"Politics"

[Anteni]

Most here probably understand what I mean by that umbrella term in the title of this thread. To clarify, though, just in case, I'm talking about political parties, legislation, war, diplomacy, economics, (de)regulation, globalization, etc., the whole shebang.

This would be the forum for discussions dealing with politics, but I don't see it occurring much. A pseudo-political discussion arose with the thread about the alleged terror plot to explode airplanes over the Atlantic, but that seems to have died. It got me wondering: what are all of your stances toward that behemoth concept, "politics?"

Several years ago, I was just a paranoid, unreasonable individual that disdained all happenings in government and international affairs as corrupt, immoral, "not the way it should be." My feelings ended there, though; it was really just an immature justification not to get myself involved in any way. I was pessimistic; I'd like to see a different world, but the system could never be changed, and to become a part of the system at all was inconceivable. So, I was comfortable not knowing a damn thing about the world.

I'm not sure what changed my thoughts about it all. I suppose it began with an interest in philosophy, although, the myriad abstracts and theories caused a lot of disinterest. Philosophy - ethics in particular - developed an interest to work in health care, to help people, but as I learned more about the "politics" of health care administration and regulation, my interests began to broaden to the world at large and the ways of going about changing it.

Being born and raised in Massachusetts, I first took to the Democratic party here in the US; not soon enough, though, I began to read into reports, criticisms, analyses, etc. of the nature of United States democracy, so right now I do not feel to be a part of any mainstream political party. Rather, I've begun to read into the indigenous Mexican movement in the state of Chiapas in the southeast; one of the leaders of the guerrilla war is the man I quoted in my signature. He is something of a poet-soldier; he espouses self-determination for peoples who identify with each other; he struggles against "neoliberalism" in what he sees as that ideology's war against humanity. A hugely interesting person of our lifetime, in my opinion. If you'd like to read into the event, check out Marcos' book on Amazon, titled our word is our weapon. Many of his communiques can be found online, and one of my favorites is The Fourth World War (http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/auto/fourth.html).

I was curious about where everyone here stood: what political party do you vote for? Or, for that matter, what country are you from and how involved are you in the political establishment? Do you consider yourself a "global citizen" of sorts?

The main purpose of this thread, though, is just to delve into your feelings about politics in general. Do you just feel that "they are all crooks?" That the system cannot and will not be changed? Do you just go about your own business without feeling any particular stance toward many of the political and economic issues that bombard us from mainstream news sources? How did you come about at the political position you do or do not relate to? Feel free to elaborate as much as you'd like; I've jabbered about myself enough as it is.

Also, just for fun, try out the quiz at www.politicalcompass.org By no means is it supposed to be a definitive test to determine exactly where your beliefs lay; however, it gives a fresh alternative to the stagnant terms "the left" and "the right," and it is nice to see what sort of people your beliefs fall in line with. I've tested as a moderate anarcho-syndicalist, around the likes of Gandhi or the Dalai Lama :eek: ; some do not see how it is possible, but I support both small government and socialistic policies that emphasize equality and cooperation rather than stratification and competition.

[Roscar Palidyne]

On that Political Compass test, it seems I scored in between the Dalai Llama and Nelson Mandella. o_O

Honestly I have not really found myself interested in politics. As far as government goes, the most I've found myself delving into it is when I watch The West Wing (great show, i recommend it). But yeah, I have liberal values, I think. I have yet to vote, even though I had a chance to 2 years ago, but I didn't really feel compelled to vote for the lesser of two evils *Grin*. Yeah, I know it's that kind of attitude that elects idiots like George Dubbayah in office.......*sigh*. In general, I've found that those who have the power of authority tends to abuse it. Putting it on a personal level, I had a boss not too long ago who owed me $100 for a sidejob I had did with him. It took him a freakin' month to give me my money. And each time I asked for it, he didn't tell me that there was a problem with the contractors who were paying us, no, i had to call HIM. In general, he would want us to operate in potentially dangerous weather (i was a rides operator at Six Flags). He was a slime bag and a back-talking rat, and I hated him with a passion. He was my boss.

So, I'd say that has affected my view politics, which influences the people who essentially rule over our lives.

[Max Dirks]

Politics are facinating. So much so that I decided to get my BA in Political Science and Economics. Unfortunately, you can't cram a lifetime of study into a single thread on Althanas. If there are any particular topics you'd like to discuss I'll happily take you up on them.

For the record, I ended up relatively moderate on the chart. I was in the center, but slightly to the upper right because of my economic beliefs.

[Ebivoulya]

I ended up right next to Ghandi. Apparently I'm as much of a revolutionary mind as he was. Fight the system, power to the people; all that jazz.

[Anteni]

On that Political Compass test, it seems I scored in between the Dalai Llama and Nelson Mandella. o_O

I think that makes us idealists. :D


Honestly I have not really found myself interested in politics. As far as government goes, the most I've found myself delving into it is when I watch The West Wing (great show, i recommend it). But yeah, I have liberal values, I think. I have yet to vote, even though I had a chance to 2 years ago, but I didn't really feel compelled to vote for the lesser of two evils *Grin*. Yeah, I know it's that kind of attitude that elects idiots like George Dubbayah in office.......*sigh*. In general, I've found that those who have the power of authority tends to abuse it. Putting it on a personal level, I had a boss not too long ago who owed me $100 for a sidejob I had did with him. It took him a freakin' month to give me my money. And each time I asked for it, he didn't tell me that there was a problem with the contractors who were paying us, no, i had to call HIM. In general, he would want us to operate in potentially dangerous weather (i was a rides operator at Six Flags). He was a slime bag and a back-talking rat, and I hated him with a passion. He was my boss.

So, I'd say that has affected my view politics, which influences the people who essentially rule over our lives.

Much of your post follows my own feelings, in a way. I think South Park summed it up pretty well: the choices always come down to a douche and a turd sandwich. It could be the cynic in me, but it does seem that those in power abuse authority - I tend to view it as just the nature of the ruling class. I don't know how they think, or what their worldview is, but many people operating in the top circles of government and business, almost merged phenomena, do not seem to take into consideration the human consequences of their actions. Your boss seems have a similar mindset - he seems selfish and not considerate of what he is doing to others, or simply he does not care. Still, America is a democratic country - if there were a process for you to go through to remove your boss and replace him with a better individual, or at least to establish rules against his more questionable behavior, don't you agree that it would be worth a shot? We still have a lot of freedoms, even if that cynic in me once again pops up and says that the governmental process of America has become detached from "We the People."


Politics are facinating. So much so that I decided to get my BA in Political Science and Economics. Unfortunately, you can't cram a lifetime of study into a single thread on Althanas. If there are any particular topics you'd like to discuss I'll happily take you up on them.

For the record, I ended up relatively moderate on the chart. I was in the center, but slightly to the upper right because of my economic beliefs.

I had been wondering what kind of thread to start about political ideologies or economic theories, but I decided to go along with this rather vague, all-encompassing thread. I agree that it would be too much to ask to spell out your entire "political" life. This is still a young thread, though, so no sense in really making another thread to devote to a more specific topic. How would you describe your economic beliefs? According to the chart, it sounds like you are a capitalist that doesn't mind government regulation and intervention, but the chart may not represent things clearly. I have not studied Political Science or Economics; the terminology of the former may not be too hard to learn, but of the latter may make me go cross eyed. Which, if any, economic theorist do you adhere to?

[Anteni]

I ended up right next to Ghandi. Apparently I'm as much of a revolutionary mind as he was. Fight the system, power to the people; all that jazz.

If you're ever looking for something to read along some political lines, check about the book I mentioned in my opening post. It contains all that jazz, and its got some classical, some rock, and some blues too!

Btw, creepy avatar man.

[Chidori Draconid]

Alrighty… Here we go. Surprisingly for me I was near no one on that political compass. I was to the economic right 2.00, and down in the libertarian -4.56. Nice little thing that compass is, but I think it’s impossible to really gauge one’s political beliefs mechanically. Yes most of my beliefs are to the right and libertarian, but there are a few significant beliefs that trump all the others.

Economics: I believe in capitalism, a free market, and globalization. I think it’s the dumbest fucking thing in the world for some of my fellow economic conservatives to support the first two and not accept the later as an inevitable outcome. Capitalism is pure competition, and globalization is global competition, and if conservatives oppose it, then we know exactly what they're afraid of. Government should avoid regulating the economy, but instead diligently monitor it. The things one has to go through in terms of getting the green light from government to start something as small as a coffee shop are absolutely ridiculous, and it’s truly the only reason people don’t see an immediate profit once they get their business going. At the same time corporations should not be regarded as legal entities by the judiciary system. Just like in the corporation itself every person is responsible for doing his or her own job.

Military: In general we need to avoid spreading our resources too thin. That’s how Rome fell. A lot of people are being pansies and will tell you that no one cause alone destroyed the mighty empire, but I’ve spoken to real historians about this. Most of them believe that if Rome had kept its troops within certain parameters that they would have easily been able to defeat the Germanic onslaught, keep a few civil wars from happening, left the nation under one power, so on and so forth. Keep in mind while our history books show Rome’s boarders going as far as Great Britain, they never considered themselves going as far as the Mediterranean coast. History looks like it’s going to repeat itself. While our boarders haven’t expanded for a long time, in a thousand years historians will mark us almost everywhere on the world map. That will be our downfall. It’s called the Chaos Theory, folks. Look it up.

Iraq: Here’s where I go against my own general viewpoint. Yes, as a Democrat I don’t think we should have gone in the first place, but I’m not going to bitch about it all day like the rest of them… pussies. We can’t just up and move our troops out of there and expect civilization to grow especially under the threat of insurgency and worse, Iran. What we need to do is learn from our only true occupational success story, Japan. We had twice as many troops in post WWII Japan than we have in Iraq today, but of course we can’t do the same without compromising our own security. That’s why I thought Kerry had a good thing going when he said that we should appeal more to our foreign allies. There’s profit to be made in securing Iraq, and that should be made known on the DL.

Korea: Let Japan deal with Gerry Coleman’s brotha from anotha motha. They are by far in the best position to deal with him. They have the forces, they have the espionage, they have the tactics, and they could put that man down like an unwanted pet. I know they aren’t allowed to act offensively due to the Constitution that we put on them after the war, but that’s the beauty of it. We could relieve them of that clause, and in exchange they could relieve us of our debt. That’ll just leave our debt to China to deal with. I know what some of you are saying. “But Chidori, wouldn’t they attack us again.”… No. All of the American playa hata’s you see in Japan are a vocal minority. My Godfather is Japanese and he says that most of them love us, and if they don’t their kids sure as fuck do.

Abortion: It’s a woman’s business. I don’t like the idea of abortion one goddamn bit, but that’s why it’s our responsibility to offer alternatives to abortion. The foster care system here makes Oliver Twist feel like Richie Rich, and there are so many hurdles for abortion it almost seems like it isn’t worth it.

Gay Marriage: I don’t see much of a problem with it, and it could be a potential solution for our abortion issue. From a purely objective psychological and sociological standpoint, there’s usually still a man and a woman in the relationship due to interchangeable gender roles. In terms of children, why burden our planet with another life when you can save one?

[Ithermoss]

I think his avatar is the guy from Aphex Twin. I took the test, and I'm in the exact center. Totally centrist. Yeah, baby.

[DarkStrike]

I happened to be smack in the middle of the bottom left...

Total liberalist over here dude...

[Anteni]

Economics: I believe in capitalism, a free market, and globalization. I think it’s the dumbest fucking thing in the world for some of my fellow economic conservatives to support the first two and not accept the later as an inevitable outcome. Capitalism is pure competition, and globalization is global competition, and if conservatives oppose it, then we know exactly what they're afraid of. Government should avoid regulating the economy, but instead diligently monitor it. The things one has to go through in terms of getting the green light from government to start something as small as a coffee shop are absolutely ridiculous, and it’s truly the only reason people don’t see an immediate profit once they get their business going. At the same time corporations should not be regarded as legal entities by the judiciary system. Just like in the corporation itself every person is responsible for doing his or her own job.

Economics are in a distant realm, to me, so please understand when I have a few questions. :D What is about capitalism that you prefer over socialism? Or laissez-faire economics over government regulation? I understand your feelings about the coffee shop scenario you provided, , but how would you propose a government effectively “monitor” the economy without imposing regulations?

I’ve seen it said plenty that corporations are dangerous legal concoctions and it seems pretty evident that something has to be done about their nature. But what would changing their legal nature do to a corporation as a whole? Would it make it much more vulnerable to scrutiny and legal action? Would it change, at all, some of the monopolies held in some international markets, such as oil or certain agricultural products?


Military: In general we need to avoid spreading our resources too thin. That’s how Rome fell. A lot of people are being pansies and will tell you that no one cause alone destroyed the mighty empire, but I’ve spoken to real historians about this. Most of them believe that if Rome had kept its troops within certain parameters that they would have easily been able to defeat the Germanic onslaught, keep a few civil wars from happening, left the nation under one power, so on and so forth. Keep in mind while our history books show Rome’s boarders going as far as Great Britain, they never considered themselves going as far as the Mediterranean coast. History looks like it’s going to repeat itself. While our boarders haven’t expanded for a long time, in a thousand years historians will mark us almost everywhere on the world map. That will be our downfall. It’s called the Chaos Theory, folks. Look it up.

It’s difficult to judge how the United States military should be used. We have, arguably, the most potent armed forces that the world has ever seen; but what do we do with this behemoth? Is it correct to “project” ourselves around the world with bases and installations? Or should we bring this massive force back home – or could that create tensions between the military and the civilians?

Our world is very different from that of the Romans. Perhaps the United States will be invaded one day – but it will most likely be from a measured international force, not a horde of barbarians. It is my opinion, though, that the United States of America will not fall because of being overrun militarily, but rather due to an economic collapse, like the Soviet Union, or rather, economic degradation. That camp’s fall was certainly hastened by their expensive adventures in Afghanistan, where Pakistan, the Saudis, and the US trapped them. Iraq is a similar situation, but it is hard to imagine the United States collapsing in such way; however, I saw a Russian writer say the same thing after his country’s collapse.


Iraq: Here’s where I go against my own general viewpoint. Yes, as a Democrat I don’t think we should have gone in the first place, but I’m not going to bitch about it all day like the rest of them… pussies. We can’t just up and move our troops out of there and expect civilization to grow especially under the threat of insurgency and worse, Iran. What we need to do is learn from our only true occupational success story, Japan. We had twice as many troops in post WWII Japan than we have in Iraq today, but of course we can’t do the same without compromising our own security. That’s why I thought Kerry had a good thing going when he said that we should appeal more to our foreign allies. There’s profit to be made in securing Iraq, and that should be made known on the DL.

There is certainly a profit in securing Iraq; it would stop a lot of death and would free up American money and other resources. However, it would seem to be political suicide on the part of anyone to advocate sending in a lot more troops; I would agree that international aid may be the best route, but it’s just pure speculation on my part. Good damn luck to anyone who wants to try to recruit that help, though: it seems unlikely to succeed after such widespread protesting against the war, and then the attacks by Al Qaida. All in all, I don’t know where I stand on Iraq; I agree with Marcos’ words in my signature, but it is hard to abide by them with an issue as charged as that of Iraq. Though, I don’t see how we will ever remove ourselves completely from Iraq in the coming decade, probably longer.


Korea: Let Japan deal with Gerry Coleman’s brotha from anotha motha. They are by far in the best position to deal with him. They have the forces, they have the espionage, they have the tactics, and they could put that man down like an unwanted pet. I know they aren’t allowed to act offensively due to the Constitution that we put on them after the war, but that’s the beauty of it. We could relieve them of that clause, and in exchange they could relieve us of our debt. That’ll just leave our debt to China to deal with. I know what some of you are saying. “But Chidori, wouldn’t they attack us again.”… No. All of the American playa hata’s you see in Japan are a vocal minority. My Godfather is Japanese and he says that most of them love us, and if they don’t their kids sure as fuck do.

Sounds reasonable. North Korea has never caught much of my attention, despite the barking about nuclear bombs and Bush’s “Axis of Evil.” If he was truly a threat, wouldn’t he have been disposed of by now? Rather, he seems to be a useful propaganda tool for the respective countries that utilize him and his actions.


Abortion: It’s a woman’s business. I don’t like the idea of abortion one goddamn bit, but that’s why it’s our responsibility to offer alternatives to abortion. The foster care system here makes Oliver Twist feel like Richie Rich, and there are so many hurdles for abortion it almost seems like it isn’t worth it.

I agree with your first sentence; I would say, though, that is it also the man’s business who helped create that child. However, it is not the State’s business; the only thing I see here is Republican pandering to its large Christian base. While it is an important issue, I believe there are much more important ones facing the American public.


Gay Marriage: I don’t see much of a problem with it, and it could be a potential solution for our abortion issue. From a purely objective psychological and sociological standpoint, there’s usually still a man and a woman in the relationship due to interchangeable gender roles. In terms of children, why burden our planet with another life when you can save one?

Same as my feelings on abortion. Not the state’s business; what happened to the separation of church and state anyway?


I think his avatar is the guy from Aphex Twin. I took the test, and I'm in the exact center. Totally centrist. Yeah, baby.

Wow, a total centrist. I’m not sure if I’ve ever met anyone that scored such. What exactly do you advocate, or denounce, then?


I happened to be smack in the middle of the bottom left...

Total liberalist over here dude...

What do you believe in that led to that score? (Do you mean you’re a hardcore anarchist (complete bottom of graph) or moderate libertarian (halfway down)?)

[Saxon]

-1.88: Economic Left/Right
-2.82: Social Libertarian/Authoritarian

I'm a little past Ghandi, near Mandela, and quite a ways from the Dalai Lama. :D


Pass me some of those freedom fries. :p

[DarkStrike]

-1.88: Economic Left/Right
-2.82: Social Libertarian/Authoritarian

I'm a little past Ghandi, near Mandela, and quite a ways from the Dalai Lama. :D


Pass me some of those freedom fries. :p


I was like

-4.88 Economic left/right

-5.22Social Libertarian/Authoritarian

Basacally I believe in pro choice, pro gay marriage, no war in iraq, the usual liberalistic crap, if i had more time, I would give you the whole damn essay

[Mark Twain]

In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. Look at the tyranny of party--at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty--a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes--and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction; and forgetting or ignoring that their fathers and the churches shouted the same blasphemies a generation earlier when they were closing their doors against the hunted slave, beating his handful of humane defenders with Bible texts and billies, and pocketing the insults and licking the shoes of his Southern master.

[Anteni]

I've noticed you write in beautiful prose, Twain - just wanted to comment.

I wholeheartedly agree with your feelings toward "the tyranny of party." It would seem that some Republicans hate the Democrats, and vice versa, just as strongly as any given racist fascist hates their target ethnicity.


In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.

I don't know from experience, but this certainly seems to be the case, and it is quite a sad observation. But that seems to be life in this modern world of overpopulation and infotainment; in fact, I think you just clarified what is driving me to become a writer and journalist. Interested people deserve to be properly informed, rather than fed the beliefs of a partisan hack whose source was a party spokesman trained by a corporate lawyer employed by the financial elite. The main challenge is actually going about "properly informing..."

You seem to be only a step away from simply saying that the masses are ignorant sheep. Is this what you believe, or did I misinterpret?

[Sighter Tnailog]

I'm gonna have to leave the Twain persona on this one. I've heard that his timeless observations and well-considered remarks offend people on this board. Not that these people make their names known, of course, but there it is.

One doesn't need to be an "ignorant sheep" to have your opinions spoon-fed to you.

If we are to take the learning of psychologists, sociologists, and the general trend in philosophy since the 1950s (and possibly even since Hegel) seriously, then we must at least admit that even the journalist attempting to honestly infrom the public has been shaped, in some way, by the partisan hack. Even if their response is to reject the hack and dig deeper, to some extent their worldview -- the very worldview that gave them an inclination to criticize what they hear -- has been shaped by an outside source.

The question is this: why is a critical worldview that places "digging deeper" as its source of value any better than, say, the worldview espoused by the partisan? Both are, in their own way, merely cultural reactions predicated on what an individual has seen before or experienced in another context. Even examined beliefs can be suspect, as the process of examination itself may have been tempered by the processes of examination taught at an early age.

I guess the problem I'm striking at lies at the heart of everything. Even what I'm saying here is dependent, to some extent, on all that I have read and seen and examined myself. So even the most thoughtful politician is, in some sense, a "hack," whose entire thoughtful demeanor has not been gotten at honestly. As Stanley Hauerwas has said, "To have a completely original idea only means you forgot where you heard it first."

Perhaps, though, Socrates is better when it comes to this: "The only wisdom is in knowing I know nothing." I can tell you that I'm a liberal commie-loving Democrat who wants nothing more than to take every wealthy person's money and send it to Somalia. But I have trouble saying that my beliefs have been approached by a rational process of self-inquiry. I've done my best; but our best just isn't good enough.

[Anteni]

Hopefully that isn’t the last of Twain we’ll see, though, right?

Anyway, point(s) well taken, Sighter.

This makes me want to start a new thread on philosophy, perhaps. It’s been a while since I’ve delved into that subject. For that reason, I’m having a hard time trying to articulate my own perspective of the world. I tend to stick to the (Hegelian?) idea that humans are “system-determined and system-determining,” and to that Socratic worldview. That brutal question employed by the skeptics, “How do you know?” has convinced me that I truly “know” nothing.

Because of this, and of a brief, very depressing run-in with existentialism, I concern myself more with ethical questions than ones of metaphysics or epistemology, which can be frightening indeed. Perhaps I know nothing, but I still feel; perhaps I cannot even know the true meaning of what I feel, but my subjective interpretations seem to be enough for me right now. I’d like to get back into studying philosophy sometime, but with this current background, I’ll try to answer your question:


The question is this: why is a critical worldview that places "digging deeper" as its source of value any better than, say, the worldview espoused by the partisan?

Perhaps it begins with that idealistic notion of “objective truth.” One who “digs deeper,” one that compares viewpoints, checks facts, remains rooted in reality would seem to be closer to that ideal than would a political commentator that spouts what he is told by party public relations people that have done none of these things. I’m not sure where this sort of value has come from: it seems to arise from logic, perhaps, or maybe the logic of science, to be more specific.

I’ll attempt a grainy analogy here, to show how science seems to influence our perception of the critical worldview. When it comes to an honest journalist, his or her goal is truth; they observe events and create inferences, and make a hypothesis, which they hope to be the most truthful explanation of events. They then experiment; they test that hypothesis with logic, with people, with records, with statistics, with history; if it holds true, they present their hypothesis to the public and to the journalistic community. Biased individuals that also write to the public, though, are not, in my opinion, on par with “scientific” journalists – partisans may ignore certain commentaries or records that would undermine their hypothesis, which may be aimed at augmenting a political or economic ploy.

Given the importance with which the scientific process is held, especially in the West it seems, it would seem probable that the critical, "more objective" worldview of the journalist is held to be more valuable than a biased worldview of a partisan. I suppose this discussion could be further boiled down to the philosophy of science, but I am not familiar with it.