Political ideologies

[tarak]

In the past people grouped together on a common ideology for a common goal.the ideology could be anything from a selfish totalitarianistic fascism to utopianistic socialism.

May be its simplistic but for example the ideal goal of any government would be welfare of its citizens and allround development of the state and meeting the national and international aspirations of the socio-cultural environment.To achieve this a particular political party offers you an ideology which forms the basis of running of all affairs of the state.

In the present world I donot find any great difference between the ideologies on which elections are fought

Everything seems arbitrary to me sometimes.Anyhow what is the role of ideology for political party??Should a political party govern on the basis of ideology??Do you think the present political parties across boundaries run on ideologies?? (extremes always occur).

[Fishteacher73]

The problem with political ideologies or doctrines is that they often really only get a foothold in the populace when they are emotionally based. Sound logical ideology just doesn't get the flags waving for many people. Bush essentailly got re-elected by fear mongering of terrorists and homosexuals. 9/11 has become the emotional string that politicians still tug at to garner votes and sooo many citizens just gobble it up.

[gubba]

G'day tarak,

 

Ideology is such a value laden term in australia these days,most of our politicians would run a mile before admitting that they held to some form of belief system. The way they behave I suppose that's not so surprising, mind you the more devious amongst them do tend to sprout on interminably about "old fashioned values", "the family" and "principles" or "principled behaviour". No doubt rather confusing if you took them seriously, but the level of uninformed cynicism amongst the populace at large ensures that their hypocrisy goes unchallenged.

 

More seriously, you are quite correct to be concerned by the lack of significant differences amongst the major parties,in practise it leads to the disenfranchisement of the political aspirations of the majority of the populace. Down here the leaders of the major political establishments feel so little pressure to explain themselves, that the party political platforms are de-emphasised or simply ignored where inconvenient when the polies prepare their election campaigns. Not only do our beloved leaders treat their electorate at large as fools, they treat their own party supporters with contempt.

 

However, do not be deceived, all politicians hold to an agenda at the very least, if not to a fully fledged ideology, more often than not fully self-serving. Just look at the consistent international line taken by Bush and his cronies for a classic example of a self justificatory ideology in full flow. They maybe scoundrels or saints as individuals, but don't doubt their sincerety in their belief in what's good for them is good for the whole wide world. cheers gub.

[tarak]

". No doubt rather confusing if you took them seriously, but the level of uninformed cynicism amongst the populace at large ensures that their hypocrisy goes unchallenged.

Yheh you are right....political hypocrisy should make some sense in future.........

I understand world over politics is an important business and government is the most powerful industry(more so in the poorer countries).But if you a cosmetic name like liberal or republican or a democrat,you stand for a set of principles which one should follow religiuosly (if i have to put it naively).Further a political party should have a set of targets and achievements like a well managed company when it comes to implementing welfare programmes.If you pay taxes and want to see them spent in a proper way,what you need is an efficient system of governance and not an hollow ideology based riffraff (with bunch of clowns dictating what you have got to do and making laws for you)

[gubba]

G'day tarak,

I'd like to tease out some of your concerns more fully a little later when I have enough time to do you justice. cheers gub.

[gubba]

g'day tarak,

 

Someone's "set of principles" is more than likely another's "hollow ideology". The westminster style of parliamentary democracy is premised on our parliamentarians setting our laws, our legislative framework, I'm sure the situation in India as in the States would be much the same. I'm actually concerned by how small an interest the public at large seem to show in this fundamental aspect of our democracies.

 

From my limited reading of the world's western style governments (in particular the anglo-saxon bloc) it is the power of the executive that appears as a greater danger to functioning democracies than a few fanatics however bloodyhanded. There is almost an unconscious(?) collusion between big media interests and big (?) government by publicity decree. Where would you say that the battle for the hearts and minds of the electors in your nation is basically played out? On the floor of your national parliament or on your nightly television screens? cheers gub.

[lindagarrette]

it is the power of the executive that appears as a greater danger to functioning democracies than a few fanatics however bloodyhanded. There is almost an unconscious(?) collusion between big media interests and big (?) government by publicity decree. Where would you say that the battle for the hearts and minds of the electors in your nation is basically played out? On the floor of your national parliament or on your nightly television screens? cheers gub.

You have a good point. The separation of powers in the US government, plus the fact that our laws are all based on the constitution, are supposed to protect against a fanatical executive although as is evident within the current administration, there are clearly ways to circumvent them.

[Biochemist]

...if you a cosmetic name like liberal or republican or a democrat,you stand for a set of principles which one should follow religiuosly (if i have to put it naively).Further a political party should have a set of targets and achievements...

I think it is important to separate ideology from political party. The parties are only very generalized representations of the voters within them. I have usually voted republican over the last 20 years, but I can't think of a single Republican that I agree with on even 75% of issues. Most are more in the 30% range. I think most voters are in that same position. Although most voters don't think all that much about their basis for voting.

 

I am particularly bothered, frankly, that broadly held positions in the populace are rarely reflected in the positions of legislators. In America, for example, most voters (probably nearly 70%) are strongly opposed to abortion, and equally strongly opposed to laws precluding it. That position is rarely articulated by any legislator. Clinton was probably closest (by suggesting abortion should be "safe, legal and rare") but even he had a tough time getting distance from the reasonably extreme elements of the Democratic party that want abortion anywhere, anytime for anybody in absolute privacy (think of 13 years olds in their second trimester). You could build a similar profile for the "middle America" view of the war in Iraq, the war on terror, federal tax policy, welfare policy, and business law. These issues polarize the legislators, but not the electorate. Hence, we end up with close elections, where neither candidate reflects the simple, clear views of the majority of the population.

 

The American voter regards the voting populace as divided, even thought they are not really. The legislators are polarized to extremes, but the voters are not. It is just hard to tell at election time.

[gubba]

G'day folks,

 

Biochemist, our local member here on the outskirts of melbourne (a thoroughly nice bloke) originally hails from the good old U.S. of A. and he maintains that the greatest malaise on the american body politic is the immense expense of a political career. Even a lowly member of the lower house of congress needs a budget in the millions to ensure re-election thus effectively disenfranchising the populace at large. Our disciplined party system perhaps opens the door wider for individuals interested in a political career and until recently I would have claimed minimised the direct influence of the upper end of town on actual, political decisions. Now with the bypassing of parliament as we undertake increasingly presidential style, executive driven governance I wonder if our situation is even more undemocratic.

 

We are roughly analogous to the Brits and could you imagine a presidential candidate in the States so on the nose with the general electorate as Tony being successful? The choice for the functioning Labour machine over a broken down conservative non-party ensured victory for a thoroughly distrusted prime minister. The situation in Aussie is quite similar. I suspect very strongly that over the next few decades we will need at least some structural modification of both our respective institutions and our practices. cheers gub.

[Kirk Gregory Czuhai]

you all know do you not that the electoral college; each elector of it, after the general election is over, may vote for ANY person he/she wants to? provided that person is a legally able to hold the office of the usa presidency totally disregarding ANY result of the general election?

how's THAT FACT grab all of you?

 

And who's to say definitely if they have not been doing it all along since the first election for our USA presidents? ;)

 

For a google search of our USA presidents, all conveniently arranged except for one addition of an outsider, see: ;)

 

http://www.altelco.net/~lovekgc/USApresidents.htm ;)

[Buffy]

.... the greatest malaise on the american body politic is the immense expense of a political career. Even a lowly member of the lower house of congress needs a budget in the millions to ensure re-election thus effectively disenfranchising the populace at large.

Well, this is a bit of a stretch. I think my favorite sport is a great analogy: Yes, it costs millions to put together a winning Nascar/Indy/F1 team. There is a distinct advantage to being a relative of a previous winner (Dale Earnhardt Jr., Michael Andretti, Christian Fittipaldi), but its certainly no guarantee (John Andretti, AJ Foyt IV). While it seems that these young guys come out of nowhere, they have to prove themselves in go carts, dirt tracks, SCCA, etc. before they get anywhere close to the big time. While it may seem that a seat in the House of Representatives is "lowly" it in fact provides a *huge* amount of patronage to be doled out, and once won, provides a virtually guaranteed position unless you royally screw up (90% plus of representatives are re-elected these days: you have to retire, break the law or cross Tom DeLay in order to lose your seat. These guys spend years in local or state politics before they can get anywhere *near* a house seat. You gotta prove yourself before you can run with the Big Dogs.

Our disciplined party system perhaps opens the door wider for individuals interested in a political career and until recently I would have claimed minimised the direct influence of the upper end of town on actual, political decisions....We are roughly analogous to the Brits and could you imagine a presidential candidate in the States so on the nose with the general electorate as Tony being successful? The choice for the functioning Labour machine over a broken down conservative non-party ensured victory for a thoroughly distrusted prime minister. The situation in Aussie is quite similar.

Tony (Blair) won because the Tories are a bunch of twits. The Republican Leadership like DeLay is calling the Democrats irrelevant, but the Democrats are a powerful effective machine, compared to the Tories looney toon back benchers. Australia's constitution while parliamentary and multi-party (as opposed to the strong bipartisan structure of American politics), still is going more "presidential" than the Brits though, and I think most think that Tony is on his last legs: won, but not by much. You folks have been much more like us in that its been trending conservative there for some time: when was the last time you had a strong Liberal (not Labour) party candidate? While John Howard doesn't seem to be in firm control, I don't get the feeling he's really much different than Dubya is here.

 

Have a Fosters on me,

Buffy

[Buffy]

you all know do you not that the electoral college; each elector of it, after the general election is over, may vote for ANY person he/she wants to? provided that person is a legally able to hold the office of the usa presidency totally disregarding ANY result of the general election?how's THAT FACT grab all of you?

Well, it really has had no effect whatsoever. Electors are a political patronage payoff, so they are the most loyal of loyal supporters of whatever candidate's slate they're on. They got put on the slate because they probably spent GOBS of money on the candidate they are supposed to vote for, which means they are expecting a BIG payoff if their candidate wins. What benefit would they have in not voting for their candidate? I'm not sure there's ever been even one case where an elector has not voted for their own candidate in 200 plus years.

 

The main reason its there at all is due to the fact that there's a long lag between the election and the inauguration (new Presidents used to start in March, not January), and in the old days it took a long time to get th electors to Washington to convene the college and have the vote. Presidents-elect could *die* in that time, so there had to be some buffer for handling exigencies. Heck William H. Harrison only lasted 30 days in office! The main reason for it is the wacky representative mechanism for "balancing" the power of the big states versus the small states that also drives the make up of congress: Each state gets 2 senators and house reps based on their population, and they get one elector for each of those senators and representatives. Then the states have the freedom to decide how those electors are chosen, but they only get those electors to work with.

 

As Winston Churchill said (sorta) "Its the worst possible system, except for all of the others..."

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[paultrr]

You have a good point. The separation of powers in the US government, plus the fact that our laws are all based on the constitution, are supposed to protect against a fanatical executive although as is evident within the current administration, there are clearly ways to circumvent them.

 

There will always be such because no system is perfect to begin with. Its rather like the law. One can find loopholes if one wants them.

[paultrr]

I think it is important to separate ideology from political party. The parties are only very generalized representations of the voters within them. I have usually voted republican over the last 20 years, but I can't think of a single Republican that I agree with on even 75% of issues. Most are more in the 30% range. I think most voters are in that same position. Although most voters don't think all that much about their basis for voting.

 

I am particularly bothered, frankly, that broadly held positions in the populace are rarely reflected in the positions of legislators. In America, for example, most voters (probably nearly 70%) are strongly opposed to abortion, and equally strongly opposed to laws precluding it. That position is rarely articulated by any legislator. Clinton was probably closest (by suggesting abortion should be "safe, legal and rare") but even he had a tough time getting distance from the reasonably extreme elements of the Democratic party that want abortion anywhere, anytime for anybody in absolute privacy (think of 13 years olds in their second trimester). You could build a similar profile for the "middle America" view of the war in Iraq, the war on terror, federal tax policy, welfare policy, and business law. These issues polarize the legislators, but not the electorate. Hence, we end up with close elections, where neither candidate reflects the simple, clear views of the majority of the population.

 

The American voter regards the voting populace as divided, even thought they are not really. The legislators are polarized to extremes, but the voters are not. It is just hard to tell at election time.

 

That's an interesting point. I tend to vote the same way. But I do not agree with certain what I call moral majority issues like their stance on abortion, etc. I actually see myself as a moderate within the party. Long ago I can remember an election out in Tucson where the only guy on the ballot that knew anything about the local district's situation and had any decent ideas on what was needed was some guy running on the communist party platform. I've also encountered local elections where I personally found the best views coming from a Libertarian.

 

On the abortion issue I had a friend's daughter who has lived for some time with my wife and I. I consider her like a daughter. She got pregant by her boyfriend a bit back and asked for help and suggestions. I told her my own view on abortion which fits in that 70% range. But I also told her she was the one who needed to make the choice what to do. While I personally see abortion as terminating a life, I also believe in the freedom of choice. I apply that same choice in a lot of areas also which I find the more conservative elements in the Republican party as not doing. On the other hand I have strong problems with the liberal control in the other party.

 

We from time to time get moderates running out of both parties. The problem is that the control in each party is different as far as views go than them. Bush is no moderate in my book. He's more one of the good old boys with moral majority ties. Clinton was a moderate. But those behind the front public office in his party where more liberal than anything else. Till an election back then changed things Congress was controled more by the liberal side of that party than anything else. Their views hold sway and always temper those of the more moderate. The same goes with the moderates in the Republican party. The more conservative elements in the Republican party seem to have the power at the present even given the moderates there. Personally I dislike both extremes and see danger in both. Right now I see a lot of danger in the ultra-conservative element that controls the Republican party.

[Kirk Gregory Czuhai]

Well, it really has had no effect whatsoever. Electors are a political patronage payoff, so they are the most loyal of loyal supporters of whatever candidate's slate they're on. They got put on the slate because they probably spent GOBS of money on the candidate they are supposed to vote for, which means they are expecting a BIG payoff if their candidate wins. What benefit would they have in not voting for their candidate? I'm not sure there's ever been even one case where an elector has not voted for their own candidate in 200 plus years.

 

i am not sure either, but i think it did happen once or twice OR WAS even going to MAYBE happen in the GORE/BUSH race!

 

The real danger would be in a presidential race where the electoral count was VERY CLOSE despite what the popular vote would be if there was only two political candidates that got the significant electoral votes and it did not go to the senate and it would be just as bad if it did go to the senate! "MAN"/"WOMAN" if it ever went to the supreme court AGAIN i think the American public would have a "TIZZY" next time!!! ;)

[Biochemist]

Good to trade missives again, Gub-

... our local member here ...maintains that the greatest malaise on the american body politic is the immense expense of a political career. Even a lowly member of the lower house of congress needs a budget in the millions to ensure re-election thus effectively disenfranchising the populace at large.

I am afraid I agree. This funding issue, combined with the tendency of political discourse to be condensed into 3 second sound bites for the average television viewer results in treatment of political position as a consumer sales problem. Ergo:

 

1) Fact don't generally matter

2) Short lies/misrepresentations are fine (and expected), as long as the refutations can't fit into the 3 second sound bites

3) Image matters more than substance. This is essentially saying that quality of promotion (to use marketing parlance) matters more than quality of product.

 

Overall, the process to get elected for federal office is much like introducing a new breakfast cereal. The taste and nutrition of the cereal is pretty unimportant (there are lots of good cereals). It is more important to find a hook with the consumer.

 

The real fallout is that qualified, intelligent, ethical folks generally will not run for federal office. Some will put in time in the cabinet if asked, but the office holders themselves are political operators, not leaders or visionaries.

[Biochemist]

... The more conservative elements in the Republican party seem to have the power at the present even given the moderates there. Personally I dislike both extremes and see danger in both. Right now I see a lot of danger in the ultra-conservative element that controls the Republican party.

I don't think the "extreme" conservatives in the Republican party have accomplished anything, nor will they. This just a recurring media bogeyman. The only issue that is really likely to surface that will be strongly supported by the "extremists" is the selection of supreme court judges. This is not an extremeist issue,however. I suspect that something over 65% of the electorate would prefer less activist judges. The fact that conservative extremists are vocal about this obscures the fact that it is a generally preferred position in the electorate. Selection of constructionist supreme court justices is also unlikely to change much existing law, with the possible exception of some tort and criminal law, again positions supported by the vast majority of the electorate.

 

I personally think the set of folks labeled the "religious right" is almost powerless.