.

Idealism in government policy is rare, not because of real world failure, but lack of political support.

However, like I said, moderate solutions tend to be better in reality than those which are purely conceptual, of course, it is the latter that provides the engine for change, I see that in a more artistic/philosophical sense than applicable.

Purely conceptual solutions rarely have the support to be applied, that doesn't mean moderate solutions are better.

[Whaleboy]

Moderates don't make such calculations, they merely support some positions promoted by liberals while supporting other positions promoted by conservatives, i.e., support Affirmative Action and gun rights.

A synthetic view, achieved by incorporating elements of the two extreme views. That is a dialectic (hypothesis + antithesis = synthesis)

Idealism in government policy is rare, not because of real world failure, but lack of political support.

I'm talking about idealism and its child views in the Platonic sense. But yes, I concur. However, to have an applicable view, you need to take into account myriad variables which blunten somewhat a clean ideal. Consider a great idea in principle, botched up by application, and you get Stalinism. A better interpretation of Marx would have lead to a far better system, incidetally, one that would not be recognisably communism in the familial (simplistic Americans ) view.

Purely conceptual solutions rarely have the support to be applied, that doesn't mean moderate solutions are better.

I'm an idealist and a conceptualist. I would not support the unabridged application of any of my ideas. It would lead to disaster.

[Berzerker]

Consider a great idea in principle, botched up by application, and you get Stalinism.

I wouldn't call that a botched application of Marxism, just one more tyrant using politics to get his way. All ideologies can lead to such situations, including democracy and the Nazis.

Your premise seems to be that compromise is better than ideals, but if something is immoral, accepting a compromise between morality and immorality is better than morality, i.e., slavery is immoral, reducing slavery is better than more slavery, but it isn't better than no slavery. It wasn't moderates who pushed for abolishing slavery... It was moderates who pushed for the various "compromises" to put the issue off into the future which happened to follow another compromise written into the Constitution to obtain ratification. It was a compromise that led to Bloody Kansas where proponents of slavery sent forces into Kansas to ensure the Quakers living here didn't ban slavery...

[Whaleboy]

I don't think compromise are better than ideals, I am an idealist remember? I think that compromise is better for the "real world". However, since the real world sucks beyond belief, I don't bother with it.

Using your examples, it was the extremists for and against the view that slavery should be banned, and a compromise forged thus. Needless to say, it was not satisfactory in all cases, particularly that of the US. While that is broadly historically correct, I speak in terms of concepts, those synthetic compromised (applied) concepts and idealised concepts.

[Berzerker]

I don't think compromise are better than ideals, I am an idealist remember? I think that compromise is better for the "real world". However, since the real world sucks beyond belief, I don't bother with it.

I think neither ideals or compromise are necessarily better, the devil is in the details. Evil can be idealistic too...

Using your examples, it was the extremists for and against the view that slavery should be banned, and a compromise forged thus.

Compromises were forged - repeatedly. They led to the US Civil War. But what do you tell the slaves? Well, it's better you remain enslaved because we've compromised away your freedom? No, you can't compromise on morality... The "extremists" on one side were right and the compromisers doomed multiple generations to slavery. The Quakers in Pennsylvania banned slavery way back in the 1660-70's thereby saving many blacks there from 2 centuries of slavery. They didn't compromise and they achieved what was moral with little or no bloodshed.

Where your argument might become valid is the cost required to achieve a moral outcome, e.g., the US Civil War saw the slaughter of ~600,000 people and many more wounded physically and emotionally. It could be argued that cost was too high to free the slaves then instead of letting slavery die a natural death in 2 or 3 decades (assuming of course slavery was the actual reason for the civil war).