4 ms·

I've seen almost exactly symmetrical characterizations of the left from the right. What are the chances that a country divides 50-50 into two groups, one of whi

I've seen almost exactly symmetrical characterizations of the left from the right. What are the chances that a country divides 50-50 into two groups, one of which is right about everything and the other of which is entirely deceived? Is it more likely that that is the case, or that the population splitting into two highly ideologically coherent groups is a natural equilibrium when you have factions competing for power (democracy)? Even if it's true, how can you be sure you're on the side that really has the truth? How do you break the symmetry?

eropple 10y ago
Minor thing: the country doesn't divide "50-50" into two groups. The people who vote divide into those groups. Once you expand to the population as a whole, it's more of a two-thirds "recognizable permutation of reality" to one-third "I don't even know" split. Important distinction. (Non-voters lean pretty heavily left. Getting them off their couches...is a challenge.) But to the main thrust of your post, I've seen those characterizations of the left, too. I made those characterizations of the left. I was wrong then, and I was wrong precisely because I was evaluating the left positions based on postulates that were horseshit. Not that I would ever make criticisms based on those postulates, 'cause I knew those were loser arguments. It was not until I was able to broaden my horizons and learn a certain structural courage to challenge them that I realized that they were not just loser arguments because those principles were not well-shared but loser arguments because those principles were gross. Even Reagan (who I view as kind of the beginning of this ideological rot in conservatism) was able to talk about fundamental principles of his conservatism. Whatever Trump's fundamental principles are, he speaks not to them. Nor does a Paul Ryan, for a more establishment conservative. My conclusion is that either those principles don't exist or they are repugnant enough that someone with savvy knows to run from them. YM, of course, MV. You don't have to agree with me. But I believe, and believe strongly, that someone who does not have or does not speak to their principles, towards the points that orient their moral compass, knows that they are wrong.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>What are the chances that a country divides 50-50 into two groups, one of which is right about everything and the other of which is entirely deceived? There is no symmetry. 37% identify as conservatives, 35% as moderates, and 24% as liberals[1]. That leaves 4% for "other". So we're actually talking about 63% of the country being "non-crazy" or "non-propagandized", although I suspect that many self-identified conservatives despise what the Republican Party has become. [1] -- http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideology-lead-thread.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideolog...

eropple 10y ago

Minor thing: the country doesn't divide "50-50" into two groups. The people who vote divide into those groups. Once you expand to the population as a whole, it's more of a two-thirds "recognizable permutation of reality" to one-third "I don't even know" split. Important distinction. (Non-voters lean pretty heavily left. Getting them off their couches...is a challenge.) But to the main thrust of your post, I've seen those characterizations of the left, too. I made those characterizations of the left. I was wrong then, and I was wrong precisely because I was evaluating the left positions based on postulates that were horseshit. Not that I would ever make criticisms based on those postulates, 'cause I knew those were loser arguments. It was not until I was able to broaden my horizons and learn a certain structural courage to challenge them that I realized that they were not just loser arguments because those principles were not well-shared but loser arguments because those principles were gross. Even Reagan (who I view as kind of the beginning of this ideological rot in conservatism) was able to talk about fundamental principles of his conservatism. Whatever Trump's fundamental principles are, he speaks not to them. Nor does a Paul Ryan, for a more establishment conservative. My conclusion is that either those principles don't exist or they are repugnant enough that someone with savvy knows to run from them. YM, of course, MV. You don't have to agree with me. But I believe, and believe strongly, that someone who does not have or does not speak to their principles, towards the points that orient their moral compass, knows that they are wrong.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>What are the chances that a country divides 50-50 into two groups, one of which is right about everything and the other of which is entirely deceived? There is no symmetry. 37% identify as conservatives, 35% as moderates, and 24% as liberals[1]. That leaves 4% for "other". So we're actually talking about 63% of the country being "non-crazy" or "non-propagandized", although I suspect that many self-identified conservatives despise what the Republican Party has become. [1] -- http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideology-lead-thread.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideolog...