Didymos Thomas;81560 wrote:
Because you only created a different set of false dichotomies. You set may have more truthiness, but it is far from the truth - it is just as mistaken as the left-right dichotomy...Even though they are quite distinct from the real socialists and communists. That's my point. These few labels just do not even begin to touch upon the great diversity of political opinions of Americans.
I'll say again, these groups are defined by basic philosophical premises, differnet basic foundations upin which to build a political philosophy. Perhaps my understanding is wrong, but I see two basic idealistic political philosophies (as opposed to pragmatic, non-intellectual, purely selfish 'philosophies': e.g. 'the government should give me healthcare because I need it' or 'I'm ultra-rich, I might as well buy the government to ensure it stays that way'). Those two idealistic philosophies are, at their most basic level, individualism and collectivism. Libertarians, constitutionalists, and anarchists of the libertarian variety, etc. adhere to the former. Socialists, communists, anarcho-communists, social democrats, etc. all adhere to the latter. The other two groups consist of the sort of people I mockingly exemplified above: the sheep and the powers-that-be. Neither of these groups are idealistic, they are both pragamatic, they only differ in that the sheep are weak and don't get what they want, while the fascists are strong and do. It's fundementally unfair to compair this categorization to the left-right division. The former is not being used politically, nor will it be, nor do I intend for it to be; the latter is. The former is logical based on real philosophical differences or, where ideology is lacking, real, objectively demonstrable facts; the latter is illogical in the extreme and rests on tradition and a fundemental misunderstanding, deliberate in my opinion, of the real issues and the real variety of philosophical perspectives from which they can be approached.
The real issue is that most people just do not fit into any of these categories. Most people do not vote based on philosophic principle, but based upon emotion. If anything, there is the real dichotomy - 1) those who vote based on emotion, 2) those who think they vote based on something other than emotion.
I agree with that division. In fact I accounted for it already to some extent. Your #1 corresponds to the sheep. #2 corresponds to everyone else.
But Blue Dog democrats, to use a real group example, are clearly not model libertarians in any sense of the word. For example: one might be financially conservative, yet socially liberal in the sense that they believe universal healthcare to be something that government has a moral obligation to provide. That's far from libertarian.
If someone believes that there is a moral imperative for the state to provide universal health care, that somone is NOT a fiscal conservative. In my understanding, fiscal conservatism does not revolve around low taxes and balanced budgets, that's ancillary; it revolves around a belief that property rights, the sanctity of contracts, and economic freedom are as fundemental as the right to free speech, or any others. I think we're using terms differently in general. My idea of a social liberal is a person who supports individual freedom in private sphere and dealing with private, usually moral issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, drug policy, etc. So, again, I would put the blue dogs in the collectivist camp, despite their opposition to drug prohibition and other morally based intrusions into private life (:whistling:..or not), simply because they support a vast social welfare system, public health care included.
I take it you've never met any of them.
No, I haven't had the dubious privilage, but I am aware of who votes for what, and I don't like what I see. The blue dogs are conservative like George W. Bush was conservative: i.e. NOT.
The left right dichotomy does, indeed, stifle real reform. But you're set does not overcome that problem, either.
I know my division doesn;t ovcercome that problem. It's not meant to. I'm not suggesting that we instrict the media to stop discussing every person and issue in the context of left-right, and start discussing everything in terms of the groups I've devised. This is a way of thinking political variety in America, my way. That's all. If someone doesn't like it, they can not think about it this way. What I do strongly suggest that we demand is an end to the left-right paradigm in the media, to be replaced by objectivity and rational, thoughtful debate without standing, pre-packaged labels, but that's wishful thinking.
Now, one more thing. You've deeply insulted me! I've been called many things, but never optomistic
Sure, in personal life I'm an optomist, but with regard to politics and society in general, I'm pretty pessemistic. Frankly, I think talking about elections and voting patterns, parties, etc. is academic at this point; I always enjoy an essentially futile academic debate, so I've engaged in this one. However, it seems to me at this time that there is no solution without the R word. And I don't mean Republicans, or Recovery, or Republic.
I think there's going to be violence on the streets quite soon. Which way it all ends, I can only guess.