Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mario F.
No MK.
It means that you should stop trying to identify political ideology in every action or to apply it to every decision. It's just basic common sense these days, I think, that has been exactly the partisan approach to politics that has been slowly driving us down the well.
Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc. Making the observation does not make the duck. And I am not calling you the duck BTW, or saying the duck is essentially bad or essentially good.
I agree labels are problematic, but just because language is difficult to use properly does not mean the best way out is to avoid it altogether.
Note that I do not treat -isms as if they were religions. Eg. I would never say, "This is the correct way because it is a tenant of fooism", or "This is the wrong way because it is a tenant of barism". Except in so far as that might be regarded as a tenant of rationalism, and, being more rational than the inverse, I see it as correct. ;) Are we to chuck that one out too, because rationalism is "so last last century, I'm tired of it"?
Escaping partisan politics does not mean you say the same old thing, then when I say, "Well that is the same old wealthy conservative capitalist speak", and it is still subject to the same old rational criticisms, you say, "No, those criticisms do not make sense because we want to avoid partisan politics". Being rational may coincide with partisan politics.
Avoiding what you see to be true because you do not want to seem "partisan" is a path for fools and cowards (tho it may make you popular, lol, at least amongst some mass of other fools and cowards). I would not reject an idea because it is associated with one -ism or another.
Contra your assertion, nothing new or good will come from a radical re-invention of political philosophy in irrational terms (no up, no down, etc). If you want to deconstruct a criticism, do it with reason, not rhetorical finagling.
Earlier in the thread I pointed out to Elkvis one of the wasteful, no-good policies traditionally supported by the US right -- the drug war -- and he said he did not really support it. I do agree that people on the right (and left) need to modernize their priorities. I also agree that the terms "left" and "right" easily do more harm than good when discussing specific issues. But you are speaking in very general terms and saying, "let us stop it with the generalizations!". It's oxymoronic.
Many words/labels, are useful, objective and clear: we do live in a capitalist economy.
I do not think anyone is going to get out of the right-left spectrum anytime soon, even if they want to incorporate such a fantasy into their rhetoric.
Quote:
No matter the banner, it is becoming terribly evident that solutions to contemporary problems have to come from doing that which we previously didn't believe in.
Ahem. I would agree, but I am very suspicious of who the "we" is in "doing that which we previously didn't believe in". Does it mean "us" or "them" or both? What if, really, truly, and rationally, some people are doing the correct thing and others are not?
I don't care if in the name of PR and TV the duck figures s/he will win votes by saying "I'm not a duck! I'm something totally new!"
The swindle continues. It's like the Emperor appearing naked (again), and saying, "Check out these new clothes!".
Quote:
Political ideology has been the govern of the weak minded, the zealots and the followers of unproven truths. Frankly I'm tired of all the Wealthy Conservatives, Liberals, Socialists, etc nonsense. It's so last century it's not even fun anymore.
Yes, what the world needs now is Pepsi. Unfortunately, there is such a thing as wealthy conservatives, liberals, socialists, etc. If you are saying you would like them to stop being those things, I agree. However, it is not just a matter of saying, "I'm not a duck anymore", and then doing everything else exactly the same.
Quote:
It's like we are trying to build a new society again on the backs of fear mongering and hollow adjectives.
I do not believe more than a very small percentage of westerners are at all interested in "trying to build a new society", rightly or wrongly. There are forms of new society I would support, there are others I would not.
We communicate with language. You can eschew "hollow adjectives", but I am curious: what will you replace them with? I often shudder at the level of political discussion and the way hollow language and seriously flawed reasoning is spouted as wisdom. I think it is possible to get people to think differently by giving them new words to use, but I am not sure if throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the way to do that. In fact, it is a perverse twist ala Orwell's 1984 (silly old book from the last century).*
If you can introduce new positive terms, great. But simply trying to negate old ones because they are old is not the same thing at all. You are now engaged in the religiosity I referred to earlier. Maybe you should be "born again". ;) ;)
Quote:
Not bailing out banks could have the worst effect on ours societies.
I am not denying this, but I think we need to have a much harder look at why, and as far as "building a new society" goes, consider means beyond a continuous boom->private profit, bust->public bailout cycle for the future. As if it were all out of our hands. Just, you know, bubbles and stuff. :dumb:
Quote:
The sudden bankruptcy of the financial system would throw us into the worst global financial and economic crisis we've ever experienced, throwing billions into poverty and unemployment.
Ahem, I believe we already have billions in poverty and unemployment. I think developed modern western nations are looking at a tish load of cause-effect karma coming down the pipe, but are in serious denial about how and why that has happened. Hence, we are unlikely to escape from the cycle, and will instead feed it more and more.
Quote:
Once bailed out, I defend the financial system becomes heavily regulated in order to bring it to pre-90s level and no longer allow it to dominate the economic system of a country. Because it was that right-wing approach that compromised our economies.
Eureka.
Quote:
I also defend that regulation of economical institutions (that's the normal businesses) should exist to guarantee no government interferes with their function ever again. Because it was that left-wing approach that strangled our economic models and allowed for the financial system to gain a foothold in the economy.
So you are okay with, eg, scrapping leftist environmental regulations? In the US now, Republicans are talking about eliminating the EPA.
I do not believe that the game of business and economics is so holy, or such a fundamental force of nature, that it deserves to be enshrined and elevated beyond the reach of democratic governments. Money does not really make the world go round -- but if enough people believe in something strongly enough, it starts to have the weight of truth.
The bit in purple, BTW, is a complete non-sequitor, on several levels. In what way did leftist regulatory bodies allow for "the financial system to gain a foothold in the economy"??
Quote:
It's not your socialist crap or my conservative crap, or anyone's liberal crap that is going to answer the problems we face today. Those words don't even make any sense anymore.
I agree there is a lot of crap flying in all directions, but I'd include fluff like this. It sounds very appealing: wash it all away! A brand new day! Hoorah! But where is the content for the vacuum you want to create?
Quote:
They are empty of value or meaning and just reflect a society that is nearing its end if we keep at believing in them.
I agree that they may well "reflect a society that is nearing its end", and for that very reason, I do not think they are "empty of value or meaning" Which is not to say I think they are all laden with wisdom and truth, but avoiding mirrors does not make your face prettier.
If you really believe in all you've said, you would be better to put your efforts into advancing positive terms and ideas, rather than just tautological negations. You know -- go read Nietzsche, he was big on revaluation (so maybe your idea here is, in fact, an old one too. It will have to strangle itself at its own inception, and begin again...doing the same thing ad nauseum. Hmmm, maybe that is the real narrative, lol).
* but a pertinent one considering, beyond being totalitarian, it is ambiguous who the Official Revaluators are: they might be leftists communists, and they might just as easily be rightist fascists.