Every thread in this site is filled with irreconcilable differences that are tied, essentially, to ideology. They attempt to predict the ideal state of the universe by applying a general ideological framework to it. They then measuring the gap between the current state and their ideal structure. Those who stand as obstacles are either stupid or dishonest (or, if one asks an extremist liberal or conservative, devoted to the some insideous purpose). The problem here is that all ideological frameworks are rooted in some degree of truth but are also incomplete and in many ways, severely flawed. Despite their claims to have found "the secret to human success," no ideology has the answer. Studies show that ideologically dogmatic people are worse at predicting political, economic, and social changes because they work backwards from their ideology and find data points to fit their analysis (you may have noticed people on both sides doing this) instead of starting with the facts (and only the facts) on the ground and coming up and an answer that is more nuanced than those offered by the left or the right. This is not to say that they never get it right. Afterall, even a broken watch is right twice a day. The thing is that, as a society, we ought to move AWAY from ideologically fixated leaders to pragmatic, rational, and honest leaders who are not afraid to accept that they don't know all the answers but have the ability to learn and listen and do what is right based on the facts on the ground.
No . Every thread is filled with forceful opinions..good and bad by people who care about this country. It is the debate..the arguments no matter how large or small that drives nations forward. We can all agree to disagree..but that is the true America..where we have earned the right to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) among ourselves..but let our enemies be warned. Nothing unites our country more than an attack on our country. This so called "irreconcilable differences' is the fertilizer of our nation..and sometimes it does STINK. But it does separate us from China.. Brazil..Mexico and a host of many suppressed peoples. All that wish they could have our freedom we enjoy here everyday.. A big Thank YOU to all the vets and to all that contribute in any of the smallest ways looking forward. Go ahead..vote Paul.. It wont hurt ..
There are two profound differences between the ideology of the Left and the Right. The left are Statists, and the Right are Capitalists.
The above post was not advocating against "debate." Rather, advocating against people who believe that a particular ideology or political platform is the solution to all problems. That, in effect, all of the economic and social problems have been thought through in a unified, codified "framework." This is true of both political parties and is the fundamental reason why both sides cannot agree. If they BOTH moved away from an ideological framework to a rational framework that weight the issues from non-ideological points of view, then we'd be able to come up with rational solutions to complex problems.
The thing is, neither ideologies describe the world well. Both have some degree of value and truth to them (or else rational people would not believe them). Its simply a matter of applying the right tools to the right problems.
Not necessarily. A lot of ideological disputes come down to more than ideals. For instance theory. Both liberals and conservatives want economic growth. They have different theories on how this is best achieved. And many differences, underneath the political rhetoric, actually reflect the prioritization of goals. In an ideal world both conservatives and liberals would want low taxes for all and the end to strife for the poor. There are just differences in who prioritizes what (though politics often twists these arguments out of perspective). Sorry, but the very notion that something like life or freedom is good is subjective. That means that, in reality, there is no one without some ideology. The question is a matter of how rigid and whether it's more about utility or principles. Many liberals and (at least in times past) many conservatives believe in pragmatic approaches. Some people who imagine themselves non-ideological are rigidly bent on narrow ideals or interests. The problem is less ideology than curiosity. Most ideologues (and many "non-ideologues") have no real desire to understand where others are coming from.
My point is that most ideologues hold on to "theories" (which are really hypothesis) even when there is ample evidence to suggest that they are not applicable or are flawed. A theory is a tool and as with all tools it is useful only in context. To borrow from the famous adage, an ideologue becomes much like a hammer to whom everything looks like a nail. I think this depends on the ideology. To some, the goals of the other sides are symptoms of a larger problem. To the other side, the goals of the first group are unreasonable. All of these are driven by "ideological differences." Say, for example, you have a side that believes that the government should make it so that everyone can get a job and THAT will create economic growth. The other side believes that giving people a job is unsustainable. They should be fostering economic growth because THAT will lead to job growth. The difference is subtle but reveals a significant difference between the mental approaches - top down vs. bottom up. These approaches are intrinsicly tied to ideological orthodoxy. A "social justice" ideologue's goals are very different from an "economic growth" ideologue. Part of their evangelical mission is to sell citizens on their ideology. To do so, they appeal to the non-ideological aspirations of people - fairness, economic prosperity, social stability, etc. I believe that most people DON'T have an ideology. Most people are pragmatic and have historically not voted for people who were ideological. The rise of ideology in America is a post WWII phenomenon that came to define the Cold War and America's place in the world. Pre-WWII there really wasn't an American ideological "orthodoxy." Americans cared about "what worked" rather than what fit in a "free market" or "socialist" framework. Granted, ideologies may have still mattered to some extent but they never mattered as much as they do today. Many times, ideologies are mutually exclusive. To be an "ideologue" means to believe that the other ideology is wrong. As such, one cannot accept the otherside without admitting that one's ideology is incorrect. Its like claiming to be a Christian Hindu. If you try to do so, you'll be neither and your reasoning is often unjustifiable. The only way you can do this is to disavow both and consider yourself "agnostic" and simply trying to understand the truths in both/all things.
"Applicable" to what? "Flawed" by what definition of value? What I think you fail to understand is that ideologies are not theories, they are fundamental definitions -axioms. We don't all have the same definitions of "economic growth". Are those aspirations really non-ideological? Perhaps they are so vague that almost no matter what ideology you subscribe to they can be construed as "good". Define "pragmatic". Maybe the axioms underlying these ideologies are by definition unjustified and unjustifiable so you don't have to cram yourself into the box of preconceived positions. Even though you try futilely to distance yourself from ideology, your posts reveal plenty of ideological assumptions.
They are not merely hypothesees because they have already been subjected to data and adapted many times over. Some ideologues take a dogmatic approach that ignores the adaptations. The nature of economics is that quasi-experimentation is the only way to collect data, so I guess you could say quasi-theory. But what you seem to be getting at is how ideology functions as a paradigm. What's the alternative? Whether you realize it or not, how you approach the world is in accordance with a paradigm. I think what's dangerous is when people fail to recognize that they are seeing through a paradigm, that they simply have an unfiltered lens on reality. That's impossible given the nature of the human mind and social phenomena. That's why sociology uses paradigms to frame studies. And really branches of economics (micro and macro, for example) are instances of paradigms in action. Have you ever stopped to think that ideologues actually believe their ideology leads to fairness, economic prosperity, and social stability? Also there aren't too many members of mainstream ideologies who believe dogmatically in top-down or bottom-up. Usually people frame their beliefs in terms of bottom-up, because the wider American ideology (which many non-ideologues ignore altogether) is more favorable to this ideal, but the various ideas reflect a mix of top-down and bottom-up and many things that could be seen either way (you seem to be accepting the center-right frame-- dominant in the media, when speaking of economic issues-- that "economic growth" explanation is bottom-up, but traditionally this view has been seen by many as hierarchical top-down control by elites). In other words, ideologies themselves cannot be seen outside of the larger political culture. As such, neither can "non-ideology." Most people don't realize they have an ideology. They take for granted the assumptions passed down to them by the culture they grow up in and the values around them. They assume their experiences and interests to be normal and generalizable. Their ideologies tend to be less extreme and also less consistent than those of open ideologues. What they are not is "without ideology." The very fact that most Americans, for instance, trust small businessmen is a product of the larger culture and thus best understood as an element of ideology. Empirically there is no reason to believe a small businessman knows anything practical about macroeconomics and there is some reason to believe many have interests against the economic interests of other groups... and yet they are almost universally idolized in politics by ideologues and "non-ideologues" alike. To be honest, and this may be biased, I think liberals and libertarians do more to tear open the fabric of ideology than people who consider themselves non-ideological. One could argue that liberals and libertarians are ideologically disposed to ripping up the fabric of society's assumptions, while conservatives, populists, and most non-ideologues are disposed to accepting conventional wisdom as reality. Actually it's possible to be a Christian Hindu from the Hindu side, as Hinduism is open to such things. Christ can be seen as an avatar of Vishnu. And are you suggesting that universalist and more inclusive Christian groups aren't really Christian? This seems to be the acceptance of a somewhat fundamentalist framework of religion. And I think it colors your view of ideology. Conservatives and liberals don't just disagree with each other because of the labels. Occasionally they agree. You're thinking of partisanship. Parties are based on coalition and strategy. As such, a partisan must fight the view of the other party in order to support the strength of their own party to fight better for their own values and interests. Ideology is different from partisanship. Ideology is not about policy choices; it's about the underlying values. Ideology leads to policy choices and not always the same ones for members of the same ideological group. Parties are coalitions formed around interest groups (one kind of interest group, growing in this country, is ideological groups) and create policies that are largely compromised to fit a large enough coalition of groups and set in stark opposition to rival parties. Both are demonized more than they should be. I think it's important to be critical of your own party and ideology (of course, that could be considered part of being ideologically liberal), but understanding that you are ideologically driven rathert than completely objective (impossible) is important. And parties are the most realistic mechanism for democratic power in large societies. Coalitions are necessary when large groups of people of different interests are trying to decide how to operate things.
I did not know economics was a scientific proven anything. All the brilliant minds in the subject cannot pick winners and losers.. Cannot explain why stuff happens until after..when most of us know why. The same can be said about politics.. Just about the time we have certainty we get the opposite. Debate about what drives a certain politician is normal..and we need to remind ourselves that any politician reserves the right to change their whole philosophy on any subject when they get in office. Review of that politicians history is a far better gauge than the standard or platform they currently express. A person might be a champion of the right or left in public ..but a blood sucking sleazebag....lying ..Lizard fart in private.. My apologies to the lowly lizard. Elect those politicians at YOUR OWN PERIL.
Well, yes. Creating a predictive model in a quasi-experimental setting is hard. The data is usually collected after the prediction and never in a controlled environment. That doesn't mean nothing is learned. It just means it takes a really long time to figure out. Okay. Now that's just silly. First of all, find a majority that believes in a single theory behind economics, particularly one that is... not affected by economic theory (since you seem to believe that's a waste of time). I guarantee you, as little full understanding as economists may have, they have more than people just looking at the stars and guessing. When has there ever been certainty in politics? Or perhaps a person working for a constituency that is not as extreme in its beliefs. Obviously running the state of Mass. is going to require different policies and tactics than running the state of Texas. Running any state requires more moderation than running a local government, the federal government still more. What is a "champion" supposed to do? Wave his/her sword and get nothing done, or attempt to move the gauge a little bit and, you know, consider the constituents' thoughts on the matter some.
I was thinking about the chimps that beat all the stock market wizards a few years ago by throwing darts at a board full of stock names. Economics 101.. chaos by design ? Same with politics.. It aint rocket science. Why keep re electing the same folks that keep screwing you over? Maybe the chimps have a clue ?
