Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

41766My views Re: politics

Expand Messages
  • bhvwd
    Jul 3, 2007
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
      > > The former, social discourse, is a space wherein a debate can
      take place, but
      > > if I am consigned a role in such, I do not see why I should
      celebrate any
      > > middle.
      >
      > To me, political change requires compromise and sometimes slow
      evolutionary steps. My
      > very deep aversion to the death penalty, for example, is not likely
      to be a position adopted
      > by most voters / politicians. Instead of trying for an "outright
      win" in the political arena, I
      > try to argue other elements of the problem. For example, it is hard
      to argue that the
      > application reveals social and political biases in the courts.
      Also, one can point to those
      > freed thanks to DNA and modern forensics. In other words, I shift
      the debate to those
      > areas I think there might be consensus.
      >
      > Do I surrender my philosophical notion that the state shouldn't
      take a life? No. But, I also
      > realize there is a more effective approach politically.
      >
      > I've shifted a lot in life, from the normal "left" of undergraduate
      years to a libertarian
      > approach. The more I worked in / around government, the less I
      trusted it.
      >
      > My philosophical approach is to still dream of a time when people
      get along and help each
      > other voluntarily. I still imagine people have a responsibility to
      mutually respect each
      > other's rights and freedoms.
      >
      > Politically? I see government in all nations is about the powerful
      elites, not idealism.
      >
      > Philosophical grounding would help our leaders, as it would any
      group of people. I want
      > people to consider "The Other" and how our choices impinge on the
      other. I want people
      > to consider, "What if country/group X did Y to me? What of my
      rights, then?"
      >
      > Yes, I'm definitely more libertarian than I was two decades ago.
      I'm also more pro-union,
      > I'm generally more ambivalent about my support for the ACLU (I
      cannot believe they are
      > supporting the installation of foot baths in our colleges in
      Minnesota -- uhg), and still a
      > devoted supporter of the National Wildlife Federation (but not the
      Sierra Club).
      >
      > My philosophy remains apart from political action because I have to
      compromise to get
      > things done at the university and in our schools. You cannot go in
      with "I think we should
      > shift taxes collected from one district to the inner city schools" -
      - a position I hold.
      > Instead, you have to explain to the suburbs why they don't want
      inner city schools
      > collapsing and failing. My beliefs have to be mediated to get
      action.
      >
      > I am not a politician, since I couldn't compromise nearly as often
      as it is required. But, I
      > have been much better at compromise in the last four years than in
      the past.
      >
      > Pragmatism becomes more appealing when I need to accomplish
      something. At those
      > moments, Rorty and Schiappa guide my reasoning. When I shift to
      freedoms, I still turn to
      > a mix of Continental thinkers.
      >
      > Philosophy and the reality conflict. I support republican ideals,
      with limits on the majority.
      > I always fear the majority and its ability to abuse power -- even
      when my views might be
      > in the majority.
      >
      > When we implement a philosophy, it changes. What is good in the
      ideal is always off when
      > men and women try to implement those ideals.
      >
      > Politics is about getting things done. It means terrible choices,
      like which houses must
      > give way to new roads and transit lines. Politics is not
      philosophy, at those moments. But, I
      > think philosopher-leaders would ask, "Is it really fair that we
      always put the roads through
      > poor or middle-income neighborhoods?" I want politicians to feel
      some internal agony
      > over every choice, while still making a choice.
      >
      > Isn't that the core of existentialism? Most choices have a
      negative, Sartre said, but we tend
      > to ignore the negatives so we can act free of guilt. I want more
      guilt from our leaders. Lots
      > more guilt.
      >CSW, With the people we have at the top there is no guilt.
      Caligula rules and look out if you are his horse or sister. Bill
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic