What should motivate political views?

_db

I do not have a history of being political. I have a decent grasp of how the United States' government (is supposed to) work, from some classes I took in grade school. But I hardly have a sophisticated political outlook. And I want to start to change that.

Sometimes I have brief sympathies with anarchism or some form of libertarianism. They seem to align well with a lot of my own ethical beliefs.

But generally I think there is some to truth the idea that in an ideal world, we wouldn't have government, and that government is a necessary evil. To quote Kafka, every revolution is followed by an endless slime of bureaucracy.

So, from an idealist, ethical position, anarchism or libertarianism seems like the obvious choice. But for all intensive purposes, anarchism seems to be wholly implausible, and probably in most formulations incompatible with human nature. Therefore, practicality is what is opposing anarchism.

I can see myself going through this line of reasoning:

1.) Ideally we should not need governments, so anarchism is what I ideally believe in

2.) The world and its inhabitants are not ideal

3.) Therefore anarchism is not practically tenable

4.) Therefore I must adopt a new political view

In any case, the position I would adopt in the end would be one based on pragmatics, and not principles. I don't think it's too controversial to say that most or all of the great political revolutions were revolutions of principles, and not of pragmatics. Indeed the "spark" of political revolution seems to die once you realize you have to settle for a second-rate political future.

The trouble with simply holding an idealist belief is that it is easy. Just look at what is going on in the EU with the refugees. Far-left politicians are able to sit comfortably in their chairs, denounce the border patrols, and yet understand that what they are themselves advocating is entirely implausible. Europe just can't hold all these refugees in a safe and secure manner.

Thus idealism without practicality is an exercise in decadence and ego-stroking; the idealist is so pure and formal that they are disgusted at the possibility of living in an impure and informal setting. We must ask these idealists to get off their asses and start being a productive member of society, instead of being so narrow-sighted in their belief that they lose focus on the wider picture at play. We can and should criticize the theoretician for living in a fantasy world, one which they are the ruler and get everything they want.

The trouble with being a straight-up pragmatist is that it limits what we can do to what is currently perceived to be the case. As soon as we start theorizing about new or different methods of doing something, we are implicitly leaving behind pragmatism. We have to go beyond our capabilities in order to turn back and pull everyone else forward. Which is why I had said that idealism works well on the personal and small-society level, where the inherent limitations of larger groups don't manifest. In any case, we should theorize ideally and then constrain pragmatically when appropriate, because starting out with constraints is inherently biased and prone to miscalculations due to laziness and apathy to the status quo.

So what do you see as the motivations behind holding political views? Should we hold political views based on our morals, or based on pragmatics, or a combination, or something else?

wuliheron

Unsatisfying Crap!

When a nation has a nice sense of humor,
Horse's drag manure through their fields.
When a nation loses its sense of humor,
Horses bear soldiers through its streets.
There is no greater folly than ignoring our own horseshit!
There is no greater disaster than losing our sense of humor!
There is no greater sickness on earth,
Than buying unsatisfying crap nobody wants!
Poisoning the very ground and each other,
Feeling incapable of ever stopping!

Terrapin Station

Should we hold political views based on our morals, or based on pragmatics, or a combination, or something else? — darthbarracuda

I prefer moral views based on "pragmatics." I don't care for principle-oriented approaches. They seem to lead to absurd positions.

So political views are going to be based on pragmatics for me, and I think they should be a combo of morally-rooted and other sorts of pragmatic considerations.

My own political views are a very idiosyncratic combo of libertarianism and socialism.

Barry Etheridge

As soon as we start theorizing about new or different methods of doing something, we are implicitly leaving behind pragmatism. — darthbarracuda

I'm not sure I follow the logic of this at all. It's entirely pragmatic to want to do the things you do better surely? That requires constant review and occasional innovation. It seems to me entirely unpragmatic to think that one has reached a state of acceptable efficiency and sufficiency in a world where needs are constantly changing.

Wayfarer

↪Barry Etheridge

Besides, by that criteria, pragmatism would be self-defeating, because to judge whether you're leaving it behind would require appealing to 'the principle of pragmatism'; a judgement about what is or isn't pragmatic is a matter of principle.

As for the question, I think one's political views should follow from your philosophy, of how you think social problems ought to be faced and dealt with, how public money should be spent, how schools and hospitals funded, and so on. I've got little tolerance for those who say that politics is broken, because it relies on public involvement to fix it. I tend towards a centrist view - favouring public education and health, higher taxes on the wealthy, regulation of the financial sector, however socially conservative in other respects.

Thorongil

Should we hold political views based on our morals, or based on pragmatics, or a combination, or something else? — darthbarracuda

We should hold them based on the facts, such as human nature.

Of course in an ideal world we wouldn't need a state, but ideal worlds don't exist except in the imagination. The only alternative is what I and Thomas Sowell would term the tragic view of politics: there are no perfect solutions, only trade offs and compromises. The US founders understood this, which is why the American revolution was so different from the French. The former was waged by pessimists and the latter by optimists, to put it perhaps overly simply. The US had built in enough checks on power and self-correcting mechanisms, based on a pessimistic view of human nature and a fear of both mob rule and autocratic tyranny, such that it could resolve its own internal contradictions and abuses, such as slavery. Not so in France, whose revolution ended in horrific bloodshed, the destruction of culture and art, and eventually tyranny. This tracks the two strains in Enlightenment thought as well, which I would once again term pessimistic and optimistic; between Burke and Herder one might say. Too often the Enlightenment is trashed by the postmodern left and the reactionary right as inaugurating a contemptuous and bloodstained optimism and idealism, but these groups are quite ignorant of the tragic strain within this movement.

Moliere

I guess I would ask -- what is a pragmatics vs. a supposed idealism?

It seems to me that such views are just principled in another way -- not that they sacrifice principles, but that they have different ones. Or, at the very least, as you have defined the terms no one would call themselves idealists including people who call themselves anarchists.

BC

So what do you see as the motivations behind holding political views? — darthbarracuda

The first place to start is what comes to most people's minds first: What are my interests, what are the interests of my family, my closest friends? In a wider circle, there is my neighborhood, my community. Farther out there is the state or province, region, or nation in which everything that is important to us is situated. Then there are many other nations, and their interests. But what really concerns us is our immediate needs and wants (and those around us).

I'd start with pragmatism: What is going to work for us (me, my family and my friends) as we seek what we must have (food, shelter, clean water, fuel (in winter), etc) and what we very much desire to have (freedoms to live our lives in a way that is compatible with our community). I want the freedom to read what I want, see the kind of films that I like, hear the kind of music I prefer, talk about politics along the lines that make sense to me, and so on. I don't have to agree with everyone in the community, or they with me, but everyone's best bet is to live without interfering with each other too much.

I do not have a history of being political. — darthbarracuda

Then what you have needed and wanted must have been more or less yours for the taking. We can avoid "being political" when what we need and want IS available and entirely consistent with the community. You have a job with which you support yourself; housing, food, clothing, essential services, access to at least urgent medical care if needed, adequate transportation, and so on. These things exist because you are the beneficiary of earlier political efforts.

We generally "get political" because we have needs that are not being met. Lots of people who had no "political history" got political because they lacked basic civil rights, could not support themselves even though they were working, were considered sick and criminal on account of their homosexuality, could not get decent prices for their crops, had no access to public transit, were being forced out of their homes because property taxes were extremely high, couldn't find apartments, and so on and so forth.

My first "real" self-interest political activity was in the gay community. In 1971, being gay left one vulnerable to anti-gay discrimination: trouble renting an apartment, job seeking, arrest while seeking sexual partners [but not having sex] in public places, and so on. Vietnam had been a political cause, but it wasn't "personal" -- I was at no risk of being drafted (poor vision). It just seemed wrong.

In the early 1980s my political interest shifted to socialism, and it remains a personal political interest, because I don't like the way our economy works, especially on the micro level of jobs, wages, unemployment, really tedious work, and so on. Everybody says socialism is a waste-of-time dream, and not a very good dream at that, but they also have nothing better to suggest as they themselves struggle with life under capitalism.

ralfy

It should be motivated by the effects of global warming (coupled with environmental damage) and a resource crunch which are currently taking a toll on the global population and will grow worse.

Sure. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have government. But that world is unrealistic. We should focus instead on realistic visions of this world. So, that's that.

What is best is when the right principles are combined with pragmatic solutions. People are, largely, politically motivated by what is percieved to be in their interests. However, the problem is that what many people perceive to be in their interests sometimes is not in their interests. And that what is in their interests isn't necessarily what is right. What people ought to be politically motivated by is what is right and achievable.

For that reason, I think one ought to be politically motivated by inequality, amongst other issues. But that is a big one.

And, by the way, I can relate to your position, because I went through it myself not too long ago. Several years ago, I didn't care as much, was largely indifferent, wouldn't go out and vote, and so on. But then Russell Brand, socialism, Karl Marx, Jeremy Corbyn, and the Labour Party sparked my attention.

jkop

Someone who views inequality as wrong might understand why it matters to him when too much inequality makes a society more violent and insecure compared to societies in which people are more equal. Hence the moral or political view that inequality is wrong, which in turn motivates him and like minded to not only have the view but act and support public movements for the reduction of inequality.

What should motivate political views?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions