I am getting a bit depressed with all this reading about Hitler. It started as an exercise in fiction character development and now I have wandered too far into Hitler's actual life, which turns out to be not all that fascinating. I will take a couple days break from him and get back into better spirits. I don't think I would want to write a work of fiction with someone acting like Hitler acted, anyway but I will see the project through.I have been hearing a lot (on the news, I mean) about "ideology" and "Ideologues". Naturally, I thought of Redbrand and the Scientist. Anyway, I was feeling all smug and superior because I am not an ideologue (of course) but got to thinking that maybe I should have some sort of political beliefs instead of just being so anti right wing and anti left wing. At least they know what they believe. All I believe is that all politicians should be waterboarded and then shot. What kind of belief system is that? Exactly.
I finally looked the word up and it says an ideology is just a list of things that define a person's political or sociological beliefs. What a letdown. All this time I thought it might have had something to do with "ideas".
I thought I would go around and make fun of all my readers' political beliefs in turn. Then I says to myself, "Max, that's pretty stupid, even for you." See, I only have 5 readers and 3 of them are part-time already. So, I've decided not to do that. Then I thought I would make up five "generic" descriptions of political ideologies and you could just pick the one that fits you best. Then it occurred to me that Lidian and Alison would be turned off by the first paragraph and wouldn't even care anyway. Well, if I made the list rhyme, Lidian might read it.
'bama 'bama he's our man!
If he can't do it, nobody can!
Like that. Only that is just an old football cheer and is not nearly deep enough. Although it pretty much sums up Red's belief system, I think. I know he's too polite to correct me, so I may never know for sure.
I was going to make up a more intricate poem about Federalism and how Washington is the answer to all our ills, if only the damn state lines would disappear. But I couldn't find anything to rhyme with Federalism except Socialism, and we've been all over that ground before. Plus, you all know how sensitive I am to other's feelings.
I sometimes wish I lived in the UK where there is no political discord and no social conflicts.
Try mythology
ReplyDeleteApply psychology.
ReplyDeleteAren't ideologies, in actuality, as individual as the individuals?
ReplyDeleteI don't know anyone who sees all things like I do. Why would anyone else fit neatly into an accepted ideology? Why would they want to?
"All I believe is that all politicians should be waterboarded and then shot."
ReplyDeleteSeems OK to me.
"I sometimes wish I lived in the UK where there is no political discord and no social conflicts."
?????????????
I never mean to put any literary pressure on you, Max - you know that. I don't always comment but I am over here reading you, whether you put it in the form of a cheer, a limerick or plain old prose (nothing wrong with that, either).
ReplyDeleteAll I can think of to rhyme with ideology is the Ogden Nash-esque city-ology (which I just made up). Or perhaps the self-referential Lidiology (though I stay out of politics on line, of course).
Hey I never said (or thought) Obama was the answer - the end all be all for all our problems. Of course that's what conservatives would have you believe that liberals are all cheerleaders for Obama, that he's the One, the Savior (so sick of hearing THAT). Liberals are diverse enough to squabble within their own party (which is why health care never got passed with the super majority - so how's that for being blind following ideologue sheep? Kind of defeats your talking point doesn't it?).
ReplyDeleteTruth be told, I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I know it sounds kind of odd but it works for me. It's an outrage when I overhear people about town who receive research grant money only to blow it on big dinner parties. I'm all for tort reform, welfare reform, etc. So anytime you feel like publicly pigeon-holing me, feel free. You may get a not so polite response. ;)
There's Redbird makin' my point for me.
ReplyDelete@Sheila - You don't want to go here, missy. :)
ReplyDelete@Stephanie - in some cases, I suppose. Not yours. It just irritates you that you do fit so neatly into it.
Not to worry: I fit neatly into mine as well.
The Red One? He is still flexible, waiting to see who wins and which way the wind blows. But even I have to admit I preferred (of the two) Obama over that other democrat who ran against Obama. So, I'm not one to talk. Here's a quote for you: Republicans suck eggs. May they all rot. And may Democrats rot with them.
@Adullamite - Thank you for your support on the issue of how to treat politicians. :)
@Lidan - What?
:) :) :) :) Og Nash neever rhymed ologies! Or isms. Did he? But no one bust the rules of English Grammar better than he. (No, that's not original either.) On seduction: Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.
I don't know where I'm going with this, so I will just stop. I'm glad you are reading from way up there.
@Redbeard76 - So you are, like, a middle-of-the roader in your politics? If you say so, then I will stop arguing with you. I really did think you were one of those Big Brother advocates. Sorry. (And that "sorry" was sincere, if you are.)
Ummm... what does "social liberal" mean? I mean to you?
You know, RM, we would get along far better if you weren't so sure you knew me better than I knew myself. Even though we disagree. It the smug assurance you seem to have that you know what I think I find so irksome. I don't mind disagreeing half so much as the expectation I should defend notions you think I have whether I do or not.
ReplyDeleteSeriously.
You define your opinions, and, hey, I'll define mine.
Stephanie, we both define our political stances for all to see by our writings. There is nothing sly going on here.
ReplyDelete@Stephanie B - Of course one of my goals is to get along with you but I have other goals, such as to challenge some of your statements. I would like you to convince me your political thoughts are superior, so that I might learn and change. I can't do that without challenging you and then considering your rebuttals. If I am not accurately stating your beliefs as gleaned from your writings, please don't tell me I misread you - tell me what you believe and then I will know your new thoughts and beliefs. Until then, I will go by what you've said and assume you are a fan of government from the top down. On the other hand, if you really are a Reagan Republican, then tell me that so I won't misunderstand your message.
ReplyDeleteDo you want me to just disregard your previous dissertations on Federalism?
To me, we are simply at odds as to how much federal government we want. This disagreement doesn't have to be fatal to our friendship; we are both able to detach and compartmentalize.
What do you see as the role of the Federal government, Stephanie?
I see it as a facilitator of whatever the states, in consensus, want to do.
I don't see it as an entity which is allowed by the states to have an agenda separate to itself, to pull and push the states into doing the "right" thing.
Alright, given I favor a strong central government, i.e. Federal government, what does that tell you about my ideology?
ReplyDeleteFrom being a Federalist, can you tell how I feel about welfare? Social Security? Education? Capital punishment? Bank regulation? Tariffs? Immigration? Gun control? Defense? Nuclear energy? Tort reform?
I am not one opinion and how I feel on one issue may not have any bearing on how I feel on another.
Do I see the Federal government as the last ditch defense against the free market tearing the little man to pieces (and, history says that that can readily happen through greed alone) - yes. Do I think people should have the same opportunities, education, and amenities in one part of the country as another? Yes. Do I think states have more power than they should? Yes. Do I think things like pollution control and bank reform are too big for states to handle? Yes.
But that doesn't reflect necessarily everything I feel on every other topic. My ideology is more complex than that. Though I take, from your comments, you don't think so.
If you want to know how I feel on a specific topic, ask me specifically and I'll tell you. I'm not ashamed of my opinions.
Those things aren't a political ideology, they're a complete Socio-political philosophy, and of course I can't possibly know how you feel about each facet of the spectrum or how you lean on every possible issue. But political ideologies in general have a set list of beliefs almost like planks in a party platform that set them apart from other political ideologies. If I say "socialist" you can come up with a broad list that defines what a socialist wants to see come about. If I say "communist" you can pretty quickly also come up with a common list that no communist would argue with. It's not so easy for some political parties, though. What is the difference between a Republican and a Democrat, for example? they are not so obviously different any more.
ReplyDeleteThe main thing you and I debate is the role of the Federal Government and why does it exist? What was the original intent? To make handicapped parking spaces uniform in all the states? We can agree on things that need to be done, but we will always disagree on the method to do them in a republic. That's because I don't think you really believe in the concept of a republic. I think you believe in government from the top down. I wish you would consider and articulate why you think uniformity is so essential in all things. The people of Idaho don't really know Georgians problems that well, and they shouldn't be paying for West Virginia's roads, either. Neither are their health needs the same. Truth be told, I don't think you really can see the value of states at all.
"From being a Federalist, can you tell how I feel about welfare? Social Security? Education? Capital punishment? Bank regulation? Tariffs? Immigration? Gun control? Defense? Nuclear energy? Tort reform?'
ReplyDeleteI can tell you think the Federal Government ought to be intimately involved in all of them. :)
"Truth be told, I don't think you really can see the value of states at all."
ReplyDeleteYou know what? On that, you're right. From my viewpoint, they're just an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.
Not that you have to agree with me, but then what's so different about the needs of people in Idaho and Georgians? They still need food, shelter, decent wages, clean air and water? Fundamentally, what's so different?
I live in Texas. I don't think of myself as a Texan so much as I think of myself as an American. Of course, this is my eighth (and not favorite) state, so that may flavor my opinions. And my father, my grandfather and myself have all worked, directly or indirectly, for the federal government for years.
But you make me curious, RM. If you visit a friend in Europe, do you object if someone asks if you're an American and tell them you're a "_____________-an" instead?