A Familiar and Worthwhile Refrain
The Angry Independent has been blogging for almost a year now at Mirror on America.
If you haven’t yet had a chance to check out his posts, you should. His extended treatise on where he stands on various issues is refreshing to read, whether or not you agree with him, because he hold trues to his intro …
“On some issues I tend to be a little more Conservative, while on others I am a little more Progressive. Sometimes it all depends on the circumstances of a particular situation. That’s the beauty of being an independent. No one (& no political Party) can tell me how to think. I tend to end up in the Middle on some issues as well…. I am usually driven by what is most logical and practical to solve a problem…. I am not driven by blind religious and political emotionalism… like many people are on the Right (Conservatives), and on the Left (Liberals). When we rely on that, we often end up with irrational thought processes which lead to irrational, useless policies that turn into failures.”
Amen.
Also posted at Central Sanity.
12 Responses to “A Familiar and Worthwhile Refrain”
So instead of “blind religious and political emotionalism”, we get millions of individual pet theories not necessarily connected by any coherent and rational philosophy, about what seems right in each particular circumstance?
PatHMV,
I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. I think what he’s saying is similar to my earlier post today and to what other TMV contributors have said repeatedly, namely: Gross, obstinate partisanship doesn’t accomplish much if anything.
We can’t productively co-exist with each other until we’re each willing to give up a little to gain a lot more.
Life, politics, and relationships are an ongoing, evolving negotiation, so yes, in that way, every issue is a vote, decided by the majority consensus of the day.
In fact, that’s the very definition of society in my book: A group of people who agree to disagree but get along by finding the best path forward based on what the majority of the day accept, knowing that the majority of tomorrow may revise it, so that we hopefully move forward together, adapting as we go.
Coherent and rational philosophies too often translate into rigid dogma that destroys us because we refuse to admit we may not individually hold all the answers.
Hmm, ok, some good points but this sounds like aq description of wind vane McCain: “Sometimes it all depends on the circumstances of a particular situation.”
:-/
You say that like “blind religious and political emotionalism” is rational. Being coherent–having an answer that fits your pre-existing view of reality–is not really a good way to approach reality.
Approaching things as if external reality existed is a good thing. I think that’s a potent lesson of recent history. It’s one of the things the Angry Independent does.
Plus, I mostly agree with him. So he must be good.
PatHMV,
You sound like you belive that we live in an ‘Either / Or’ world.
Personally I like the “Free Will / Free Choice” scenario the one which, according to most sources, is what makes mankind special and each and every one of us unique.
I don’t at all believe in an “either/or” world. That’s my point. If the Angry Independent’s point is as Pete suggests in his comment, that’s one thing. But I know that many self-styled centrists and moderates dislike all ideology of any sort and for any reason. They dislike the concept itself, not just the concept taken to extremes. I am all for calm and rational discourse and compromise between competing political philosophies. But eschewing all ideology itself is also an extreme to be avoided. Without any underlying guiding philosophical or other principles, one is at grave risk of sinking down to situational ethics, where we have no rules that apply equally to all, just gut feelings based on who seems more sympathetic in whatever particular conflict is at hand today.
So instead of “blind religious and political emotionalism”, we get millions of individual pet theories not necessarily connected by any coherent and rational philosophy, about what seems right in each particular circumstance?
Since when have either liberalism or conservatism been a “coherent and rational philosophy”?
I’m not for the “mushy moderate” position that takes a position equidistant between liberals and conservatives for the mere sake of being moderate. But at the same time, I think it’s a mistake to believe that those on the left and those on the right actually have a principled, coherent philosophy.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a principled, coherent philosophy. They both believe in the same thing: power.
I disagree with the Angry Independent on several issues, but he makes an excellent point about the Democratic and Republican parties promoting undemocratic policies in order to maintain a two-party system (something that our first president was adamantly against).
Angry Independent, it’s all about ballot access laws. Democrats and Republicans are NEVER going to change these laws (because if they were to implement such reforms, they would risk losing power). WE as voters have to did this. This means either voting for third party or independent candidates (who support ballot access laws) or signing petitions to get third party and independent candidates on ballots. That means when you have Green, Libertarians, Constitutionists and Independents pestering you to sign their petitions, SIGN THEIR PETITIONS! You’re not VOTING for them. You’re simply giving them the same opportunity to get on the ballot and make their views heard as the Democrats and Republicans.
I’ve never understood why among centrists, moderates, and independents, there hasn’t been a bigger movement to create a third party or at least reform ballot access laws. Continuing to vote Democrat or Republican run contrary to our goals (unless that Democrat or Republican supports ballot access reform).
PatHMV,
I would agree with you on that statement. I think the challenge is to draw the boundaries of the underlying philosophy/principles broad enough that we avoid the blinders of dogma.
Right, Pete. There’s nothing wrong with having one’s positions guided by philosophy/principles/ideology. The trouble comes when one’s positions are controlled by them.
I think that’s a great point, but I would say this applies to the candidates and office holders, while the principles and philosophy apply to the voters. Just because the people we elect aren’t holding to the principles doesn’t mean that the principles don’t exist.
With AIs recent out and out lies about Kofi Annan, I shan’t be bothered.
Pete!!!
BeYourGuest!!!
TMV!!!
Thank You!!!
PatHMV
No…. I am not someone who writes off or dislikes the concept of ideology itself.
What made you think that? I just don’t like extreme ideologies. It’s fine to have ideologies and principles. I think we all have them. I just don’t have extreme ideologies and principles. They are necessary to establish a persons basic outlook on life, and to be a general guide to how we approach issues, problems, plans, etc.
I try to avoid labeling myself politically, because that tends to pin you down to adhere to some political or religious base, party or rule…. Even when a particular problem calls for you to think or to do something different. But if I had to be more specific about my general ideology, I would say that I am an Independent Progressive with some Conservative tendencies
. lol …There!!! I guess you can say I’m more pragmatic…. Tend to be more of a populist. And I am guided by basic philosophy and principles…mostly rooted in pragmatism, civil rights, justice, the gospel tradition (although I’m not a die-hard Christian), with a little bit of Democratic Socialism &Social Democracy thrown in…. (emphasis on a little). I don’t adopt all of my ideas from one individual… but various ideas from different people to shape my own. I try to think for myself….as opposed to just signing on to something. I like people such as Dr. Cornel West, although I don’t believe in everything that he stands for. If I had to label myself and had only Dem and Rep. to choose from, I would probably be a Conservative Democrat. But then again, I am pro-peace, so I don’t know how well I would fit into that camp…. most Dems and Republicans tend to be pro-war. Those pesky independent tendencies keep coming to the surface. But does that mean I’m not principled (just because I don’t sign on to everything that one philosophy or Political Party stands for, as in “all or nothing�)? No! It just means I think for myself and have an alternate view on a lot of issues.
And yes…. How you deal with a certain issue/problem should depend on the particular circumstances of that situation, so that you can get the best outcomes. There are no cookie cutter solutions to most problems….no one size fits all remedies, because most issues and problems are unique. Each has different variables to consider. If we had cookie cutter solutions for everything, there would be no need for even the idea of rational thought; there would be no need for CEO’s to identify problems, go through planning processes, and make strategic decisions about a business. If cookie cutter solutions (stringent ideologies) worked, then we could just have robots taking care of everything (programmed to whatever ideology you want). Human input would not be needed.
But I’m all for basic guiding principles…. There is nothing wrong with having principles. It’s the extreme principles that are the problem. Hitler, for example, relied heavily on principles and ideology. Just because someone (or a Party or religion) is principled of course doesn’t mean that those principles are right, and that they can’t be challenged or that someone should always be honored just for the fact that they are a principled individual.
Also, I find that folks who are too principled, tend to be stubborn…. Unwilling to listen, unwilling to be flexible (when the situation calls for it, or for a greater good), etc. People have to be able to compromise.
The best decisions are those made from well thought out, and rational ideas. Religious and political emotionalism is the opposite…. And it’s pretty dangerous. When we have political leaders around the world talking about God speaks to them and tells them to make dangerous weapons, invade countries or to kill people, and to make unrealistic policies (in the name of God, however veiled they try to make it)… that’s a sign of serious trouble. The Union of Concerned Scientists (which has liberals and conservatives) just came out with a statement saying that religious and political interference over the past few years was disrupting their work. That’s a pretty big statement coming from the Scientific community…and it goes right to the heart of what I’m stating here.
I could write forever on this topic (you all should know from my posts)….but I shall stop…. I need to get some down time.
–Krous:
What “out and out liesâ€? about Kofi Annan are you referring to??? The fact that he stood by while hundreds of thousands of his fellow Africans were slaughtered in Rwanda??? That’s an historic fact. Tell me, was Annan standing by his “principles” when those innocent men, women, and children (&babies) were being killed?
He could have at least raised a lot more hell. He has a big podium to do that from… but he didn’t even do much of that.
___________________
Thanks again Pete!!! I like your site as well….