Didymos Thomas;82154 wrote:
This is more than semantics - it cuts to the psychology of voting. I am not saying that there is no reason at all, only that the nature of human reason is not quite what Aristotle had in mind, you know?
Agreed. I too have major philosophical objections to the classical, rational (Ha) conception of reason.
A difference in this, yes. But very little difference in the way Bob develops cares for the hand shake, and Jim cares for lofty, idealized economic principles. In this case, we might accurately say that Jim exercises more reason in his decision process.
That's all i'm saying. For the purpose of this argument, without getting into epistomolgy, we should be able to agree that there are relatively more and less rational voters and bases for making the voting decision, which we might call emotions (appearance, handshake, voice, slogan that appeals to personal goals, 'bread, land and peace' e.g.) and principles (adherence to certain defined propositions or foundational (abstract)ideas).
Even among your distinctions, there is a misunderstanding of the supposed left wing of American politics. Splitting the left wing between McBamanties and Socialist/Communists idealists is not accurate - while such a distinction can be made between these two groups, a good portion of the left is not represented by either camp. Case in point would be the Southern Democrats. There are also what we might call pragmatic leftists.
That's a good point. When I used the word 'idealistic' to describe the one group, I may not have explained myself well enough. I meant to denote the antithesis of the faux socialists (the corporatists/fascists who use socialism/populism as a mask and a tool), i.e. the people who genuinly believe in the basic tenets of some form of collectvism, whether we want to call it socialism or communism, or anarcho-communism, etc. In that sense, they are idealistic. They are not using a facade of socialism as a tool in the pragamatic quest for something else. I think you have interpreted idealistic to mean more radical, less moderate, less likely to compromise for some progress, more likely to hold out for some utopian ideal. The blue dogs wouldn't fit in that category. But if we understand 'idealistic' as I intended it, they fit nicely: they have a genuine belief that the role of the govrnment should be greater, that the poor and disabled should be cared for, that the public should regulate the economy to some extent, etc. In short, they believe in a form of collectivism. And they are not a part of the faux socialist (really fascist) bile.
Because the more educated a voter is, the greater the voter's historical perspective. History is the greatest political educator. The better the understanding of history, the greater the emotional reaction against politic that has, time and again, proved itself folly. A great example is the corruption and impotency of British politics to handle Colonial America in the 1760s through the Revolution. At the time, the people in Britain, by and large, simply did not care that their system was bought and sold corruption. There isn't much difference as it is.