The great illusion... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Paradise Lost · 10-04-2006, 02:40 PM

This has really been bugging me since I noticed how ridiculous rampant this issue has become. I feel both parties are equally as bad as the next when it comes to making mention of it, yet at the same time trying to stay as what they consider to be non-partisan. I feel everyone involved is just wrong, no other way about it. But I'm going to try to avoid my personal feelings on this one and just go with why is doesn't make any sense, period.

That is, the illusion that there is a 'left', or 'right', or 'liberal' or 'democrat' or 'republican' or 'conservative.' Moderates therefore can't exist either in terms of political views. Whatever they feel is correct would have to go to one end or the other. All of these notions are nonsense, and here's why.

First, left or right to what? To have a view or system of views that is to the left of the center you actually have to have a center. This is impossible because you would need a third state in all views, and the only way to have a third possible view about something would be to not have a view, but this isn't going to get anyone anywhere, so why bother? And even then, I doubt you can even accept this as a third view, since you still couldn't base left or right off of it. We shall not consider it. Having a standard view is out too because if we had standard views on things, then there probably wouldn't be all this fighting over sides. Anyway...

There are those who view that we should be at war, and continue that war until won, with Iraq. We label those in favor of the war immediately as a Republican, or conservative, but why is this the case? Aren't wars normally progressive in nature? After World War II, the Nazi party was toppled and peace was more or less restored in a previously wartorn continent. This may be a fairly shallow view, but it seems like progress. It also a War that was entered into with a very heavy conscious on the Allied side. If War is the way of the past, then sticking with it would obviously seem to be conservative in nature. Yet, it seems to be that the only way to progress in a non-Nazi dominated era, would be to topple it through war. The same would go for today's war, if we accepted the view that being in Iraq is for the sole purpose of toppling the old regime and bringing about peace to the region. Word is also spread about progress made in Iraq, yet, this seems in complete contradiction of what it would mean to conserve.

In the current landscape, the people who more likely that not want to keep Social Security how it is, would be labelled a liberal, or Democrat. Why is this? By keeping SS how it is right now, wouldn't those who are for this view be wishing to conserve its present state? Those who wish to change it seem to view it as a way to progress the nature of social security, yet, they are branded as Republicans, once again, it seems contradictory to their views.

Even if we throw this notion aside that some views seems completely contradictory to the definitions of liberal or conservative, let's merge current views. Say you're for War, against Abortion, but for Universal Healthcare. Believing in 1 & 2 would brand you as a Republican, 3 though, would lump you into the group of Democrats. Even if the Official stance of the Republican Party (if they make such statements) is that they won't agree to Universal Healthcare, would you still be a Republican? If the Official view of the Democrat (once again, if they make such statements) is to be against the War and for abortion, yet totally for Universal Healthcare, are you a Democrat? Is one view higher up on the scale of important (if such as thing exists) to be regarded more highly by a party than another view? War, Abortion and Uni. Healthcare are all pretty large issues, yet, more likely than not, you're registered as a Republican and voted as such. Yet, what if while you're voting a candidate is Democrat, and believes in War, is against abortion, and for UHC, what do you think? Obviously he shares your major views, but is of the opposite party, where most other candidates probably don't agree with him on more than one issue, maybe two, highly unlikely for all three. Do you still vote him in or not? You think back to Official Party stances, but if there are such candidates that breanch the Official Party lines, then what good are those stances? So you vote for him anyhow. Then you start to think, that if it happens on that side of the fence, it must happen on this side of the fence too, being that we're just people too.

So now that we've seen that even when you share many views of your party, or others in the party, you can also share views of those outside of the party and yet still not be associated with them. Even if it were the case that every single issue on both sides of the wall were completely different, it wouldn't matter anyway, since you would either have to narrow your party's views so much for people to completely be views as of the Blah Party, or you'd have no one to ever recruit, since no one could possibly share every single issue down the list. Or, if you lumped people into your party because they hold certain major views, you'd have to somehow categorize the importance of current ideas, which too is counter-productive, since some people probably give a rats ass about abortion or the war or universal healthcare. Maybe they think that the most important their party should be against is the eating of babies, and as long as they fulfill that requirement, they're okay with them.

So, this is why I feel that it's incredibly stupid to mark people as being of the opposite party as you when you don't disagree with them because it's totally irrelevant, since people of you're own party could also disagree with you, or the views themselves could be in total disagreement with your party's views!

Please note, I also feel this applies across the board, no party or 'radical' view is exempt. Being labeled anything is totally irrelevant, counter-product, and silly, it says nothing.

Also, I'm not a Democrat, you can check, I tell you where I live in my Profile, just try to find me, I don't have any political affiliation. I'll tell people I'm a moderate just to appease them when they ask me, but I'm only moderate in the sense that I consider as many sides as possible, and see which one is the best, based on argument alone. If Stephen Hawking tells me the Universe is really inside of a giant baby's stomach, I'm not going to believe him just because he's Stephen Hawking, and I'm not going to just blindly believe whatever a certain party or certain group of people in government tell me just because they told it to me. If it's a shit belief, then I'm not going to agree with it, especially if I have damn good reasons for not believing it, and damnit if I'm going to be labeled with a certain political party and ostrasized for being labeled as such. I should be yelled at if my argument makes no damn sense (like this one) rather than because I happen to be of a certain party. Christians aren't labeled Christian because they don't believe in evolution, many do, so why should I be lumped into a certain, totally useless category just because I believe something? It accomplishes nothing.

If you disagree, and I hope many people do, share your opinions on why you think party classifications ARE useful. And please, try not to say you are left because you hold left opinions, this is just begging the question. And I'm sorry if this is long, I've just been getting incredibly pissed off at both parties lately for doing it all the damn time.

Just knock it off already!

dc_dux · 10-04-2006, 07:03 PM

Ideological labels are the bi-product of having a two-party system, more so now than in the past when both parties had "bigger tents" and there was more consensus-building rather than confrontation between and within the parties.

The "label" attached to the issues you cited as examples - the war in Iraq, social security, abortion, health care - are the result of the position of the two parties (yes, both parties have official positions and platforms - Repub and Dem

Only the very hard core ideologues on both ends likely support all of the positions of their respective party.

At the same, more Americans are moving away from party labels or conservative/liberal labels and are identifying themselves as Independent or moderate, because, as you noted their position varies by issue. I assume they base their votes by prioritizing the issues, along with the character, intelligence and other personal traits of the candidate.

As long as we have a two-party system, which I personally believe is much better than any multi-party system, the ideological labeling is a necessary evil.

10-04-2006, 02:40 PM	#1 (permalink)
Paradise Lost "Afternoon everybody." "NORM!" Location: Poland, Ohio // Clarion University of PA.	The great illusion... This has really been bugging me since I noticed how ridiculous rampant this issue has become. I feel both parties are equally as bad as the next when it comes to making mention of it, yet at the same time trying to stay as what they consider to be non-partisan. I feel everyone involved is just wrong, no other way about it. But I'm going to try to avoid my personal feelings on this one and just go with why is doesn't make any sense, period. That is, the illusion that there is a 'left', or 'right', or 'liberal' or 'democrat' or 'republican' or 'conservative.' Moderates therefore can't exist either in terms of political views. Whatever they feel is correct would have to go to one end or the other. All of these notions are nonsense, and here's why. First, left or right to what? To have a view or system of views that is to the left of the center you actually have to have a center. This is impossible because you would need a third state in all views, and the only way to have a third possible view about something would be to not have a view, but this isn't going to get anyone anywhere, so why bother? And even then, I doubt you can even accept this as a third view, since you still couldn't base left or right off of it. We shall not consider it. Having a standard view is out too because if we had standard views on things, then there probably wouldn't be all this fighting over sides. Anyway... There are those who view that we should be at war, and continue that war until won, with Iraq. We label those in favor of the war immediately as a Republican, or conservative, but why is this the case? Aren't wars normally progressive in nature? After World War II, the Nazi party was toppled and peace was more or less restored in a previously wartorn continent. This may be a fairly shallow view, but it seems like progress. It also a War that was entered into with a very heavy conscious on the Allied side. If War is the way of the past, then sticking with it would obviously seem to be conservative in nature. Yet, it seems to be that the only way to progress in a non-Nazi dominated era, would be to topple it through war. The same would go for today's war, if we accepted the view that being in Iraq is for the sole purpose of toppling the old regime and bringing about peace to the region. Word is also spread about progress made in Iraq, yet, this seems in complete contradiction of what it would mean to conserve. In the current landscape, the people who more likely that not want to keep Social Security how it is, would be labelled a liberal, or Democrat. Why is this? By keeping SS how it is right now, wouldn't those who are for this view be wishing to conserve its present state? Those who wish to change it seem to view it as a way to progress the nature of social security, yet, they are branded as Republicans, once again, it seems contradictory to their views. Even if we throw this notion aside that some views seems completely contradictory to the definitions of liberal or conservative, let's merge current views. Say you're for War, against Abortion, but for Universal Healthcare. Believing in 1 & 2 would brand you as a Republican, 3 though, would lump you into the group of Democrats. Even if the Official stance of the Republican Party (if they make such statements) is that they won't agree to Universal Healthcare, would you still be a Republican? If the Official view of the Democrat (once again, if they make such statements) is to be against the War and for abortion, yet totally for Universal Healthcare, are you a Democrat? Is one view higher up on the scale of important (if such as thing exists) to be regarded more highly by a party than another view? War, Abortion and Uni. Healthcare are all pretty large issues, yet, more likely than not, you're registered as a Republican and voted as such. Yet, what if while you're voting a candidate is Democrat, and believes in War, is against abortion, and for UHC, what do you think? Obviously he shares your major views, but is of the opposite party, where most other candidates probably don't agree with him on more than one issue, maybe two, highly unlikely for all three. Do you still vote him in or not? You think back to Official Party stances, but if there are such candidates that breanch the Official Party lines, then what good are those stances? So you vote for him anyhow. Then you start to think, that if it happens on that side of the fence, it must happen on this side of the fence too, being that we're just people too. So now that we've seen that even when you share many views of your party, or others in the party, you can also share views of those outside of the party and yet still not be associated with them. Even if it were the case that every single issue on both sides of the wall were completely different, it wouldn't matter anyway, since you would either have to narrow your party's views so much for people to completely be views as of the Blah Party, or you'd have no one to ever recruit, since no one could possibly share every single issue down the list. Or, if you lumped people into your party because they hold certain major views, you'd have to somehow categorize the importance of current ideas, which too is counter-productive, since some people probably give a rats ass about abortion or the war or universal healthcare. Maybe they think that the most important their party should be against is the eating of babies, and as long as they fulfill that requirement, they're okay with them. So, this is why I feel that it's incredibly stupid to mark people as being of the opposite party as you when you don't disagree with them because it's totally irrelevant, since people of you're own party could also disagree with you, or the views themselves could be in total disagreement with your party's views! Please note, I also feel this applies across the board, no party or 'radical' view is exempt. Being labeled anything is totally irrelevant, counter-product, and silly, it says nothing. Also, I'm not a Democrat, you can check, I tell you where I live in my Profile, just try to find me, I don't have any political affiliation. I'll tell people I'm a moderate just to appease them when they ask me, but I'm only moderate in the sense that I consider as many sides as possible, and see which one is the best, based on argument alone. If Stephen Hawking tells me the Universe is really inside of a giant baby's stomach, I'm not going to believe him just because he's Stephen Hawking, and I'm not going to just blindly believe whatever a certain party or certain group of people in government tell me just because they told it to me. If it's a shit belief, then I'm not going to agree with it, especially if I have damn good reasons for not believing it, and damnit if I'm going to be labeled with a certain political party and ostrasized for being labeled as such. I should be yelled at if my argument makes no damn sense (like this one) rather than because I happen to be of a certain party. Christians aren't labeled Christian because they don't believe in evolution, many do, so why should I be lumped into a certain, totally useless category just because I believe something? It accomplishes nothing. If you disagree, and I hope many people do, share your opinions on why you think party classifications ARE useful. And please, try not to say you are left because you hold left opinions, this is just begging the question. And I'm sorry if this is long, I've just been getting incredibly pissed off at both parties lately for doing it all the damn time. Just knock it off already! __________________ "Marino could do it." Last edited by Paradise Lost; 10-04-2006 at 02:43 PM..

10-04-2006, 07:03 PM	#2 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Ideological labels are the bi-product of having a two-party system, more so now than in the past when both parties had "bigger tents" and there was more consensus-building rather than confrontation between and within the parties. The "label" attached to the issues you cited as examples - the war in Iraq, social security, abortion, health care - are the result of the position of the two parties (yes, both parties have official positions and platforms - Repub and Dem Only the very hard core ideologues on both ends likely support all of the positions of their respective party. At the same, more Americans are moving away from party labels or conservative/liberal labels and are identifying themselves as Independent or moderate, because, as you noted their position varies by issue. I assume they base their votes by prioritizing the issues, along with the character, intelligence and other personal traits of the candidate. As long as we have a two-party system, which I personally believe is much better than any multi-party system, the ideological labeling is a necessary evil. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-04-2006 at 07:07 PM..