Why Most of You Suck (A Late-Night Rant by Lunar about Political Identities)

[Lunar]

Let me begin by apologizing for the title.  It was just something catchy and I somewhat enjoy being unnecessarily antagonistic in order to provoke discussion about things I'm passionate about.  One of my many flaws, but it generates discussion so perhaps it works more than it detracts from the forum as a whole. 

The title's true though.  Maybe.

At least for now.  My own views will probably evolve, especially considering how I used to consider myself politically mature but I'm only recently coming to realize how immature my own feelings of political [libertarian] self-superiority were.  This thread may seem like I'm maintaining them but I really truly feel like most of my own current beliefs are based on fragments, cross-sections, and slices of knowledge from my own life and often jump to incomplete conclusions.  I don't think I have the right answers most of the time and I'm not special. 

I'm not sure how coherent this rant will be.  I'm not sure how to organize it.  I'll probably mix in anecdotes about myself.  Like the previous and next paragraphs, for example.

My own beliefs are always in evolution and I try to be authentically open minded about many things.  The things I don't try to be particularly open minded about, like basic human rights for minority groups, you can usually see me using phrases like “*smashes bottle on table and waves it violently in the air*.”  Especially considering everyone reading this is very likely a white male, I'm not especially forgiving to any claims of being oppressed.  Honestly, if I'm rude about certain select subjects like that it's because I truly believe you are on the wrong side of history and are rhetorically participating in systemic oppression and I'm concerned about the people who are suffering because people like you aren't dying off fast enough relative to your birthrate. 

Anyway, let's begin:

This:


is like 50% crap and WAY overvalued.  As is ideology in general.   What does this mean?

"Right" "Authoritarian" "Libertarian?"  Who the hell would define themselves as "authoritarian?"  Is this a fair measurement?  Why is no one else critiquing this crap?

“Fiscally conservative?”  What the hell does that mean?  At least 50% of the Democrats in the Senate would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative” as would pretty much everyone who is not given an alternative option.  Sure, “fiscally conservative” means at least a little something when contrasted with “fiscally liberal” but what point is an identity you prescribe for yourself (especially when it seems like such a big frickin' deal for some of you folks) when it's useless in a vacuum?  At least if a proud black man says “I'm a proud black man” it means something without needing to contrast it with a white woman.  “Fiscally conservative” means nothing by itself and neither does most of this crap.  I'll acknowledge that it can mean something a few paragraphs down from here.

I often see the right-wing blogosphere (I've been recently trying to read RedState as much as DailyKos, sue me) complaining about how W. wasn't a true fiscal conservative and how he betrayed his conservative principles.  Maybe that's because the people accusing him of thus made up their ideological terms in advance and assigned them to Bush without care?  How about y'all stop blaming him and blame yourselves for not being honest with yourselves starting in 2001.

I think this forum is really too obsessed with political matrix scores and artificially constructed political identities like “Hey, I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal, except positions X, Y, an Z!!”  What the hell does that even mean?  Specifically, I accuse many of you of defining who you are politically before you define your positions on the issues, and then retroactively using your artificially constructed political identity to construct your positions on the issues.  I mean, on pretty much every contentious issue in the United States, it's *really* easy to argue the Democratic or Republican position on every issue, and genuinely so.  Pick an issue and I could argue for days on EITHER side of the issue with you, regardless of what I *actually* believe, including snarky remarks and consistent logical refutations.  Will such and such policy hurt or help?  Well blah blah arguments say that it will hurt/help, which refute your blah blah arguments and we arrive where exactly in the discussion? 

How many of you can say you haven't approached a new issue at some point or an issue where you haven't developed an opinion and just slapped on a policy prescription that was pretty much predetermined from your political identity?  Whether it is “left-leaning Independent” or whatever crap we political junkies come up with for ourselves, why do we delude ourselves so thoroughly?   

I will concede that some portion of identities are simply based on allocative priorities and to that extent I think they're great in figuring out who we are and what policies would be best for us.  For example, I thought long and hard about what coherent strain of logic connects almost all Republicans but separates almost all Democrats, and vice versa.  This thought came after I asked myself what RINO and DINO even meant.  If somene could be something “in name only” it implies that there's something deep down that connects all Republicans but not all Democrats...something a little confusing if you think about it.  I came up empty in my pondering about Republicans, but I did come up with something about the Democrats, which I think defines why I'm a Democrat:  I believe when it comes down to the choice of giving help to those in need, it's a bigger injustice to not give help to someone who needs it than to give help to someone who is lazy or otherwise does not truly need the help.  I think many Republicans are more concerned in cutting off assistance from the undeserving rather than providing it to the deserving.  To be  honest, we need those people to critique the welfare systems that people who believe as I do set up, but I don't think they [Republicans] should dominate the political discourse.  And I think that means something outside of your typical back-n-forth arguments...it means I'm willing to tolerate waste if it helps people.  Other people aren't.  That's okay.

I doubt there's little here I'm ranting about that I myself am not guilty of a hundred times over in the past.  Hell, I probably take some sort of perverse pleasure in being a political loan wolf.

I'm not a very frequent guest on the economics board where genuine policy is debated, yet how can I complain about the lack of substantive policy discussion instead of our typical inane platitudes we spout off at the opposite side of the aisle?  I'm hypocritical like that and I'm flawed.

I kind of fear when I'll wake up I'll have regretted a dozen different specific phrases I used and realize I should have spent more time on this in order to avoid detracting from my larger points.  We'll see!  I'll click "post" and then deal with the consequences.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I agree, basically. In the general political paradigm, just debating issues as if there is some sort of objective answer or as if reason will light the way is silly. It's up to each person to determine where s/he stands on each issue & why. Now debating issues to attempt to show why a given position is more true to the other person's values than that person's current position is a more fruitful endeavor.

[Lunar]

    I agree, basically. In the general political paradigm, just debating issues as if there is some sort of objective answer or as if reason will light the way is silly.

That is true, which is neat.  On positions like abortion, Israel, etc., some people can acknowledge the lack of an objective, all-satisfying answer.  But the larger problem that I see is that people treat like their governmental philosophy as a whole is an aggregate objective answer to life's problems.  Government isn't the "answer" or "the problem" to anything, it's just a societal construct that only exists because we all believe in it.  It can solve collective-action dilemmas that could not be solved individually.  It can also be wasteful and inefficient.  There is no philosophy that captures all of this, so why do we assign ourselves a supposedly all-encompassing philosophy to approach government?


And in economic debates, there MAY actually be an objective answer (that which  yields the most net monetary yields, for example), but do we let these political labels get in the way?  My inclination has always been to defer to people smarter than myself when it comes to economic answers, which could explain some of my hypocrisy by not participating in more substantive discussions.  Maybe that's because I've actually met some of the people who are big voices in the national economic debate now (Romer, DeLong...), I don't know, I like to trust people and be cynical at the same time.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I agree, basically. In the general political paradigm, just debating issues as if there is some sort of objective answer or as if reason will light the way is silly.

That is true, which is neat.  On positions like abortion, Israel, etc., some people can acknowledge the lack of an objective, all-satisfying answer.  But the larger problem that I see is that people treat like their governmental philosophy as a whole is an aggregate objective answer to life's problems.

     Interesting point. I realize that my views are not necessarily proper for all people & situations, but I find them a good paradigm for the problems I care about the most. In a sense this topic is very Kuhnian, actually.

And in economic debates, there MAY actually be an objective answer (that which  yields the most net monetary yields, for example), but do we let these political labels get in the way?

     Perhaps so, but I'm inclined to think that an answer that is superior to another in every reasonable paradigm (outside of something like keeping $10 in your wallet vs. burning it) is just another brand of snake oil. To determine otherwise would mean defining every reasonable paradigm (which would require a formal definition of reasonable, among other things) & then testing the problem in every one of those paradigms. I don't have high hopes for such a project.

[Lunar]

What is your paradigm and why is that superior to a case-by-case approach?

I understand that a paradigm is necessary to approach the smaller issues that we as humans are not able to engage 100%, but we're political junkies who have way too much time on our hands.  What's our excuse(s)?  It just seems like our paradigms get in the way of legitimate discussion on this board for political junkies.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     My paradigm is more or less "avoid unnecessary interference in people's actions & interactions". However, I don't intend it to replace a case-by-case approach, but rather to govern the approach.

     What I'm getting at is that any given person's view of the world is governed by the paradigm of his/her values. As you pointed out in your original post, at the end of the day there are certain end results that you value more highly than others. That's ultimately how you can understand both sides of an issue & still manage to hold a position on it.

[Lunar]

Got some final finals to deal with before I graduate from our mutual school fore'er.  Gotta sleep, I'll promise to respond to every post in this thread as substantively as I can, but I have a lot of time constrictions until the 20th.  Gotta find a job too, crap, that's gonna suck.  I'll probably be in NYC working in a Subway trying to become a political operative but failing four months from now.
 
PiT in particular I think I have a lot to say and a lot to learn, so I hope you permit me to flesh out some of this some more.  If it's not obvious by now, most of this thread is an attack on my former Libertarian self.

Best,
-L

[Gustaf]

I think there is an objective answer to all political issues but I don't have a label with which I identify.

Suck on that.

(anyway, I agree that the concept of scores and matrix positions in political ideology is silly)

[JohnFKennedy]

I think there is an objective answer to all political issues but I don't have a label with which I identify.

Ah, but is that answer universal or is it culturally specific?

[Scam of God]

I'm simply going to re-iterate what I said elsewhere:

You see, I've been saying the same thing for some time now. I remain a devoted libertarian, but too many people on both sides of the spectrum interpret that as being simply "rah rah big businesses", when, in point of fact, nothing is father from the truth.

I do and always have considered myself as being a man of the Left, but in its historical form - that is, I want to see the equitable distribution of physical economic power into the broader hands of the lower classes. What I object to is the way those still rooted in the ideologies of the 20th century social-democratic movement have gone about it: quite frankly, welfare-statism is a pretty watered down version of the old Leftist programme, and accomplishes little save driving most of the established classes deeper into reactionism.

As I've said, I want to see a much lower level of investment in the State mechanisms by Leftists in the future. Why bother, when the technology to directly by-pass this hierarchical and inefficient route exists today? And if, as in the old Leftist analysis, the State is the bulwark of the owning class, does it not make sense to work around - and even against - it? If opportunity can be expanded to place the means of production into the hands of workers by applying what have hitherto been libertarian principles, can we not then use this opportunity to accomplish what state-socialism in the last century failed to do?

And so I consider myself far more a part of the old anarchist movements of Europe than I do an American right-libertarian. My entire career here I've been trying to reach out to Leftists and libertarians - who, scouts honor, share ideological roots in the first great democratic revolutions - and have tried to show them that their means and ends can meet.

Our entire way of viewing the political spectrum is flawed - not because the axis doesn't itself make sense, but because there is in reality a far broader range of possibilities than the extremely narrow one provided for in Western media.

I hold to an ideology. In that sense, I am an ideologue. A libertarian ideologue. But my ideology is not stereotypically libertarian - but the words I must use to express it are, because no language has been invented to accomodate it in American, and even more broadly Western, discourse. It is treated as being external to the acceptable range of debate. Therefore, more conventional Leftists - who might otherwise find much to admire in such an approach - turn against it nearly immediately.

Why must we stick with such concrete and diametrically opposed ideologies, Lunar? Because they serve to obscure other possibilities.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I think there is an objective answer to all political issues but I don't have a label with which I identify.

Suck on that.

(anyway, I agree that the concept of scores and matrix positions in political ideology is silly)

And pray tell me how do we uncover such answers? From our own brilliance?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interesting post, Lunar. I'll have a proper look through it later... because now... work beckons...

[Vepres]

Good post. I've always had problems with that. Whenever I start to identify with something, some position of mine angers others who identify with it. I used to call myself a libertarian (I still do to an extent) yet I always get attacked for not being a true "insert ideology here". Lunar, your post actually summarizes a lot I have been thinking about lately. You're right, identifying with an ideology does make a person biased when it comes to new issues, and I am guilty of that (though I often change my position many times afterward ).

[Lunar]

I'm simply going to re-iterate what I said elsewhere:

You see, I've been saying the same thing for some time now. I remain a devoted libertarian, but too many people on both sides of the spectrum interpret that as being simply "rah rah big businesses", when, in point of fact, nothing is father from the truth.

I do and always have considered myself as being a man of the Left, but in its historical form - that is, I want to see the equitable distribution of physical economic power into the broader hands of the lower classes. What I object to is the way those still rooted in the ideologies of the 20th century social-democratic movement have gone about it: quite frankly, welfare-statism is a pretty watered down version of the old Leftist programme, and accomplishes little save driving most of the established classes deeper into reactionism.

As I've said, I want to see a much lower level of investment in the State mechanisms by Leftists in the future. Why bother, when the technology to directly by-pass this hierarchical and inefficient route exists today? And if, as in the old Leftist analysis, the State is the bulwark of the owning class, does it not make sense to work around - and even against - it? If opportunity can be expanded to place the means of production into the hands of workers by applying what have hitherto been libertarian principles, can we not then use this opportunity to accomplish what state-socialism in the last century failed to do?

And so I consider myself far more a part of the old anarchist movements of Europe than I do an American right-libertarian. My entire career here I've been trying to reach out to Leftists and libertarians - who, scouts honor, share ideological roots in the first great democratic revolutions - and have tried to show them that their means and ends can meet.

Our entire way of viewing the political spectrum is flawed - not because the axis doesn't itself make sense, but because there is in reality a far broader range of possibilities than the extremely narrow one provided for in Western media.

I hold to an ideology. In that sense, I am an ideologue. A libertarian ideologue. But my ideology is not stereotypically libertarian - but the words I must use to express it are, because no language has been invented to accomodate it in American, and even more broadly Western, discourse. It is treated as being external to the acceptable range of debate. Therefore, more conventional Leftists - who might otherwise find much to admire in such an approach - turn against it nearly immediately.

Why must we stick with such concrete and diametrically opposed ideologies, Lunar? Because they serve to obscure other possibilities.

Thank you for your coherent and in depth perspective on the matter.  You present me with a challenging refutation and I like that.  Especially your last point that the identity allows you to exclude what you aren't is interesting and I'll take time to think about it in the coming days.  I just want to acknowledge it for now.  It's an interesting point, that although "fiscally conservative" or "socially libertarian" etc. is near useless in defining what you are, it may be moderately useful in defining what you aren't.


You also represent a point of view which is ideologically principled and at the same time you've always seemed really obsessed with pointing out conservatives' ideological incongruities, especially when it comes to excessive tax cuts and military spending.  One aspect of my original post that got deleted along my multiple 2am revisions was some comments about prioritizing deficit reductions being an authentic ideological perspective.  Although prioritizing deficit reduction is simply the ice cream flavor of the week for Republican strategists, it may be  a reasonable ideological priority and a basis for an economic/ideological viewpoint on policies.  I'll ponder it and respond.


I don't know.  I again promise that no point made in this thread will be ignored though.  I'm just packing up to move out of my home of five years

Although I do remember that you are an "anti-theist" -- someone who rejects the sort of exclusionary identities that religion inherently is.  Defining yourself against something else seems dangerously close to those sorts of problems.  

I'll come up with a more coherent acceptance or critique of your points later, this is just a "be right back" response

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm only recently coming to realize how immature my own feelings of political [libertarian] self-superiority were. 

Gotta find a job too, crap, that's gonna suck.

I'm guessing that these two statements are quite correlated. Nothing like looking at the job market these days to realize what epic fail right-wing economics are.

[dead0man]

Yes because looking at todays job market and only blaming "rightwing economics" is clearly a level headed conclusion to make.

[Lunar]

I'm only recently coming to realize how immature my own feelings of political [libertarian] self-superiority were.

Gotta find a job too, crap, that's gonna suck.

I'm guessing that these two statements are quite correlated. Nothing like looking at the job market these days to realize what epic fail right-wing economics are.

I'm a little confused about this correlation of snippets from my post, actually.  I promise to respond substantively to everything posted here, as I said, but I'd appreciate if you elaborated a bit more.  

I think my entire original post is an exercise in repetitive contradictions of various sorts, so if you did find a blunder (I'm not sure what you're trying to say, honestly) it wouldn't surprise me the least.  I doubt I've written a more self-conscious post in my life.

It'll take me a few days.

Me trying to find a job has almost nothing to do with my political beliefs, I think...to me it seems the natural result of graduating from college and not wishing to live with my parents where I grew up (a forest down in the Sierras of 3,000).

[Associate Justice PiT]

Yes because looking at todays job market and only blaming "rightwing economics" is clearly a level headed conclusion to make.

     Apparently left-wing economics leads to no recessions ever (I suppose it would in the most radical sense, as the market economy would have been abolished).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes because looking at todays job market and only blaming "rightwing economics" is clearly a level headed conclusion to make.

     Apparently left-wing economics leads to no recessions ever (I suppose it would in the most radical sense, as the market economy would have been abolished).

Who said anything about getting rid of the market economy?

[Lunar]

rah rah blah blah talking points, apparently.  kind of embarrassing that a thread with such passionate feelings against these "left" and "right" ideologies could turn into an inane debate between the two

but please continue

[Scam of God]

This is why we have to find a way around these divisions. jfern, do you really not believe that the State can be turned against the interests of working people? dead0man, do you really believe that large, cartelized, centralized industries wouldn't take advantage of the situation in the absence of the State?

[dead0man]

Of course they would which is why I've never once advocated the State go away.

[Scam of God]

Of course they would which is why I've never once advocated the State go away.

And don't you think they'd take advantage of a situation where even the State stopped playing a role in economic affairs?

Here's my point: we can roll back the boundaries of the State, but, in the process of doing so, it becomes immediately apparent that there are industries who essentially function as digital arms of the government. You really can't get rid of one without the other - unless you undermine both.

[dead0man]

Examples?

[Scam of God]

Examples?

The armaments industry - prime example of an industrial sector that would be radically different, and radically smaller, without direct State intervention feeding it billions every year.

Oil is another. How many innovations go unmarketed because the State continues to subsidize the activities of the oil companies?