Quote: (01-13-2017 12:15 PM)Different T Wrote:
If this is not understandable, please indicate that. There are at least some accessible practical “outcome” type issues for you to consider.
Before getting into the post, I would appreciate an answer to this question: If Hillary had won, would your optimistic feelings about affecting real change through Liberal politics remain?
Your latest post makes your stance much clearer, but also highlights a couple of issues you may consider. These things are largely related to concepts you are likely familiar with from game but take place at a higher level of resolution.
1) The primary issue is that you are still operating in the classical Liberal’s frame of “equality” and liberal democratic politics. In the “Drug Policy” thread, you state, “I am entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically.”
It doesn’t actually seem that you are a moral relativist, rather you’re just reduced to acting like that when you’re engaging in politics in a liberal democracy. You seem to recognize this, but consider it the only way to “win” under current circumstance and the “rules of the game.”
Why does this matter? It is exactly what the progressives/Left want to see happening. Your statements about outcomes vs. principles are understandable, but it largely appears what you’re meaning by “principles” is the specific incoherent concept of “individual liberty” that conservatives/libertarians fall back on in their endless screeds against government as “violent oppressor of humanity.” As you state; such an abstract, delimited principle is easily weaponized by enemies who are not delusional enough to hold it.
But why would the Left want you to fight back on their own relativistic terms, even if it results in something like a Trump victory? Because you are reinforcing the frame that is the basis of their power. When you state that you (and by implication every other member of a liberal democracy) are simply “entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically,” you are re-affirming that politics is and cannot be anything more than (1) a perpetual battle; and (2) the imposition of the arbitrary preferences of whatever coalition happens to control the levers of power.
Additionally, engaging in this frame with the attitude of “win according to this game” results in the engagement of the tactics of the Left, eg. Broad emotional appeals, offer free stuff, compromise and cut deals, and generally poorly thought out “ends justify means” strategy.
You may consider this an example of “Principles over outcomes,” but here’s an alternative perspective. The means used dramatically alters what ends/outcomes are possible. After securing the votes of tens of millions by way of subsidy, can the Left suddenly decide to change this policy? Can the people on these welfare programs suddenly become productive members of the private sector or government? After pushing through things like abortion under emotional appeals of women’s rights, equality, and health, can the Left practically encourage family formation and even replacement level birth rates?
Why do you think the right-wing engagement in these sorts of tactics would actually result in betterment? Or, more precisely; why do you think the right-wing can engage in this tactics, yet obtain different results?
To ask it again; without Trump’s victory, would you still be optimistic about the ability of persuasion and democratic politicking to bring about real change? In the “Migrant” thread, Zelcorpion states: “The dogma of the globalists is never 3 steps forward, but 2 steps forward and one step back, and then the next 2 steps forward.” The argument can easily be made that it is actually a preferable globalist strategy to follow this “2 steps forward and one step back” approach (even if a “3 steps forward” would likely be immediately successful) for reasons such as plausible deniability, scape-goating, and anchoring.
This is precisely the risk that you do not seem to identify; that you are playing exactly the role they need you to play. They push for “progress,” you pull back a bit using their tactics and allow them to consolidate gains, re-form for the next push forward, and anchor the illusion that liberal democracies are guided by the “true and good” preferences of the people. Rinse and repeat. A grinding “progress” where none are held to any account in this game of supposedly arbitrary assertion.
2) Again, to be clear, it doesn’t seem that you are actually a moral relativist and are merely playing the role such a frame requires of you. You state that we should be looking at outcome over principles. In fact, you seem to be indicating we ought to be looking for “good governance,” not some systematic schema to place faith in. However, there is a large misunderstanding in how you conceptualize politics in a liberal democracy. In government, corruption and defection pays. Literally. It is exactly this understanding that seems thrown out with some of your appeals to “winning.”
The Left/cuckservatives can cobble together powerful, disparate coalitions because it has no qualms about utilizing precisely this “glue.” Eg. get a donation from and/or place a few high-paying positions at some private company, promote some completely arbitrary reason to give said company subsidy, profit.
In other words, you implore libertarians to dispense with the notions of “individual liberty” (assuming this is what you really mean when saying “principles”) and focus on beating the Left. But if not to obtain the benefits of the aforementioned corruption and defection, for what purpose? If it’s for the purpose of achieving “good government,” you’ve put them in a strange quandary.
How are we to orient ourselves without a non-relativistic understanding? The Left/cuckservatives/globalists don’t face this problem precisely because they orient around Power accumulation and money which works enough for their purposes. Yet you implore these libertarians/right-wing conservatives to take on the moral-relativistic mindset of the Left in order to somehow achieve "good government"? If carried out, where does “acting like” end and the actual embodiment of these liberal principles begin? More importantly, how can this play acting ever cease when the very script states that this arbitrary assertion of preferences repeats itself over and over, ad infitium (“2 steps forward and one step back”).
3) Your rejection of libertarianism is a welcome step forward, but it puts you in a precarious spot. Yes, you’ve likely identified a key aspect (the lack of masculinity) in the formation of a libertarian mindset; but remaining a Classical Liberal is similar to AIDS patient that takes a decongestant after getting a cold and declares himself cured.
TL;DR: You state that Libertarians are getting played by holding stupid political notions. Consider that you are getting played for precisely the reason that you believe the "game" of liberal democratic politics is to achieve good governance.
Perhaps I'm being dense but I'm still waiting for the punchline. Power is real, so is the damage caused by it. If there is a way to absolve is of this by all means...