Math, Logic, and Ideology

[Andrew Fletcher]

In the United States, liberals are regularly criticized for not having any fundamental principals. In contrast, conservatives have an ideological viewpoint that is based in moral absolutes. Conservatives know what they want while liberals are constantly changing their position based on circumstance.

Let’s apply this logic to math class. I love the number 5. It’s always been my favorite number, ever since I was a little kid. How would I do in a math class where I refused to consider any answer but 5?

I used to think that there were universally shared values between liberals and conservatives, coming out of the French Revolution-- liberty, equality, and fraternity. Reccent political developments and the resulting discourse have made me reconsider that assumption.

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
I used to think that there were universally shared values between liberals and conservatives, coming out of the French Revolution--

[/ QUOTE ]

Where am I?

Did I stumble on the French version of 2+2?

Why would anyone base their principles on the one revolution that ended in utter failure?

I have always been amused how the French messed it up, while America succeeded.

England and Canada did a good job of evolution into solid societies too, while France and Germany and Japan had to go through their "dictatorship" phase and be rescued from the outside. As an aside, Iraq is sort of like a future France or Germany.

[Andrew Fletcher]

It's like some sort of alternative universe.....

[Beer and Pizza]

You don't understand. Conservatism is not about having the right answer, its about having solid values and principles that usually lead you to the right answers, more so than not having good principles to guide you.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would anyone base their principles on the one revolution that ended in utter failure?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to the 1789 French Revolution ??

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

You are saying that it ..failed. In what sense please? (Challenge: Try to respond without using the name "Napoleon Bonaparte"!)

Ane I see you are implying that ALL the other revolutions more or less succeeded!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would anyone base their principles on the one revolution that ended in utter failure?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to the 1789 French Revolution ??

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

You are saying that it ..failed. In what sense please? (Challenge: Try to respond without using the name "Napoleon Bonaparte"!)


[/ QUOTE ]

Heres two much more evil personages than the eventual dictator you mention:

Georges Danton and Maximilien Robespierre.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]

Ane I see you are implying that ALL the other revolutions more or less succeeded!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I only mentioned one other revolution, the American. Please read my posts, and now for some more grins....
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
It's like some sort of alternative universe.....

[/ QUOTE ]
What did you expect? If you mention France, even in an offhanded way, conservatives just go off. It's like a red flag for a bull, or like poking a dog in the butt.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I only mentioned one other revolution, the American.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, you did write the following, in your usual fine English language (should I be saying fine American language? /images/graemlins/cool.gif) :

[ QUOTE ]
Why would anyone base their principles on the one revolution that ended in utter failure?

[/ QUOTE ] You gotta admit, it's written as if all the others did not fail !

But, anyway, enough joshing. Stand up straight.

[ QUOTE ]
Heres two much more evil personages than the eventual dictator you mention: Georges Danton and Maximilien Robespierre.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this ...is proof that the French Revolution failed? Aye, brother, you are in dire straits.

OK you can invoke Bonaparte now. So try again.

So because the French revolution failed, you believe that liberty, equality, and fraternity are bad values?

[Beer and Pizza]

Review the history of France for the 100 years after the revolution.

If your definition of success is overthrowing a monarchy, then you can call it a success (if you overlook the fact that that monarchy was later reestablished, and also an "emperor")

Why do you think it is a success? Just because 200 years later France is now something of a democracy (however disfunctional)?

[Andrew Fletcher]

This thread is great on so many levels.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Review the history of France for the 100 years after the revolution.

[/ QUOTE ] Wot, again? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
If your definition of success is overthrowing a monarchy, then you can call it a success.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, that - and a number of other accomplishments, a bit more ...long-term.

Do you really wanna bother your pizza digestion with 'em?

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If your definition of success is overthrowing a monarchy, then you can call it a success.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, that - and a number of other accomplishments, a bit more ...long-term.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well the monarchy came back several times.

The real success of the revolution was the guillotine. Now that is a true symbol of France /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Stuey2plus2/homer.gif

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
So because the French revolution failed, you believe that liberty, equality, and fraternity are bad values?

[/ QUOTE ]

While these may have been the stated goals of the French Revolution, we can tell from observation of what took place that liberty was not a true motivation of the revolutionaries.

[The once and future king]

Actualy conservatism in its classical sense emerged as a reactonary force against the ideals coming out of the French revolution.

Conservatisms classical ideological basis is the idea that humans are inherently flawed and will allways need a strong source of power and authority to keep them in line and behaving properly.

[cardcounter0]

That would be 5 levels, right?

[Andrew Fletcher]

No, I'm open to other ideas about how many levels there are.

[BadBoyBenny]

I agree with your point that changing a position should not be categorically dismissed as weakness, as it typically is in recent US politics. Obviously there are limits to this and IMO, a lot of what you see is a reaction to the impression Clinton did not have any principles. I think in the next 5 years or so you will see something quite the opposite as people will have an impression that inflexibility has been one of Bush's bigger weaknesses.

I think your math analogy is a poor way to get the point across. Equating conservatives to someone who answers 5 to every question is silly and belittling. Besides conservatives can always reply that their principles are more analogous to the following ones.
<ul type="square">
A straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line All right angles are congruent. If two lines are drawn which intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended far enough If equals are added to equals, then the sums are equal. Things which equal the same thing are equal to one another. [/list]

It is notable that there has been a big shift as Liberals used to be seen as the idealists and Conservatives seen as more pragmatic. That has flipped pretty dramatically in the last 4 years or so.

[cardcounter0]

No! The answer is 5, you weak flip-flopping liberal!

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
What did you expect? If you mention France, even in an offhanded way, conservatives just go off. It's like a red flag for a bull, or like poking a dog in the butt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's be more specific : it is a Pavlovian response that is the direct result of a campaign of intentional psychological conditioning. Right wing propaganda is specifically designed to induce these responses in its audience, and these responses are reinforced aggressively by the entire Movement.

And it's nothing new. They've been using this same conditioning tactic to suppress rational debate within their movement for literally decades. It is calculated, it is intentional, and it is (sadly) effective.

"Jane Fonda!"
*bark!bark!bark!bark!*

"Hillary Clinton!"
*bark!bark!bark!bark!*

"evolution!"
*bark!bark!bark!bark!*

"France!"
*bark!bark!bark!bark!*

This is how irrationalist/fascistic movements maintain their coherency and discipline. Watch for it in action on an AM Radio station near you.


q/q

(PS: and because of this, their answer WILL always be "five", because in the absence of functional reason they have to fall back on imperatives and absolutes handed down to them from Some Higher Authority).

[BluffTHIS!]

And how different is that from the liberal lemming response?

Liberals:

"George Bush"
*bark!bark!bark!bark!*

"limited restrictions on abortion"
*bark!bark!bark!bark!*

"tapping the oil in the ANWAR"
*bark!bark!bark!bark!*

"a republican president expecting to appoint judges to the SCOTUS who represent his own philosopies"
*bark!bark!bark!bark!*

"war in Iraq after their own lib leaders voted for it"
*bark!bark!bark!bark!*

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
And how different is that from the liberal lemming response?

[/ QUOTE ]

Another conditioned right-wing response.

"well, everyone else is equally bad so it doesn't matter and we can just pretend you never said that now shut up".

News flash for you kid: everyone is NOT equally bad on this front. In fact, it's not even close. The "Pavlov's Dog" reputation of the far right is both well-earned and entirely accurate.

Notice, for example, that most of what you just cited as your examples of "left wing" Pavlovian responses were in fact actual policies which are (shock! horror!) the subject of actual ongoing political debate. The right wing, on the other hand, relies on simple "cue" images (Jane Fonda! France! Hollywood!) plus simple conditioned responses (bark!bark!bark!).

There is a BIG difference between this level of conditioned non-thought vs. an actual substantive debate over specific policy positions.

However, as a member of the right wing, I don't expect you to see that. After all, you've spent your entire political life being trained not to.


q/q

[cardcounter0]

Yeah, well, well ... uh ... CLINTON!

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The monarchy came back several times.

[/ QUOTE ] But it was never the same.

Can you get yer mind around that without burping?

[ QUOTE ]
The real success of the revolution was the guillotine. Now that is a true symbol of France.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, they still slice their baguettes with it... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

FWIW, I think it is probably not a bad way to execute people, if you have to. Better than hanging or the garotte, from what the experts say.

And you forgot that the French brought Terror into politics. Shouldn't the American natioon feel grateful at least for that ?

By the way, the American Revolution (to get the ball under control somewhat) was an insurgency of natives against leaders living abroad and far away. A colony was rebelling against the metropolis. (Mind you, getting rid of King George's authority was not on the agenda right away!) It was an independence movement, that formualted on the basis of the small, independent middle class men that rose to the surface in American society, unhindered by the family provileges of European caountries. That movement progressed towards a higher level, that of political revolution, achieving extremely important ideological accomplishments in the process.

On the other hand, the French Revolution was purely a political uprising, directed against specific authorities, i.e. the feudal masters, the Church and the Monarchy. All three were never the same, anywhere.

A cursory look at the fires started all over the world, from Haiti to the Middle East, by the sparks of 1789 suffices to demonstrate that the French Revolution was a critical turning point in History, which profoundly affected human affairs (and its reverberations have reached well into the 20th century).

As Chu En Lai half-jokingly responded to a western journalist's question, during Nixon's visit in Peking, about the French Revoluition's impact, "It's too early to tell"...

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]

It is notable that there has been a big shift as Liberals used to be seen as the idealists and Conservatives seen as more pragmatic. That has flipped pretty dramatically in the last 4 years or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gonna haveta count higher than that.

[lehighguy]

This is copy pasted from your other thread, which took a very similair bent.

I note, you seem to be in quite an intellectual hurry. Perhaps you should slow down a little.

Anyway:
I'm not advocating a specific approach, nor saying this applies in all cases, just trying to give a general overview that you requested.

I would say your response is perhaps simplistic. When I refer to a idealogical base, I mean that there are rules and principles that govern how you approach a problem. For instance, mathematical rules govern math. One of those rules might be addition, and by using it you are able to figure out 2 + 2 = 4. Since you understand addition you can apply it to new situations, like 2 + 1 = 3. Things like "all men are created equal" are like the addition of political idealogy.

If you don't have a base set of principles, you can make addition do whatever you want. You can make 2 + 2 = 5, and 2 + 1 = 5. However, you quickly find that they can't both be five, and this is where the problem by problem approach often breaks down. It's the political equivilant of implementing farm subsidies to save farm jobs then complaining about tech outsourcing because everyone in India had to close down thier farm and move to the city and learn about computers.

Sometimes your basic principles are wrong or are you misapplying them. For instance, in high level mathematics you realize that there are wacko cases where 2 + 2 doesn't = 4. However, as long as those principles remain adaptive they can still be used in the majority of cases. An overall working framework helps you keep uniform policy accross problems so you don't trip over yourself. Or as my old math professor would say, "simplicity is elegence".

Benefits of adaptive policy principles:
1) Uniform
2) Transparant
3) Simple
4) Usually more vetted because they have been around longer

If we want to get into your question, or how I handle political problems myself, this requires a great deal more writing.