Politics 101

[Guest]

so there are these political threads around which i ignore because i know nothing about the topic and never have been interested to know really

i'm ganna have one hell of a lot of time on my hands soon, so im broadening my horisons. So whos gonna indulge me? Tell me what i should know bout politics.

Oh and treat me with sympathy cause i really know NOTHING.

I'm a blank canvas.

 

[Equinoxe]

I'm tempted, but I don't think my idea of politics is quite where to begin.

I do find though that political threads, such as it were, are rarely genuinely about politics: they are more commonly about current events of a political nature and by necessity one has to have some background (as you say) in order to have a perspective.

My question, though, is what exactly are you looking for in a hasty Lit political education? There is the historical and descriptive aspect, with the nature and development of political systems and the history of major political events, as well as the ideological and philosophical aspect of politics and of government. While others can provide background and information to an extent, it is generally preferred (at least in theory) that individuals arrive at their own ideological and philosophical conclusions. Do you want to know about different systems of government and the development of political ideas? About the different political philosophies and ideologies which were prominent throughout history, and especially those which are most influential today? Or do you just want to know what the major events in the world right now are?

Also, I suspect that it would be wise to insist upon hearing from a broad group of people, because you are likely to get a rather one-sided view from each.

 

[Guest]

... because you are likely to get a rather one-sided view from each.

thats partly why i asked, I know there will be one sided views and i think it would be interesting to see those who post give me their opinion.

i totally intend to read up on the topic as well

and i wont take anything anyone says as fact just like that

 

[Equinoxe]

thats partly why i asked, I know there will be one sided views and i think it would be interesting to see those who post give me their opinion.

i totally intend to read up on the topic as well

and i wont take anything anyone says as fact just like that

Of course; it probably sounds dismissive to even have said it, which was not my intention.

It will be interesting to see people's opinions and, I think, especially to see them in general rather than in specific (which is the case in most political threads).

I have to note though, that you did not answer my question.

 

[cantdog]

Aw, it ain't so hard

To avoid politics, you must live and work entirely alone. More than one house ape guarantees politics on some level. The thing gets cranking with three or more, because the very first time only two agree, then someone has to give something up in order for the group to continue together.

Do you accommodate for the preference of the odd man out? Do you seek some sort of compromise position? Do you bluntly and simply impose the will of the majority? Do you open the floor to discussion, hoping that some clear solution might emerge through reason? Do you split the group, so that all may proceed to suit themselves?

Politics. That's all there is to it.

You come to it as a human being, willing to think and willing to talk, and take it a step at a time.

Svenskaflicka started a thread just now with a political bent, about Malmö University.

Do you have something to say about that? You do not need to define your party or your ism, you know. Issue by issue you will define it, as you go. Eventually, you will find you have some positions and opinions in common with others, but there's plenty of time for that.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Ummm.. Fem...
What part of politics do you want to know about?

Power Brokering
Foreign Policy
Economy
The under-the-table Dealing
Taxation
Re-Election
Disinfranchisment of the Middle and Lower Classes

It's a big subject, Love

 

[cantdog]

For instance, take my own approach. In the back of my head, I have a construct that I consult in the arena of public politics and smallbore workplace politics, and even in family politics. The idea is that we are all searching for the way to live that is the best one we can devise.

As a family, we want to have a good life, one we can dig. One that allows for the members of it to grow, to develop into competent and humane people who have plenty of room for love. In the questions which include the whole civilization, it should do the same, or it's not as good a civilization as it could be.

If it routinely makes one group in it more miserable in order to make a different group live large, it is not the way to live. But that's me. Some people could care about quality of life, and bring to the table a different construct. They will ask only one overriding question, maybe. Like, Is It Good For Me Personally? Or If I Do Happen To Get Rich Some Day, Will This Mean I Get To Keep All My Wealth For Just Me, Me, Me? Or, Is This Idea Good For My Chosen Group? Or, Is This Decision Going To Produce The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number?

Because political decisions are frequently also moral ones.

Even if the morality is as shallow as pure egotism. Egotism is valid, if that's all you got. You got a perfect right to find things to be moral only if they help You, and find them wrong if they don't. The Buddha is likely to be represented in the civilization, too, and his morality will differ from that.

 

[fifty5]

OK, here is (from my pov) a basic start:

There's "left wing" and "right wing", which are often styled as "democrat" and "republican", "liberal" and "conservative"...

They are both selfish, but the right wing approach is that if everyone gets to look after themselves, I will get to look after myself, while the left wing approach is that if we all look after everyone, then that'll include me!

Another divde goes by similar names: "radical" versus "conservative" (the same labels get applied!) Radicals want to change things, because there's lots that's wrong. Conservatives want to keep things the same, because there's lots that's OK.

Again, both arguments are true - as far as they go...

To decide which you are, think about some other poor bastard who is even worse off then you are: if it is more important to you to change things so that guy/girl comes up to the current average (and you hope you'll get something out of the change too), then you are a "left wing", "liberal". If you think it's more important to reward people like yourself ('cos you deserve it!) - and you're think you know enough about the system to work it so you can get rewarded, then you're a "right wing", "conservative".

Think air fares. Should they go up by taxing aviation fuel so fewer people (including you) can afford to fly - so there's less carbon emissions - or do you want to clock up more air miles and see the world before the fuel runs out?

You can probably guess which way my vote goes!#

Yeah, like everyone else, I have my bias.

 

[TheEarl]

so there are these political threads around which i ignore because i know nothing about the topic and never have been interested to know really

i'm ganna have one hell of a lot of time on my hands soon, so im broadening my horisons. So whos gonna indulge me? Tell me what i should know bout politics.

Oh and treat me with sympathy cause i really know NOTHING.

I'm a blank canvas.

My advice? Listen, but don't believe.

There's a heck of a lot of political knowledge on these boards and you can learn a hell of a lot just by listening and seeing where your opinions lie after hearing the arguments. But take everything with a pinch of salt, as we've all got our own axes to grind and everything we say must be heard with that in mind.

It's good fun though.

The Earl

 

[Wildcard Ky]

OK, here is (from my pov) a basic start:

There's "left wing" and "right wing", which are often styled as "democrat" and "republican", "liberal" and "conservative"...

There's an example of another issue with politics. No matter what stand you take, others will try to categorize you as one of those two. You're either a liberal or a conservative. There seems to be a concerted effort to keep people from calling themselves moderate. Middle ground isn't readily accepted by those firmly aligned on one side or the other.

I'm a moderate. Liberals call me a conservative, and conservatives call me a liberal. Their opinions mean little to me. I know what I think on each of the issues, I don't need someone to tell me what they think I am.

Don't let someone try to categorize you either. Learn what you can about the issues, and make up your own mind based on what you feel to be right.

 

[elsol]

Here's all you need to know about politics:

Whatever you believe in, treat it like an article of religious faith.

 

[human_male]

You'll find your own political leanings as you venture into the subject. They are based on our personalities just as much as our tastes in things like food and music. A concervative never convinced a liberal of their point of view and the other way around, just like no one who loves curry ever convinced anyone who hated it that it's actually very good if you just think it through.

 

[oggbashan]

Compromise and belief

Politics is the art of settling arguments between people without violence. When politics fail, violence is the usual result.

Politics apply to all human interaction from one to one discussions about whose turn it is to wash up, to international diplomacy to avoid or end a war.

The problem with politics is that it is practised by politicians.

Politicians can believe two or more mutually incompatible ideas at once, for example that all people are equal and have equal rights under the law AND that those who vote for me deserve better than the rest... OR that taxation should be low but I want government money for my state/district.

Despite media reports, most political discussions end in mutual agreement across party lines because there is a problem, a solution that meets the needs, and the solution doesn't impinge on the political beliefs. The arguments that make the media are those where our representatives differ and particularly those where the public is divided almost equally. Whatever happens, nearly half the electorate is going to be annoyed.

For example, a recent public consultation recently on an expensive local proposal found 43% for; 44% against and 13% didn't know. However only 150 odd forms were returned out of 10,000 sent out. The politicians argued for hours before all of them agreed to decide to do nothing. If only 150 people cared enough to return the form, it wasn't worth the expenditure.

One of the odd things about local poltics is that the length of discussion does not relate to the importance of the agenda item, but to its understandability. Last year at a local council meeting the year's budget and finances were agreed within half an hour but the same people spent an hour and a half discussing where a hut should be built to house a ride-on lawnmower. Everyone understood about garden huts. Very few understood the detail of the accounts.

When meetings are supposed to be held in public, the vigour of the debate and the point-scoring by one party against the other, depend on how many members of the public and press are present. Many of the meetings I go to are supposed to be 'in public' yet I am the only member of the 'public' present and there are no press. Those meetings are conducted reasonably and the debate is about the issues.

When the meeting is attended by large numbers of the public, the politicians 'grandstand' and play to the audience, criticising each other and trying to make the other side look bad... Until the public leave after the controversial item when they revert to normal.

Politicans like hearing themselves and seeing themselves in the media. That brings votes at the next election because 'your' politician must have been busy to be mentioned so often.

Politicians are expert at selling themselves. If you want unshakeable belief and certainty, don't trust one.

Og

 

[scheherazade_79]

I'm a blank canvas.

I'd love to paint a masterpiece on your blank canvas

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Love,
Being entirely generic, Politics is the Art of the Possible. It's all about Influencing, Negotiating and Convincing people, groups, countries or regions. To see what is going on in the politics you are seeing you have to look at the interests and self-interests of the various groups involved.

International politics has to do with gaining power and influence though treatys over trade, immigration, border disputs, and gaining allies to war against another nation or region. For instance, on the global level look at Iraq. That's a fairly insugnificant country that doesn't really have much other than a long history (it used to be Babylon) and a fair amount of oil. The UK and the US could really care about Iraq's history but they do have an serious interest in their oil. So, the western political system convices their people and as many of their allies that the Iraqi leadership is "bad", members of Al Quida and have WMD's they plan on using to invade Denver, Colorado or someplace. Is it all a lie? Yes, but that doesn't matter. Countries go to war because one country wants something another country has - adjoining land, natural resources, border security and so on. All countries suffer from self interest and national self interest is what leaders use to maintain there power.

On a local level, politics is about gaining power and keeping it. Staying in power sometimes means smearing or even murdering those who oppose you. The tactics used depend on the country and its cultural history. The central African countries use "ethnic cleansing" on a regular basis. Look at Somolia. Chad, Botswana and others. But it's not strictly a black problem. It also occured several years ago in the Balkins between the Croates and Serbs. Historically, ethnic and cultural cleansing go back in history to the beginning of recorded time. A couple of examples of cultural cleansing are the Eyptian skisms at the end of the 19th Dynasty when all record of Pharoes Akanatin, Semkare and Nebkarure were wiped from history by Horumheb only to be rediscovered in the 1920's and the enslavement of the Hebrews by Babylon then later by Egypt, moving the entire population leaving Isreal barren for centuries in the attempt to convert the Hebrews to the conquorer's religion.

And I'm quite certain that when Neandratal met Cro-Magnon ethnic cleansing was what eventually lead to the extinction of the older Neandratal specie. Why? Because it's the nature of man kind to expand while driving off or killing its competition.

The only real thing that ties all of politics together, at least in the politics of the last 3000 years, is power and wealth. Gold and Silver is the reason the Nubians were conquored by the Egyptians in the 3rd Dynasty. The Romans conquored most of europe for the tribute they would receive. And the same reason the Isrealis went to war over the West Bank and Golan Heights - the wealth derived from valuable farm land. Now we've come full circle back with Iraq and access to their oil.

Hope this helps, Fem

 

[ChilledVodkaIV]

The political compass

Take the test

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I'm a moderate. Liberals call me a conservative, and conservatives call me a liberal. Their opinions mean little to me. I know what I think on each of the issues, I don't need someone to tell me what they think I am.

Don't let someone try to categorize you either. Learn what you can about the issues, and make up your own mind based on what you feel to be right.

One of the problems there is the definition of Liberal and Conservative. And the difinition tends to change over time. Remember the "Conservative" Republican party bills itself as "the party of Lincoln" and I don't see Abraham Lincoln as a Conservative.

During the past 100 years in the US Conservative and Liberal have taken on completely different meanings. The conservatives on the "Right" who advocate big business, big government and "trickle down" economics. While Liberals are on the "Left" advocating general welfare of the middle and lower classes. Hence the continuing battle over Social Security Funding, Tax incentives, Minimum Wage, Oil Drilling Rights, Timber Reserves, School Funding and so on.

It would seem more politically adventageous to everyone to have more "moderates" in elected positions because they have a more balanced viewpoint. But that's not the way party politics works

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Take the test

My God... I'm Ghandi. Does this mean I have to drink my pee?

 

[rgraham666]

Take the test

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77

Yep. That's me all right. A full blown anarcho/commie scumbag.

 

[TxRad]

Politics and religion..... two arguements looking to happen...... enough said.....

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Take the test

I landed right with Gandhi.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Ummm.. Fem...
What part of politics do you want to know about?

Power Brokering
Foreign Policy
Economy
The under-the-table Dealing
Taxation
Re-Election
Disinfranchisment of the Middle and Lower Classes

It's a big subject, Love

Let's add to this list:

Destruction of Individualism
Dependence on Government
Wealth Re-distribution

 

[cantdog]

You are correct, again, zeb_. Rugged individualism is strongest when we obey.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Hmmm...just where I thought.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.00

 

[rgraham666]

In my opinion we can blame destruction of individuality more on our business community than our government.

But I'm an anarcho/commie scumbag, so I would.