3 ms·

>If a voter is reacting emotionally to propaganda, without taking the time to understand the real story, is this much different from rolling dice? To understan

>If a voter is reacting emotionally to propaganda, without taking the time to understand the real story, is this much different from rolling dice? To understand the "real story", I'd trust someone who had paid attention to what the parties have done over decades, reading news and analysis, over someone who merely read a book on political philosophy at some point.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
My list wasn't meant to be exhaustive. Of course you're right, that an understanding of history and who the actors are is important as well. However, to prefer that point of view is to exclude other possibilities outside of the status quo. For example, the Republicans were pretty new back in the mid-1800's, with Abraham Lincoln being the first Republican elected president. If my vote were based on past performance of the parties, I'd only have considered Democrats and Whigs. And if you're following along, you'll notice that the President credited with freeing the slaves was a Republican. How did that happen? Over time, the positions of the American parties have changed quite drastically. In the early 1900s, it was the Democrats who were backing big business. but the civil rights movement shuffled things significantly. Similarly, the (American) definition of "liberal" has changed significantly since the late 1800s. Back then, a liberal's ideas would correspond more closely to today's Libertarians or perhaps a small-government Republican. My point here is that history can only have limited utility. First, by definition, it excludes new ideas. Second, the parts of the players shift so that long-term comparisons become problematic.