Math, Logic, and Ideology

[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... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

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.