[Wrencytet]

Yes, we should take a look. This is going to be long, but only because I'm serious about conveying information and so forth. Many of the replies so far are the kind of thing I hear in any other politics discussion, where the people don't have a handle on it because the knowledge is just too vague. That wasn't to slam anyone, it's just an observation. People discuss because they want to find out the root of things, right? You want to know some facts, you ask questions.

As a general rule, people really don't seem to like having their ideological labels messed with. I've been over this issue previously in this forum. All the rational discussion in the world doesn't seem to dent the passion or absurdity with which partisans will invoke their ideology and denigrate that of their perceived opponents.

And even though you stated that your intention isn't to slam anyone, your post does presume to assert that I don't have a handle on the issue and that is always a good way to draw a post slam from Mad_Michael. You didn't specifically exempt my post from your critique and thus, I have to conclude that it is covered by your critique.

Indeed, partisan ideologies may be tiresome, but their intellectual apologists are fucking dangerous!

My source is a primer, and early on it explains what it calls "essentially contested concepts." I would word that as "the minimal set of assumptions you need to make definitions for a discussion."

I checked out the source and scanned the list of articles/essays and most notably, the selected authors. I'm not impressed at all given that the 'authors' are for the most part identifiable partisans who draw their fame from being featured as partisans in the mass media. Not exactly good ground work for a real discussion of the issue - rather framework to ensure that the discussion ought to conform specifically to the predefined absurdities of partisan ideology!

First, we need to know what the problems are that these ideologies try to address. So one of the minimal assumptions we need is to pin down the things we want. This is an "essentially contested" bit--it's open to debate, but in the end you may all agree on Freedom, Equality, and Democracy as building blocks for our present society. There are, you may find, 2 options for achieving each of these goals.

Forced dichotomies every one of them. Dichotomies are designed to create, encourage and/or rationalise the holding of partisan ideology.

Liberty: Positive and Negative. This isn't a value judgement, it's just a label so we all know how we're going to operate.

They are value judgements. The dichotomy is false.

My negative right to be left alone is a positive right to deny your interference with it.

My positive right to do what the fuck I want is a negative right to be left alone from your interference.

It is all the same shit.

Positive liberty is a socialistic view, and belongs to the left.

Tell this one to the capitalists (and their cheerleaders) that their positive liberty to incorporate themselves and advertise their products or services is socialistic.

Equality: Process-oriented and Results-oriented. Process-oriented equality means a level playing field. The quickie term for it is strict meritocracy. We all have the same right to work and succeed. Individual differences, advantages, or limitations are ignored. You make it on your own, sink or swim, etc. This is a small-government concept that takes pure negative freedom, and it is right-wing.

Results-oriented equality. This recognizes the individual, and strives for equality in the outcome regardless of conflicts in the process. So we get social programs to help people succeed--welfare, scholarships, affirmative action, the ADA, and so on.

Another forced dichotomy designed to create partisan ideology, instead of addessing the issue of equality. My "pure negative" freedom to be treated equally becomes a 'pure positive' freedom when one looks at the issue of my right to be treated equally before the law. Process or result orientations are just a label-spin on the issue to hide the real issue.

And the line about "strict meritocracy" where individual differences and advantages are ignored is absurd. In a strict meritocracy, individual differences and advantages are generally and specifically recognised.

As for "results-oriented equality" that sounds like double-speak for authoritarianism. Enough said.

The real question of equality, is the value and/or purpose of the goal itself - not a game about how to preserve and/or prevent and/or protect existing inequalities.

Democracy: Elitist and Participatory. Elitist democracy is closest to a republic, which is why I'm guessing they call themselves Republicans. Modern countries are too big to let everyone have a say in every process, and we don't want to be in a town hall to decide whether to let dogs run loose on the beach every day of our lives anyway. So we elect officials who assume the concentration of the power of their constituents.

Participatory democracy is the complete opposite, where everyone pariticpates. If you don't vote, that's your vote, and your wiggle room is much less than if there were a margin of thousands. This works on small scales such as neighborhood councils, town halls, etc. and is a good way to get stuff done. For instance, we had a meth house next door and now the place is infested with rats which create a problem for all of us. We don't call the governor to take care of it, so in this instance we have a degree of self-sufficiency provided by basically forming a union.

Again, another forced dichotomy designed to create partisan ideology and sidestep real or deeper issues.

Your participatory democracy model is predicated upon the rule of the elitist model... thou shalt not conceptualise a non-elite-model.

Now we know the difference at its core. Pure leftist politics takes on Positive Liberty, Participatory Democracy, and Results-oriented Equality, and pure rightist politics demands the other option. We can't have it at the extremes of the spectrum, but together the two get us what we need.

No. The existence of two theoretically opposed political/partisan ideologies within a closed framework of approach is designed to keep the framework of approach closed.

In other words, Republican or Democrat, pick your tribe and claim your support for the never-ending game of elite rule. Choose rationally and be a good cheerleader!

My apologies. I just felt like a good rant. It is a Sunday morning afterall...