Read The Forum Rules: We have a clear set of rules to keep the forum running smoothly. Click here to review them.

Post Reply 
Politics: Principles vs. Choosing a Side
Author Message
Sonsowey Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,303
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 52
Post: #1
Politics: Principles vs. Choosing a Side
In America we are taught to think of Politics in terms of principles. You choose a political party based on what peinciples you support. You support free markets? Ok you are a Libertarian or Republican. You support public schooling free of charge? Ok you are a Democrat.

We are taught that our principles should apply to everyone equally. You support human rights? Ok then you should be equally upset if your jeighbors rights are violated or if someone far away has their rights violated.

But really, I think politics is not about this, but about whose side you are on. This became totally transparent to me during our financial crisis. People who talked about free market capitalism suddenly were justifying trillions of dollars in government bailouts for "private" businesses. Doesn't that go against their principles? Shouldn't private businesses who have gone bankrupt fail, and make way for new more succesful businesses? That is what free market principles would dictat, creative destruction.

But no, in that crisis it became clear that truly it was just bout rooting for your side. If shouting "free market" lets you make more money in the good times, do that. If shouting "bailout" in the bad times helps you make more money, do that.

That is just an exmaple. We see this with the discourse around "violating the constitution" as well. Republicans think Obama is tearing up the constitution when really Bush began most of Obamas unconstitutional practices. Republicans believed Bush was doing everything to protect us, but Obama of course is a tyrant. Democrats, of course, said Bush was a tyrant and think Obama is doing nothing wrong.

Clearly any impartial observer would say both Presidents violated the constitution gravely in regards to domestic spying, torture, unconstitutional foreign entanglements, etc. But you see again, people only raise the issue when its the other side doing it.

What other consequences do you see, when analyzing politics from a "my side" "your side" perspective.
08-01-2014 07:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Sonsowey's post:
Deluge
Glaucon Online
Ostrich
****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,005
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 12
Post: #2
RE: Politics: Principles vs. Choosing a Side
Politics is just a show and for the limited minds. Look behind the curtain and recognize all parties are greedy career sociopath politicians how want to steal your money and gain all the power over the "unwashed masses".
08-01-2014 07:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Glaucon's post:
Dismal Operator, not_dead_yet
SheriffBart Offline
Banned

Posts: 133
Joined: Nov 2013
Post: #3
RE: Politics: Principles vs. Choosing a Side
From Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary

Politics
n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
08-01-2014 09:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes SheriffBart's post:
Hardy Daytona
Dantes Offline
Pelican
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,241
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 116
Post: #4
RE: Politics: Principles vs. Choosing a Side
(08-01-2014 07:53 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  In America we are taught to think of Politics in terms of principles. You choose a political party based on what peinciples you support. You support free markets? Ok you are a Libertarian or Republican. You support public schooling free of charge? Ok you are a Democrat.

We are taught that our principles should apply to everyone equally. You support human rights? Ok then you should be equally upset if your jeighbors rights are violated or if someone far away has their rights violated.

But really, I think politics is not about this, but about whose side you are on. This became totally transparent to me during our financial crisis. People who talked about free market capitalism suddenly were justifying trillions of dollars in government bailouts for "private" businesses. Doesn't that go against their principles? Shouldn't private businesses who have gone bankrupt fail, and make way for new more succesful businesses? That is what free market principles would dictat, creative destruction.

But no, in that crisis it became clear that truly it was just bout rooting for your side. If shouting "free market" lets you make more money in the good times, do that. If shouting "bailout" in the bad times helps you make more money, do that.

That is just an exmaple. We see this with the discourse around "violating the constitution" as well. Republicans think Obama is tearing up the constitution when really Bush began most of Obamas unconstitutional practices. Republicans believed Bush was doing everything to protect us, but Obama of course is a tyrant. Democrats, of course, said Bush was a tyrant and think Obama is doing nothing wrong.

Clearly any impartial observer would say both Presidents violated the constitution gravely in regards to domestic spying, torture, unconstitutional foreign entanglements, etc. But you see again, people only raise the issue when its the other side doing it.

What other consequences do you see, when analyzing politics from a "my side" "your side" perspective.



So much is talked about the Red Pill here. One of the biggest Red Pill realizations is related to a lack of significant difference in governing practices between Democrats and Republicans. Obama has virtually continued the Bush's foreign policy that was so fiercely criticized by Democrats.

The governing and legislative bodies are controlled by corporate interests. The arguments between the Left and the Right seem silly once you understand that corporations have a strangle hold on our politicians and control their voting and governing interests. Despite their public bickering , these guys belong to the same social club- rich, white, and from old money who went to Ivy League schools. Look at the Clintons and Bush family for example. Publically they were political rivals, privately they are the best of friends.
08-01-2014 10:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dantes's post:
El Chinito loco
TigerMandingo Offline
Banned

Posts: 4,016
Joined: Dec 2013
Post: #5
RE: Politics: Principles vs. Choosing a Side
(08-01-2014 10:20 AM)Dantes Wrote:  Look at the Clintons and Bush family for example. Publically they were political rivals, privately they are the best of friends.

Yep. There's this myth of "the spirit of competition" and "rivalry" among American political parties, corporations, and private interests. Nothing of the sort exists. These guys are high-fiving each other in private. Obama and Bush probably play squash together at the same country club.

"Competition" is for the poor and the peons. The top-tier elites co-operate and work together.
08-01-2014 10:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like TigerMandingo's post:
Dantes, El Chinito loco
TheWastelander Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 2,458
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 50
Post: #6
RE: Politics: Principles vs. Choosing a Side
Lot of strawmanning going on in your post.
08-01-2014 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
El Chinito loco Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 4,694
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 71
Post: #7
RE: Politics: Principles vs. Choosing a Side
(08-01-2014 10:29 AM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 10:20 AM)Dantes Wrote:  Look at the Clintons and Bush family for example. Publically they were political rivals, privately they are the best of friends.

Yep. There's this myth of "the spirit of competition" and "rivalry" among American political parties, corporations, and private interests. Nothing of the sort exists. These guys are high-fiving each other in private. Obama and Bush probably play squash together at the same country club.

"Competition" is for the poor and the peons. The top-tier elites co-operate and work together.

Politics is essentially a sport for these people. It's what you do when you have a shitload of money, unlimited ambition, and are just at the right influence level to play ball. It's not representative of the people as much as it is representative of a small core of the American population pulling the strings. That is the true definition of our modern "republic."

The elite and the average American's interests have occasionally coincided in the past to bring relative prosperity to the nation. But these interests have been diverging for quite some time now. We're entering a new dark and uncertain phase of U.S. development which will be characterized by increasing inequality, political disenfranchisement, and reduction of the middle class.

The middle class is pesky for the elite and always will be. They aren't poor enough to be completely manipulated and they aren't rich enough to be part of the club.
08-01-2014 07:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication