Do you have a coherent ideology?

[DaveShack]

I think that my positions on political issues are internally consistent and follow from certain core beliefs. Those positions don't align 100% with any political party, and may appear to be inconsistent in places when viewed by an outsider.

I think that we all prioritize core beliefs differently, which can lead to inconsistencies even between people who seem to have the same core. The abortion vs. capital punishment example came up earlier in the thread, and it exemplifies this type of inconsistency. Someone could be pro-life and pro death penalty if they prioritize justice above life, without being internally inconsistent. Another may be pro-life and against the death penalty if they prioritize life over justice. But both individuals could agree with both core beliefs.

Another example would be my position on immigration -- I favor a path to citizenship for those who have proven themselves, but also support rapid deportation of those who just entered. Respect for the individual drives the first position but it is (weakly) overridden by a sense of justice in the second. I'd also favor making it easier to enter legally, which would eliminate this conflict between values.

Edit: seeing some updates while I was typing mine -- I consistently vote a party, even when I disagree on an issue or two. It's very rare that a member of the other party would agree with me on enough issues to overcome the differences on the really key ones.

 

[kochman]

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.

That was just a part of it... a follow up question.
The first was basically, do you think you have a coherent ideology? Regardless of parties... if you were a party, would you present a coherent ideology.

I very nearly think it's impossible. That's why I challenged those who claim to to express it. It's like target practice.

We all know how we have to vote in the USA, 2 options.
1) Lesser of two evils
2) 3rd party, in which case, greater of two evils may win but we stand by principles

I think that my positions on political issues are internally consistent and follow from certain core beliefs. Those positions don't align 100% with any political party, and may appear to be inconsistent in places when viewed by an outsider.

I think that we all prioritize core beliefs differently, which can lead to inconsistencies even between people who seem to have the same core. The abortion vs. capital punishment example came up earlier in the thread, and it exemplifies this type of inconsistency. Someone could be pro-life and pro death penalty if they prioritize justice above life, without being internally inconsistent. Another may be pro-life and against the death penalty if they prioritize life over justice. But both individuals could agree with both core beliefs.

I would argue that it's that very prioritization that causes us to accept contradictions and renders our personal ideology incoherent.

 

[tetley]

Isn't that voting for the lesser of two evils self-fulfilling, though? In North Carolina, the libertarian candidate got struck from the ballot because he didn't get enough signatures. The libertarian party then turned and sued to get the Democratic candidate removed because she didn't get the required signatures...and lost. The grounds? Because she was one of the major parties. Apparently if you are one of the major parties, that law doesn't apply to you.

Doesn't matter much, though: the head of the LP turned out to be none other than CIA. True story.

 

[kochman]

Government officials, unless elected, cannot hold office.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Government officials, unless elected, cannot hold office.

Tell that to the members of the Canadian Senate. All of them were appointed, and the only limits on their term of office are either age 75 or death, whichever comes first. Occasionally a Prime Minister has appointed a Senator to be a Cabinet minister.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Government officials, unless elected, cannot hold office.

Except for Supreme Court Justices.

 

[warpus]

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.

I don't really understand how it's unavoidable or impractical.

Your position is that the death penalty should be illegal. You've based this opinion on its own merits, rather than some sort of a groupthink that tells you how you should feel. Great, that's all I was saying.

I didn't mean that you should for some reason be tasked with solving the problem, all on your own. You looked at the situation, you judged it on its own merits, and you stated your position. That's all that's required of you in this scenario.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't really understand how it's unavoidable or impractical.

Your position is that the death penalty should be illegal. You've based this opinion on its own merits, rather than some sort of a groupthink that tells you how you should feel. Great, that's all I was saying.

I didn't mean that you should for some reason be tasked with solving the problem, all on your own. You looked at the situation, you judged it on its own merits, and you stated your position. That's all that's required of you in this scenario.

Except that taking the 'against the death penalty' position is just shorthand. If someone comes along tomorrow who has in fact worked out a system that I would agree with completely on the issue...the chances that I would give them the time to explain it to me are between slim and nil. So in effect I am part of the 'groupthink' that could be described as 'the irrational opposition'. That's not an admission I'm proud of, but it's reality.

I've taken a position on the issue that is not only not part of some grand coherent ideology, it's not even really something I could justify if pressed. My only saving grace is that I am not a 'one issue voter', and if I was it certainly wouldn't be this issue. If the candidate has the right economic advisers, and the right foreign policy advisers, he could have an electric chair in his basement and still get my support.

 

[warpus]

Except that taking the 'against the death penalty' position is just shorthand. If someone comes along tomorrow who has in fact worked out a system that I would agree with completely on the issue...the chances that I would give them the time to explain it to me are between slim and nil. So in effect I am part of the 'groupthink' that could be described as 'the irrational opposition'. That's not an admission I'm proud of, but it's reality.

I've taken a position on the issue that is not only not part of some grand coherent ideology, it's not even really something I could justify if pressed. My only saving grace is that I am not a 'one issue voter', and if I was it certainly wouldn't be this issue. If the candidate has the right economic advisers, and the right foreign policy advisers, he could have an electric chair in his basement and still get my support.

Either way it seems like you've based your opinion about the subject on its own merits, without looking up what you're supposed to be saying about the situation from some pamphlet or radio talk show.

That your position on the matter is not very complex doesn't matter in terms of what I was talking about initially, I don't think. But having said that I get what you're saying.

 

[The_J]

I think ideologies are for people too intellectually lazy to really think about every issue at hand.

I thought we're talking here about "your" ideology. Doesn't mean your ideology has to be one from someone else, but whatever you define as your own.


My ideology (which is somehow social left libertarian with parts from everywhere else in the political spectrum) is sure inconsistent. There are 2 main points, which come to my mind:
- my ideology regularly clashes at the topic privacy vs. freedom of information (or anti-censorship). Sometimes I agree that certain information should be free, infringing someones privacy, or the other way round, that privacy should be protected and certain information be "censored". I haven't found a coherent way for myself there.
- although I feel myself as an "anarchist" (...not really...rather strong federalistic tendencies), I sometimes find myself thinking/agreeing with statements for a stronger state and more regulation. That does not always clash, but there's some inconsistency.


And there are 2 inconsistencies, which I always see in German politics:
- "party voting". Yeah, we're a democracy, but for this you can't vote as you want, but please follow the party line. Someone forgot something here about democracy.
- complaining about too many parties in the parliament (normally after an election, if it's 6 or more). Sure, democracy with less parties, especially with only one, would be way easier. Again, I think someone forgot something regarding democracy.

Makes me everytime cringe so hard, and invokes the reflex to punch whoever made such a statement.
(which is also an inconsistency in my ideology; because freedom of speech, and you're allowed to be dumb, right?)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Either way it seems like you've based your opinion about the subject on its own merits, without looking up what you're supposed to be saying about the situation from some pamphlet or radio talk show.

That your position on the matter is not very complex doesn't matter in terms of what I was talking about initially, I don't think. But having said that I get what you're saying.

I'm not really disagreeing with you either.

I guess I was responding as if you suggested having an informed position on all issues, which I think would be impractical, but is clearly different from forming your own opinion rather than just 'toeing the party line'. I can't seem to think of any issue where I just take someone's word for what position I should have, so I retract my challenge.

PS: If I ever quote a talk radio program other than in jest, someone shoot me immediately.

 

[kochman]

Tell that to the members of the Canadian Senate. All of them were appointed, and the only limits on their term of office are either age 75 or death, whichever comes first. Occasionally a Prime Minister has appointed a Senator to be a Cabinet minister.

I have next to no knowledge about the state of Canadia's government.

Except for Supreme Court Justices.

My wording was confusing.

What I mean is, sitting government employees cannot win elected seats, nor run for them. We have to first quit our jobs.

 

[tetley]

LOL. I wish someone told Governor Perry that. Or one of the U.S.' better presidents back in 1974.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I have next to no knowledge about the state of Canadia's government.

Evidently you don't even know the correct name for the country. If you want this thread taken seriously, at least have the courtesy to get that right. I know some people on this forum think it's cute to pretend "Canadia" is the real name, but it's not cute. There comes a time when it starts to feel trollish.

I had more to say, but won't bother. Excuse me for contributing to your thread.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Evidently you don't even know the correct name for the country. If you want this thread taken seriously, at least have the courtesy to get that right. I know some people on this forum think it's cute to pretend "Canadia" is the real name, but it's not cute. There comes a time when it starts to feel trollish.

I had more to say, but won't bother. Excuse me for contributing to your thread.

I thought that was a typo myself. Do people actually do that on purpose?

 

[tetley]

They tend to do that after way too many rounds of full contact curling.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They tend to do that after way too many rounds of full contact curling.

I saw a dude get hit with a curling stone once. That is no joke. He was pretty much instantly horizontal, about four feet above the ice. It was like something out of a cartoon...Wile E Coyote suspended in the air waiting to fall.

Didn't seem to affect the stone much at all.

 

[tetley]

If you picture me on ice skates and with a curling stone tucked under my shirt, that pretty much sums up my graceful figure skating skills.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Evidently you don't even know the correct name for the country. If you want this thread taken seriously, at least have the courtesy to get that right. I know some people on this forum think it's cute to pretend "Canadia" is the real name, but it's not cute. There comes a time when it starts to feel trollish.

I had more to say, but won't bother. Excuse me for contributing to your thread.

I thought that was a typo myself. Do people actually do that on purpose?

Yes, they really do that on purpose.


And yeah, you really don't want to get in the way of a curling rock. Those things are heavy and can cause injury.

 

[Traitorfish]

Taking "ideology" to mean "set of political views": I don't think I do? Most of what and how I think about politics is negative or critical, which I think is useful, but does mean that I have very little to offer in the way of "shoulds". I don't think results in an incoherent politics, though, just a sort of formless one. I don't think that's a bad thing, necessarily, but... Well, there you go.