Do you have a coherent ideology?

[kochman]

In the US, or anywhere with a two party system, the idea of a coherent ideology that guides your party is a fiction.
Example, pro-lifers who support the death sentence, and vice versa.
Please don't nit pick on that point, there are other instances within each part. This isn't to say it is impossible, the it is hard.

When there are two parties, where each party is trying to garner votes, they will assume positions they believe to be right and that people will support.

Some of you may view this as cynical. That's a fair assessment.

However, if you think about it in depth, and you have an example of a two party system having a coherent ideology, do speak up.

I view the multi-party system as better, personally. While they do bind together to form coalitions, these coalitions are not bound to vote a party line. They can maintain their coherent ideology on specific issues.

Anyway, do you have one? I don't.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't in the NU-kneejerk sense of 'i am left/centre/right' etc.
My view is that politicians should at the very least be:
-honest about wanting to help people
-reasonably intelligent
and
-not crooks

Currently i suppose/guess that around 95% of career politicians in the Euro/US are having none of those traits.

 

[kochman]

Yeah, that's a little too general I think... I would hope that most of us would expect that from our politicans, and be solidly disappointed in the reality of their politicians not being that way.

I further challenge those voting yes to describe their ideology... and be prepared for it to be picked apart.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I selected "I don't know", but a more accurate answer is "probably not." People hold contradictory ideas or opinions in their heads all the time, and I'm probably no different, I just can't think of any right now.

 

[warpus]

No, I don't have an ideology.

I approach every single question, problem, or whatever, on its own merits.

People who base everything around an ideology are doing it wrong.. It's a dangerous way to look at the world - it leads to a lot of problems.

 

[kochman]

I selected "I don't know", but a more accurate answer is "probably not." People hold contradictory ideas or opinions in their heads all the time, and I'm probably no different, I just can't think of any right now.

No, I don't have an ideology.

I approach every single question, problem, or whatever, on its own merits.

People who base everything around an ideology are doing it wrong.. It's a dangerous way to look at the world - it leads to a lot of problems.

You too bring up a good point.
I would like to emphasize that we don't let existing power structures such as parties define what is coherent, since I've clearly shown how they aren't.
Defend your positions absent of such structures.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think I do have a coherent ideology, I'm reasonably introspective. But, if you were to put my positions in bullet point, there would likely be some contradictions.

I'm libertarian, but I don't see a solution to the suffering from automation-induced unemployment that doesn't involve redistribution and workfare, for example

 

[EgonSpengler]

You too bring up a good point.
I would like to emphasize that we don't let existing power structures such as parties define what is coherent, since I've clearly shown how they aren't.
Defend your positions absent of such structures.

Defend my position on what? Do you mean, defend my not subscribing to a specific, predefined ideology?

 

[really]

No - I'm a flip flopper - multi party isn't all that great - it requires compromise if they get into government and it is often the contentious issues that are compromised on.

 

[kochman]

I mean, when you answer the question itself, to yourself...
It's an idea that we must consciously prevent looking at party stances in deciding what is coherent or not.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I think ideologies are for people too intellectually lazy to really think about every issue at hand. I could be generally described as center left, but I some of my opinions about economic issues are either far left (nationalize all natural monopolies) or right wing (subsidies should only be used to help develop new technologies, not to keep obsolete jobs).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, I don't have an ideology.

I approach every single question, problem, or whatever, on its own merits.

People who base everything around an ideology are doing it wrong.. It's a dangerous way to look at the world - it leads to a lot of problems.

It's also unavoidable.

I approach every problem on it's own merits sounds great. Like most things that sound great it is totally impractical.

Am I opposed to the death penalty? Yes. Are there criminals who leave no particular reason to think there is any benefit now or ever in letting them live? Yes. Am I willing to sort out a sufficiently complex piece of legislation that will get them and only them? Not in the least. Would I trust anyone to come up with such a complex piece of legislation? No. Have I approached the issue on its merits? No, I've pretty much just ducked it entirely and said "I am opposed to the death penalty".

If I just produced a paragraph like that for all the issues I'm ducking it would take me a month. Laying out my position on the issues I actually have a reasoned position on has thus far taken a lifetime, and I'm old.

 

[kochman]

No - I'm a flip flopper - multi party isn't all that great - it requires compromise if they get into government and it is often the contentious issues that are compromised on.

Ah, but there has to be some compromise... doesn't multi-party whittle down the compromise to fewer issues?

Example... Say you support idea W, X, Y & Z versus, in order, A, B C & D
Party 1 supports WXCD
Party 2 supports ABYZ

Or...
Party 1 supports WXYD
Party 2 supports WBCD
Party 3 supports WXCZ
Party 4 supports ABCZ
Party 5 supports AXYD

The potential compromises aren't so total in the second case, right?

 

[tetley]

If I pose my ideology, this thread will turn into a 15-page religious debate in short order. So I must decline. And naturally anyone who doesn't agree with me will think it is incoherent. So I voted in the poll but decline to open it to criticism.

 

[Kyriakos]

@Timsup2nothin: In my view one does not have to bother with ALL issues. For example i would not call for not using animals as food sources, but i also would not really want (or likely even be able to) kill them myself.

As Wittgenstein said (and surely the saying was there before) "a crucial part of the duties of a thinker is to not involve himself with any thoughts he does not need to examine".

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I'm not sure I even have solid political beliefs at this point. I have certain positions but I'm not utterly convinced they're correct and complete. Just awaiting more data, I guess.

 

[kochman]

If I pose my ideology, this thread will turn into a 15-page religious debate in short order. So I must decline. And naturally anyone who doesn't agree with me will think it is incoherent. So I voted in the poll but decline to open it to criticism.

Posting remains voluntary at CFC as far as I know...

 

[EgonSpengler]

I mean, when you answer the question itself, to yourself...
It's an idea that we must consciously prevent looking at party stances in deciding what is coherent or not.

I think I misunderstood your initial question. At first I thought you were asking about our personal belief systems and whether we as individuals subscribed to a particular political ideology. Re-reading your opening post, it looks like you're asking about how we resolve contradictions in politics in order to decide how to vote.

In our (the United States') two-party system, we frequently have to vote for the person or party who represents us best on an issue we've decided is important. Sometimes (or frequently) we have to vote for the "least-bad" option, which maybe is why our voter turnout is so low. US political campaigns are often about who can alienate the fewest people, and US voters often choose the lesser of N evils, based on whichever issues seem the most pressing at the time.

Lately, it seems as though our elected officials are stubborn, partisan ideologues who value their party's "scorecard" above everything else, but they don't really represent the typical American.

 

[tetley]

Your view of the treatment of animals can be admittedly incoherent very easily. What makes dogs and horses wrong to kill and eat, while cows and fish are okay? Why is animal euthanasia okay and human is not? At least a kosher view is coherent in that respect; albeit different from what we put to practice a lot of the time.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Sort of. I'm constantly finding new blind spots, but I'm also constantly learning and developing new positions and approaches to things, seeing them in new ways, etc, so the nitty gritty bits are never going to "line up."

However, there is an overarching, very general driving force behind it all, so, I guess that's as "coherent" an ideology as anyone can expect?