Are All Politics Extreme?

synthesis

It has been said that (successful) politics is "the art of compromise." Progressives and conservatives must balance the need for change with the wisdom to know when transition is beneficial.

Those who are firmly on either side of the political fence are extreme in their beliefs, as if they had their way, the outcome would be not so wonderful.

For example, conservatives generally want to keep things the way they are (for obvious reasons including the fact that they are benefiting from the status quo) whereas progressives see the need for change in order to allow more folks to participate/prosper. The rub is that it is a combination of the two philosophies where you end up with the best outcomes because it is the wisdom derived from the debate that determines the appropriate timing in instituting change.

It will be interesting to watch the progressives in America as they seem Hell-bent on canceling conservative thinking all-together. If their strategy is successful and they are allowed to implement widespread change, the results will be just as poor as if the conservatives tried to roll back to the clock thereby retarding society from moving forward.

There are a great number of changes that need to be made in the United States but there are also many things that still make this country the envy of the world. Change for the sake of change is bad policy. We need new citizen-leaders who are not beholden to any particular political philosophy and can rationally begin the make this system fairer by deconstructing the massive corporate and governmental bureaucracies (consolidation of wealth and power) that are strangling nearly everybody.

If you are on the left, this looks like a, "When God wants to get even with you, He gives you exactly what you want," moment.

Kenosha Kid

It will be interesting to watch the progressives in America as they seem Hell-bent on canceling conservative thinking all-together. If their strategy is successful and they are allowed to implement widespread change, the results will be just as poor as if the conservatives tried to roll back to the clock thereby retarding society from moving forward. — synthesis

I'm not really sure this is about extremism. Conservativism isn't generally about trying to "roll back the clock". While it's generally on the wrong side of history on everything (slavery, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc.), being conservative it tends to affirm its own defeats, for the most part anyway. They're not apt to remove women's right to vote or start slave trading. The extremists aren't e.g. the Republicans, but the Magamaniacs and Brexiteers. Also, saying that if progressives got their way everything would be bad is just saying that progressives are wrong.

synthesis

I'm not really sure this is about extremism. Conservativism isn't generally about trying to "roll back the clock". While it's generally on the wrong side of history on everything (slavery, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc.), being conservative it tends to affirm its own defeats, for the most part anyway. They're not apt to remove women's right to vote or start slave trading. The extremists aren't e.g. the Republicans, but the Magamaniacs and Brexiteers. Also, saying that if progressives got their way everything would be bad is just saying that progressives are wrong. — Kenosha Kid

Conservatism is about preserving (what works in their minds). Saying that they are on the wrong side of history is denying the success that the U.S. has had over the past 244 years.

Both sides see each other as extreme because they are extreme. What works is striking a balance between keeping what still works efficiency (e.g., the Constitution) with what needs to change (e.g., finance/monetary policy and warmongering).

Identity politics and intolerance will only lead to further division making the process of debate and compromise difficult, at best.

Kenosha Kid

Conservatism is about preserving — synthesis

Yes, not regressing. Regressive and conservative politics are not the same thing. Someone who wants to repeal women's right to vote is not conservative: they are regressive.

Saying that they are on the wrong side of history is denying the success that the U.S. has had over the past 244 years. — synthesis

No, saying that they were on the wrong side of history wrt e.g. civil rights just says they were wrong irrespective of their successes. Success is not a measure of correctness.

Identity politics and intolerance will only lead to further division making the process of debate and compromise difficult, at best. — synthesis

I think you've been reading extremists and now have an extreme idea of progression. It isn't about identity politics (although there's ample identity politics as well). It's about optimising the system to work for more people. "Identity politics" has become a term that extremists use to denounce any idea that seeks to address systematic bias. Real identity politics is about individualism. One can progress in that direction, but there are other, better directions. For instance, "progressive taxation" has nothing to do with identity politics.

synthesis

Saying that they are on the wrong side of history is denying the success that the U.S. has had over the past 244 years.
— synthesis

No, saying that they were on the wrong side of history wrt e.g. civil rights just says they were wrong irrespective of their successes. Success is not a measure of correctness. — Kenosha Kid

I believe this would be like saying that Democrats are still the party of slavery. Most conservatives I've spoken with are for maximum opportunity for all. As a matter of fact, I am not sure I've ever met anybody who would against this.

I think you have to be very careful and not suggest that the fringe represents the majority (on both sides). And where you are correct that success is not a measure of correctness, again, one must be careful not to apply today's standards to yesterdays circumstances. Otherwise, practically nobody would be seen in a very good light (a mistake I believe the left is making today).

Identity politics and intolerance will only lead to further division making the process of debate and compromise difficult, at best.
— synthesis

I think you've been reading extremists and now have an extreme idea of progression. It isn't about identity politics (although there's ample identity politics as well). It's about optimizing the system to work for more people. — Kenosha Kid

I get that you believe the system needs to be "optimized." Unfortunately, the system is optimized (for the few). This is pretty much the only way systems work. Even when this system does eventually become reformed, it will once again revert back to serving the interests of those who are going to be controlling it.

"Identity politics" has become a term that extremists use to denounce any idea that seeks to address systematic bias. Real identity politics is about individualism. One can progress in that direction, but there are other, better directions. For instance, "progressive taxation" has nothing to do with identity politics. — Kenosha Kid

Bias is built into everything and always will be. Should better looking people get the job? Should the younger looking person get the (fill in the blank). Whereas there will come a day where people will probably not care if a person is white, black, brown, purple or green, just because they happen to be more comfortable with those they might be more familiar with is not a crime. Should we make women have 50% male friends and 50% female friends. And of those percentages, must there be an even split according to every other possible identity characteristic?

Taxes are another story all-together.

Kenosha Kid

I believe this would be like saying that Democrats are still the party of slavery. Most conservatives I've spoken with are for maximum opportunity for all. As a matter of fact, I am not sure I've ever met anybody who would against this. — synthesis

That was precisely my point: conservatives are not strictly regressives. While they tend to oppose progress, like ending slavery, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, they tend to affirm those things once they've lost the fight.

I get that you believe the system needs to be "optimized." Unfortunately, the system is optimized (for the few). This is pretty much the only way systems work. — synthesis

That's an ideological belief, not an empirical fact. The most progressive countries in the world have iteratively achieved, to good measure at least, precisely what you hold to be impossible. These countries also tend to report the highest qualities of life in the world. They were not born that way: it was achieved by incremental improvement over time. The obstacle to other countries achieving the same is typically conservativism.

Whereas there will come a day where people will probably not care if a person is white, black, brown, purple or green — synthesis

Amen. Except the purple ones. They can't handle equality; they wouldn't know what to do with it.

Should we make women have 50% male friends and 50% female friends. — synthesis

No one is trying to make anyone do this.

LuckyR

I would say that "all politics in the media are extreme" but moderates don't make the news. It is a perception thing.

ssu

It will be interesting to watch the progressives in America as they seem Hell-bent on canceling conservative thinking all-together. — synthesis

Or at least some conservatives and especially Trump supporters (who I don't think actually are conservatives) themselves think so.

Of course this is nonsense. You think that leftism would go away if conservatives would be Hell-bent on cancelling leftist thinking all-together?

It's the opposite that happens.

bongo fury

Blimey. Has @Michael written some code to cure the internet?

:up:

Harry Hindu

Both sides see each other as extreme because they are extreme. — synthesis

They are extreme, but that isn't why they see each other as extreme, or else they would see not only the other as extreme, but their own party as extreme as well. It takes a more objective, a-political outlook to see both as extreme.

For example, conservatives generally want to keep things the way they are (for obvious reasons including the fact that they are benefiting from the status quo) whereas progressives see the need for change in order to allow more folks to participate/prosper. — synthesis

Both parties can claim that they are for allowing more folks to participate/propsper, as they both have libertarian tendencies, but they both have authoritarian tendencies as well, so neither one can actually declare that they possess the monopoly on libertarianism.

The Progressives are only such in name only. They are actually authoritarian socialists in libertarian clothes. Once they achieve what they want - which is the same as any political party wants: control over individuals - they become defenders of the status quo and any objectors become the progressives.

True progressives would be those that actually value individualism over collectivism, as collectivism is what we've bascially had ever since religions became political.

synthesis

Or at least some conservatives and especially Trump supporters (who I don't think actually are conservatives) themselves think so. — ssu

Apparently there were 75M people who supported Trump (anyway, who voted for him). Are you assuming that all these people think identically? There are many, many reasons why people chose to vote either way. Attempting to simplify events to fit into your narrative seems a bit lazy, no?

synthesis

Both sides see each other as extreme because they are extreme.
— synthesis
They are extreme, but that isn't why they see each other as extreme, or else they would see not only the other as extreme, but their own party as extreme as well. It takes a more objective, a-political outlook to see both as extreme. — Harry Hindu

As polarized as politics has become, I am not sure the casual observer from either side would have difficulty coming to this conclusion.

For example, conservatives generally want to keep things the way they are (for obvious reasons including the fact that they are benefiting from the status quo) whereas progressives see the need for change in order to allow more folks to participate/prosper.
— synthesis

Both parties can claim that they are for allowing more folks to participate/prosper, as they both have libertarian tendencies, but they both have authoritarian tendencies as well, so neither one can actually declare that they possess the monopoly on libertarianism.

The Progressives are only such in name only. They are actually authoritarian socialists in libertarian clothes. Once they achieve what they want - which is the same as any political party wants: control over individuals - they become defenders of the status quo and any objectors become the progressives.

True progressives would be those that actually value individualism over collectivism, as collectivism is what we've basically had ever since religions became political. — Harry Hindu

Exactly. Just as religion is the intellectualization of spirituality, religion can also be the socialization of political idealism, that is, desiring actual social ideals , e.g., equality and equity (something that can be a personal aspiration) but can never be actualized across society (for all kinds of reasons). Plus, it gives a lot of people something to believe in after they've run out of things to buy (a way to fill the void).

Harry Hindu

As polarized as politics has become, I am not sure the casual observer from either side would have difficulty coming to this conclusion. — synthesis

If they are just a casual observer then they are not from one side or the other. To see your position as the righteous one for everyone and anyone that disagrees is a bigot or racist IS extremism is a nutshell. If you don't see your side as possessing a monopoly of morality, then that isn't really taking a side as you are acknowledging that each "side" is just a different means of achieving liberty and equality for the individual.

If you want to be told how to live your life, or what is good for you, then that is your own personal choice. I am not one of those people. Nor am I one to tell you how to live your life, or what choices you have to make, unless those choices you are making infringe upon my rights of having personal choice.

So ultimately, religion/politics is the extreme in that is a means of controlling individuals. If you actually do believe in personal liberty, then you haven't taken any side as you believe that each individual is simply a different side that cannot be imposed on another individual. To think that you can speak for others that you don't know is what is extreme and is the nature of religion and politics.

ssu

Are you assuming that all these people think identically? — synthesis

Well, It's you who started with generalization like the progressives being hell bent of canceling conservative thinking all-together.

My point was that when one side thinks that they can cancel the other side's thinking, this likely has the opposite effect.

synthesis

My point was that when one side thinks that they can cancel the other side's thinking, this likely has the opposite effect. — ssu

Agreed.

Miguel Hernández

↪synthesis

↪Kenosha Kid

You should read Robert Freeman:
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/11/30/economy-isnt-working-thats-exactly-plan

synthesis

You should read Robert Freeman: — Miguel Hernández

That's really old news. What's your point?

Kenosha Kid

↪Miguel Hernández

:up: A good, if depressing, reminder, that those who most need of reform will invariably end up opposing it.

thewonder

↪synthesis

Responding to your question and not your post, yes, absolutely. Extreme, perhaps, isn't quite the right word, as the really are very few political terrorists in the world, but, there are fanatics within every political faction, most certainly including, but not especially limited to the Left.

Miguel Hernández

↪synthesis

I think that your question makes sense if you believe Condorcet's conjecture: that all human beings "are" the same. As soon as we add a few more variables, the question blurs. Suppose Plato's hypothesis: in every society there are three castes. The sages have as their goal the preservation of the state (that is, their good and that of others). Guardians are meant to preserve their caste at the expense of the peasants. And each peasant thinks only of himself. They are not interested in the good of the State, nor in the other peasants.
A party is like a bus. There are people who go up and down continuously. According to Condorcet, the population of the bus is always the same. Plato adds some more complexity. The critical mass of a party depends on the ruling caste: sages, guardians or peasants. The Republican Party of the Trump era is a bus full of peasants. However, that does not define the Republican Party. The Democratic Party of the 1930s was a busload of wise men. Roosevelt politics was to the left of Bernie Sanders: "He put tens of millions of people to work through “alphabetical agencies” such as the Civilian Conservation Corps, the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the Works Progress Administration. He imposed FDIC requirements on banks and insured investor’ deposits. He separated commercial banking from investment banking and created unemployment insurance and Social Security."
I think your question makes sense as long as it doesn't deviate from Condorcet's speech.

synthesis

Responding to your question and not your post, yes, absolutely. Extreme, perhaps, isn't quite the right word, as the really are very few political terrorists in the world, but, there are fanatics within every political faction, most certainly including, but not especially limited to the Left. — thewonder

To me, politics is a battle of interests, so you have those who wish to bathe in the status quo and those who wish to create a newer status quo they can bathe in. Unenlightened self-interest (as George Carlin might put it).

If people were capable of understanding a path that would help the most people, then they would understand the middle. The middle is a-political. Get off the middle and you head towards the extremes (it's only a matter of degree).

synthesis

The Democratic Party of the 1930s was a busload of wise men. Roosevelt politics was to the left of Bernie Sanders: "He put tens of millions of people to work through “alphabetical agencies” such as the Civilian Conservation Corps, the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the Works Progress Administration. He imposed FDIC requirements on banks and insured investor’ deposits. He separated commercial banking from investment banking and created unemployment insurance and Social Security." — Miguel Hernández

What do you think this country would look like today if there was no New Deal?

Miguel Hernández

↪synthesis

Weimar Republic. The SA stormed the Reichstag, took Berlin, and put Hitler in power. (Uuuups... a Godwin!)

synthesis

↪Miguel Hernández

Miguel, it seems like people have a tremendous amount of time and energy invested in their own appreciation of society and how it should operate.

Just like there were people in the USSR who believed that things would improve if the government just did a little more, there are people everywhere who would rather hand their lives over to some nameless bureaucrat and allow him/her to decide what is best.

One might think that after the past several millennia of authoritarian control that people would be universally ready to be free, but not so much. As it turns out, most want mommy and daddy to tell them what to do.

Miguel Hernández

One might think that after the past several millennia of authoritarian control that people would be universally ready to be free, but not so much. As it turns out, most want mommy and daddy to tell them what to do. — synthesis

You keep thinking in terms of the Condorcet conjecture: that all human beings "are" the same. The "people" do not exist. If we take Plato's model, there are intelligent people who, as governed, will make the Kantian slogan their own: "sapere aude". They will follow a ruler like Roosevelt, but not his successors in office. Others have the guardian mentality and will therefore trust whatever government guarantees them their privileges. It is the mentality of the officers. Finally, there are those who think like peasants, for whom there is only a small plot and that is why they kill or die. The peasants always feel like victims. All fascist leaders present themselves as victims, so rural areas will always vote for them. [Hitler never won in Berlin; he hated that circumstance so much that he planned to dynamite the city and build on its ashes the world capital of the future: Germania]. In this sense, the turn towards the extreme right of the Republican Party is very revealing, which has decentered the Democratic Party to the point of occupying the space left by it. Freeman has described the phenomenon quite well: "The Republican Party has become the party of victims ... Everywhere you look, Republicans masquerade as victims. Trump became a victim on his first day in office when attacked the press for correcting his easily demonstrable lie that the size of the crowd that attended the inauguration was the largest of all. Naming the press as "enemy of the people" enshrined its victim status in a central institution of the American society: the media. "

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/01/06/republican-party-and-victimhood-ideology

synthesis

↪Miguel Hernández

Miguel, there is good and bad in all things. You chose to see only the bad in that which you don't particularly like and only the good in that you do like.

People on both sides used to understand this and work towards consensus. Otherwise, both sides behave like victims and authoritarians.

And btw, the other side kind of sees the liberal/left as being victims, as well. Isn't that what identity politics is all about, who can portray themselves as the biggest victim?

Victim-hood is perhaps the shortest road to hell in existence.

Miguel Hernández

↪synthesis

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

counterpunch

Success is not a measure of correctness. — Kenosha Kid

That's the slogan for the Labour Party conference sorted!

Are All Politics Extreme?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions