Please fix the Democracy ideology

[FORRREST]

Moderator Action: Just want to drop a preemptive note here, to keep the discussion civil and as much as possible centered on the mechanics/nomenclature in the context of the game. ~ LK

The Modern Age stream revealed that each of the Ideologies has its own tree.
For Democracy, the first tech/civic is eponymously called "Democracy"; all well and good.
But that unlocks "Liberalism", which itself unlocks "Progressivism"
Both of these are terms primarily associated with the political Left in America.
While some on the Right were trying to rehabilitate the phrase 'classical liberal' a few years back, for the most part the term 'liberal' is a synonym for Left wing an an antonym for Right wing
And while back when the parties weren't as ideologically divided, some Republicans like Teddy were described as 'Progressives', today its exclusively used for the Far Left.

Moreover, within the civics are traditions known as 'Fireside Chats', 'Welfare State', and 'New Deal'.
The 'Fireside Chats' were delivered by FDR, who pushed the country further to the Left than any other president of the 20th Century.
His agenda for doing so was referred to as the 'New Deal'.
It resulted in the establishment of our current Welfare State, generally supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.

It's extremely unfortunate that Democracy is only representative of the political Left.
This evidences a political bias and ideological blindness at Firaxis.
This is presumably not shared by their fanbase (CivFanatics skews heavily to the Left, but I imagine that the total number of players is much more evenly divided).
One wonders that if they had more conservatives on staff if this might've been corrected before being shown off.

Firaxis should correct this; before launch if possible, or in a patch post-launch if not.
Either the names of the civics and traditions could be changed to represent the common ground held by most in America and the West, or a fourth Ideology could be added to represent Conservatism.
The latter would be my personal preference.

I like in Civ V when the liberal ideology was just called "freedom"... in addition to "new deal", it included options like "capitalism", "civil society", and "arsenal of democracy".

 

[Acepox]

Renaming them to broader concepts would also have much more sense to it for the game and age. It‘s really strange that the three ideologies kick in at the start of the age, when they were only really taking off in the last 30 or so years of the age, and a lot of their heyday is outside the current game‘s scope.

I actually take this as evidence against a fourth age. If they had a separate age that includes the Cold War planned, the current ideologies seem a better fit for this age than for one that’s primarily about industrialization, modernization, great game, race for artifacts, etc. None of these were driven by the current ideologies, but nationalism or socialism would make sense for these as ideologies.

I get your point, and although (American leftist) democracy, fascism and communism don't exactly stretch back to the era-defining French revolution and Napoleonic wars, those were certainly steeped in ideology.

I think 3 is good enough to keep it simple and manageable for gameplay reasons, even if it means whitewashing fascism and communism. Remember that the ideology becomes a crucial factor in Civ relations in the modern era, and thus you can't really have more than 3 and maintain a coherent game.

The 3 are umbrellas we're just going to have to accept.

Moderator Action: *SNIP* We will not have that talk here and you know it. -lymond

 

[Acepox]

At the risk of simplification, because "liberal" and "conservative" have conveyed a lot of different nuances over the years and were understood to mean somewhat different things from country-to-country and decade-to-decade, in broad team I would characterize the two as follows:

Liberalism tends to promote social change, usually changes intended to remove perceived inequities and promote policies that they believe will be a "fairer" society

Conservatism tends to oppose those changes or to want to roll-back prior changes and policies that they feel have gone too far or have taken society in the wrong direction

In one form or another, these general distinctions have been part of the political landscape of every modern democracy. If Civ 7 wanted to capture this, one possible solution would be to structure the Democracy ideology tree such that:

Liberal choices introduce new civics policies that can be slotted into existing policy slots

Conservative choices create additional policy slots, but ones where you can only slot in old existing traditions

Interesting take. Conservatism is not just a brake or a reverse as on a car though. The world keeps moving (mostly technologically) and conservatism too proposes new ideas, albeit ones mindful of tradition and the legacy of our forefathers. In many cases, progressivism likes to renovate by bringing down walls at random, not knowing which ones may be load-bearing.

It can work. Risk and innovation are worthwhile. Sometimes it leads to disastrous consequences, though.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Liberal choices introduce new civics policies that can be slotted into existing policy slots

Conservative choices create additional policy slots, but ones where you can only slot in old existing traditions

I like this take because it very clearly has game applications. I also like there being only two ideologies at the end. Three means the outcome can be denied by two joining together to fight the third.

 

[Patine]

I do find it odd to see Welfare State under Democracy, considering that redistribution of wealth fits much better under the Communism Ideology.

It may have ideological ROOTS in a particular branch of Socialistic thinking, but it became a hallmark trait of Social DEMOCRACY, and was not really a true institution, as we know it, of actual Communism.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

At the risk of simplification, because "liberal" and "conservative" have conveyed a lot of different nuances over the years and were understood to mean somewhat different things from country-to-country and decade-to-decade, in broad team I would characterize the two as follows:

Liberalism tends to promote social change, usually changes intended to remove perceived inequities and promote policies that they believe will be a "fairer" society

Conservatism tends to oppose those changes or to want to roll-back prior changes and policies that they feel have gone too far or have taken society in the wrong direction

In one form or another, these general distinctions have been part of the political landscape of every modern democracy. If Civ 7 wanted to capture this, one possible solution would be to structure the Democracy ideology tree such that:

Liberal choices introduce new civics policies that can be slotted into existing policy slots

Conservative choices create additional policy slots, but ones where you can only slot in old existing traditions

I'd be fairly satisfied with this or a similar approach.
My proposed "Conservatism" ideology up higher in the thread had a similar focus on enhancing pre-existing traditions.

Interesting take. Conservatism is not just a brake or a reverse as on a car though. The world keeps moving (mostly technologically) and conservatism too proposes new ideas, albeit ones mindful of tradition and the legacy of our forefathers. In many cases, progressivism likes to renovate by bringing down walls at random, not knowing which ones may be load-bearing.

It can work. Risk and innovation are worthwhile. Sometimes it leads to disastrous consequences, though.

I totally agree. But I definitely understand the misinterpretation of Conservatism as merely preserving the status quo or rolling back history.
No less a conservative figure than the venerable William F. Buckley Jr. famously said:
“A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling 'Stop!', at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”

 

[Patine]

I totally agree. But I definitely understand the misinterpretation of Conservatism as merely preserving the status quo or rolling back history.
No less a conservative figure than the venerable William F. Buckley Jr. famously said:
“A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling 'Stop!', at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”

The thing is, though, that the majority of Conservative movements in modern (as the Age in Civ7 is defined) electoral systems have been, ultimately, vehicles for the wealthy, elite establishment to keep power. The type you speak has been a statistical minority.

 

[Krikkit1]

The thing is, though, that the majority of Conservative movements in modern (as the Age in Civ7 is defined) electoral systems have been, ultimately, vehicles for the wealthy, elite establishment to keep power. The type you speak has been a statistical minority.

as mentioned it is about keeping power as opposed to getting it….(and most movements in any electoral system are means for elites to keep their own power or get power from a different set of elites…that’s why they are elites)

Which is why 4 of the policies favor one population over the other (bonus to cities penalty to towns v. bonus to towns penalty to cities)

Free Press and Welfare State (town based)
or
Fireside Chats and Suffrage (city based)

are the two “types” of Democracies in Civ7

 

[Caprikel]

It may have ideological ROOTS in a particular branch of Socialistic thinking, but it became a hallmark trait of Social DEMOCRACY, and was not really a true institution, as we know it, of actual Communism.

While it is true that it is a common trait of modern Democracies, from a gameplay perspective it makes little sense as you only get to choose one ideology, and there seems to be no gameplay mechanism to take traits/policies from the other two ideologies, so to me it makes more sense from a gameplay perspective for that ideology to only have policies that are ideologically distinct from the other two ideologies. Since welfare conceptually fits better under communism, I think it would make more sense for it to not be part of the Democracy Ideology.

 

[Gorbles]

Since welfare conceptually fits better under communism, I think it would make more sense for it to not be part of the Democracy Ideology.

Why? This keeps on being said, but rarely argued. You even say it's a common trait of modern democracies.

 

[Krikkit1]

While it is true that it is a common trait of modern Democracies, from a gameplay perspective it makes little sense as you only get to choose one ideology, and there seems to be no gameplay mechanism to take traits/policies from the other two ideologies, so to me it makes more sense from a gameplay perspective for that ideology to only have policies that are ideologically distinct from the other two ideologies. Since welfare conceptually fits better under communism, I think it would make more sense for it to not be part of the Democracy Ideology.

Since you can’t take policies from other ideologies, Communism would have a different policy that would have slightly different effects

Say “People’s Rations” which gives a boost to city food at the cost of rural production instead of town happiness at the cost of city gold

 

[Caprikel]

Why? This keeps on being said, but rarely argued. You even say it's a common trait of modern democracies.

I'm approaching this from a purely conceptual framework of the Ideology. Obviously people don't have an identical conceptual framework of what each Ideology is, and when it comes to real life implementations of these ideologies that are no restrictions on implementing policies that are ideologically "pure". However since this is a game where you only get to choose from 3 Ideologies, it makes sense to go for interpretations of these ideologies that make them as distinct as possible from each other, and so in this context, it makes sense that Democracy would be represented to be as distinct from Communism or Fascism as possible, which as far as I can tell would be one that has as few socialist economic policies as possible, since those are already well represented in Communism and Fascism. So in other words, I'm interpreting Democracy in this context as a free-market Liberal Democracy, which wouldn't make sense to have a welfare policy, which being a form of wealth distribution, would fit better under Communism from a purely ideological perspective, though perhaps with a different name like what Krikkit1 mentioned with "People's Rations".
So to summarize I'm looking at this from a specific rigid conceptual framework within the context of the game's implementation of Ideologies being entirely separate from another.

 

[Gorbles]

So in other words, I'm interpreting Democracy in this context as a free-market Liberal Democracy, which wouldn't make sense to have a welfare policy, which being a form of wealth distribution, would fit better under Communism from a purely ideological perspective, though perhaps with a different name like what Krikkit1 mentioned with "People's Rations".

I think this is the key point of divergence. You're interpreting democracy as a specific type of democracy, whereas Firaxis have taken a thing that has emerged in a bunch of modern democracies, imo.

I'm not saying you're wrong; a lot of this is preference. But if there's nothing wrong with either approach, then there's no mandate for change, either.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Conservatism is not just a brake or a reverse as on a car though. The world keeps moving (mostly technologically) and conservatism too proposes new ideas, albeit ones mindful of tradition and the legacy of our forefathers.

Agreed. As I said, my simplified take misses a lot nuance. All sides of the political spectrum have ideas. I'd go so far as to say all sides have good ideas on different topics, and bone-headed ideas on other topics. The difficulty is getting everyone to agree on which are good and which are bone-headed.

In many cases, progressivism likes to renovate by bringing down walls at random, not knowing which ones may be load-bearing.

That I cannot agree with. I don't always (but sometimes do) agree with "progressive" ideas, but in no cases are those policies random. No more so than conservative policies are random, which I also don't always (but sometimes do) agree with.

 

[Zaarin]

Moderator Action: Reminder that this thread is for discussing the implementation of ideology in Civilization 7, not the implementation of ideology in the real world. Please do not drag real world politics or current events into this discussion; such conversations belong in the appropriate Off Topic forum.

 

[chaosprophet]

In that case, is there even a point for this thread to exist? The main quest and most of the discussion on it have been about how the ideologies as state in the game reflect to real world politics. I don't think there was much discussion about the effects of them in the game (do we even have details on their effects at this point?)

 

[FORRREST]

Just want to point out that every meaningful change that has improved your life has been created by progressive/liberal/leftwing political movements. What feels coservative today was radical 100 years ago.

Conservativism is antithetical to the gameplay of civ as it advocates stasis at best and at worst reactionary reversion. How can you research a tech that does nothing or undoes previous techs or civics?

The modern era coincides with a massive wave of inclusionary politics (progressive/liberal) and state assistance programs. To not have that be the 'ideal' of the democracy ideology is strange to me.

At best, conservatism is not stasis, it is the conservation of principles that "stand the test of time", such as the scientific method. Not lightly casting aside what has proven to work yields more progress, in many cases. For example, if you have a system that is pretty good at getting a cultural victory, are you more likely to stick with the system when trying to get a cultural victory, or do you try something completely different? Assume that it really matters whether you succeed or not.

 

[Krikkit1]

In that case, is there even a point for this thread to exist? The main quest and most of the discussion on it have been about how the ideologies as state in the game reflect to real world politics. I don't think there was much discussion about the effects of them in the game (do we even have details on their effects at this point?)

The actual ideologies themselves seem to have no effect outside of relationship modifiers, its just the civics they open up
(and most of the civic effect is unlocking social policies…that you choose whether or not to use)

 

[FORRREST]

Interesting take. Conservatism is not just a brake or a reverse as on a car though. The world keeps moving (mostly technologically) and conservatism too proposes new ideas, albeit ones mindful of tradition and the legacy of our forefathers. In many cases, progressivism likes to renovate by bringing down walls at random, not knowing which ones may be load-bearing.

It can work. Risk and innovation are worthwhile. Sometimes it leads to disastrous consequences, though.

Imo, effective progress requires an idea of where you want to be going. Otherwise, how do you determine where to put your resources? In a perfect world, Civ would "conserve" what made the franchise great, e.g., good art (not low-effort cartoons), good music -the kind you remember forever- and an immersive experience where you imagine you're making history.