Idealism or pragmatism?

[Shanty Oilish]

Never mind electability and that insider-outsider thing. It's time for a philosophy exam. Politically, are you an idealist, do-or-die Enjolras, an Alamo fighter? Or do you see politics as art-of-the-possible, practical, hired-gun work?
Presuming the opposition will always be totally unacceptable, what's your approach?

[Terwilliger]

1. No

n/t

[HFishbine]

2. Both

[Mass_Liberal]

3. yea

both. The happy medium O8)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. Both

You have to balance things in life.

[Shanty Oilish]

13. That sounds practical---balance. nt

:kick:

[Cheswick2.0]

5. both

I don't think Kerry is that gun fighter and I also think he is king of special interests and symbolizes everything that is wrong with the democratic party.

I also think he is going to get his ass kicked in Nov if he gets the nomination.

[GreenArrow]

26. Bush is the current king of special interests,

but it is Kerry's association to special interests that will enable him to kick the living shit out of GWB this November. No one who does not have a good relationship with the power elite of this country will ever stand a chance of winning the presidency under the current system. The presidency is not the pinnacle of power in this country; it is more and more a figurehead position.

[JohnLocke]

6. Both

[The Magistrate]

7. Pragmatism Is Essential

Without defeat of the enemy at the polls, nothing can be accomplished. The worst elements of reaction must be turned out office, and at any cost and by any means necessary, else no progress whatever can be made. Moral victory is a synonym for defeat, nothing more.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. Agree

I didn't like the 'bigger gunfighter' choice of words but pragmatism is where idealism meets the road.
It's nice to have dreams but you have to wake up sometime.

[IrateCitizen]

19. That's a slippery slope you're venturing down, sir.

The worst elements of reaction must be turned out office, and at any cost and by any means necessary, else no progress whatever can be made.

"By any means necessary," it seems I've heard that saying before. And if I recall correctly, the phrase itself gives license to do pretty much anything that is necessary in order to "win". The only problem is, when you employ "any means necessary", you quite often end up becoming that which you earlier professed to abhor.

You can have your immoral means, sir. I want no part of that kind of endeavor.

[Shanty Oilish]

21. The classic anecdote

"Would you have sex with a total stranger for a million dollars?"
"Well, yeah, a million dollars, wow!"
"Would you do it for twenty bucks?"
"What do you take me for, a prostitute?"
"We've established what you are, the difference is your price."

No offense to any pragmatists, I'm a Machiavellian myself. :) The good ones know how to ski.

[IrateCitizen]

25. I'm glad you're able to reason away your morality so easily

It is a trait I used to share. Alas, my sense of spirituality and attempt to live true to it has gotten in the way of it.

Interesting thing, human reason is. It can permit us to explain the murder of millions as somehow justified, while at the same time moving us to condemn the killing of one as the ultimate act of evil. It can so convince us of the righteousness of our cause that we become able to violate every one of our principles in pursuit of that cause -- and STILL remain convinced of its righteousness -- only to achieve hollow victory in the end.

But the hollowness of that victory matters not, for our reason has convinced us that it is the victory only that matters. We so convince ourselves of the righteousness of our ends that we fail to see how our ends are soiled by the immorality of our means in attaining them.

The good ones know how to ski.

I guess what Kurt Vonnegut wrote about human beings in Galapagos was true: their brains were just too big. Thank you for demonstrating this failing of human "reason" in stark terms for me, even if I am the only one who is able to see it.

[The Magistrate]

23. A Personal Sense Of Moral Superiority, Mr. Citizen

Seems to me wholly superfluous. Indeed, putting a very high value on such a thing seems to me a moral failing; a form of selfishness, akin to the Pharisee who would not assist the beaten traveler for fear of losing ritual cleanliness.

Moral considerations have little relevance to serious conflict, which has its own rules, the chief of which is that one cannot afford to lose. It is odd that wise calculation in conflict often produces behavior that has some similarity to morally directed prescription, however: to act too ruthlessly with insufficient power will only reinforce the opposition, and tend toward your defeat, while when power is overwhelming, the minimal use of power will bring the most secure victory, by rousing the least desire for vengeance among the defeated.

Slippery slpes do not much bother me: uncertain footing is a fact of life, and it has been wisely said all action is shrouded in evil as fire is shrouded in smoke.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[IrateCitizen]

24. Don't mistake moral awareness for moral superiority, Sir.

Your example of the Pharisee not helping the fallen traveller out of fear of violating his cleanliness has nothing to do with morality, and all to do with ritual. And as someone who knows the Gospels relatively well, I would not hesitate to point out the difference that Jesus made between morality and ritual. So, I must say that I am disappointed, in the least, to see you trying to make such a mischaracterization in this instance.

Moral considerations have a great deal of relevance to any matter in life, sir. Without maintaining sight of our morality, we run the very real risk of becoming just what we claim to be fighting against.

I have been reading and reflecting lately on a work of Dr. King, "Strength to Love". What I find interesting is the late Reverend's insistence throughout that those fighting on behalf of justice keep sight of that justice at all times -- as well as their personal and collective morality. He is quite explicit that losing sight of morality in such struggles and adopting the tactics of your enemy will not lead to any real victory -- but only eventual ruin.

You can have your slippery slope, sir. I maintain my belief and faith in living true to yourself and your God as being the most important things in life. I am not saying that doing so eliminates any possibility of compromise -- quite the opposite, actually. But it is important to keep these things in mind at all times. Because, when all else is stripped away, living true to yourself and your God is all you have left, IMHO.

[The Magistrate]

27. Here We Will Have To Disagree, Sir

My experience is that most persons approach morality as a ritual observance, and that those who value their own clean hands above any other consideration are the most likely to do so. To me the touchstones for such questions are self-sacrifice and will to undergo risks on behalf of others, not refraining from particular behaviors, or never acting to any other's disadvantage. Indeed, if my touchstones for proper behavior cannot be executed without some act that is unpalatable to me, they require that to be done regardless.

Scripture does not engage my belief or form any part of the framework of my views, though it is exceedingly familiar to me. As with all who read in it, my interpertations of it are my own: it is far too broad and inherently contradictory a tome for any to draw meaning from it in any other way than by treating some elements of it as the net and others as the tares, and there is no ground on which to do this but personal preference.

[IrateCitizen]

33. I think you misinterpret my definition of "morality", Sir.

I am still not certain that we will agree -- in fact, I doubt it -- but I must reply to you in hopes that the gulf of disagreement can be considerably narrowed.

I do not view morality through a lens of ritual or anything of that nature. In short, my definition of "morality" is vastly different from that of mainstream Christianity -- especially the religious right. My definition of morality is more in line with the practices of the Quakers, and their concept of "leadings".

If you are unfamiliar with it, it is the basic belief that the divine dwells within each and every one of us. When we are troubled by the questions of life, we must look deep inside ourselves to find the answers. If we take time to listen to what our hearts tell us, we can never be led astray.

However, in today's world especially, this can be a daunting task. Such endeavors take time spent in introspection, and the willingness and conviction to do things that are not exactly considered popular.

What does my heart tell me when I look deep within myself? For one, it confirms for me that pure love is the most powerful force in the universe -- over time, nothing can stand against it. It also tells me that to affect things in a positive way, this unyielding love must be kept within our hearts for us to be able to soften the hearts of our enemies. Furthermore, it tells me that there are things in the universe infinitely bigger than our individual selves -- and it is through committment to these greater causes that we gain true fulfillment in life.

Of course, there's also a deeply personal spiritual experience for me thrown in there that helps to clarify all of that, but I won't go into it here. ;-)

I have seen this at work in my own life increasingly over the past 4 years or so in many major ways. So, in this sense of morality -- if you ask me to abandon it, you are asking me to abandon the very core of my being, something that I absolutely could not do, not under any circumstances.

I hope this clarifies matters slightly.

[The Magistrate]

34. Well, Sir

My comments were in regard not to your personal view of morality, but to the most widely practiced trends of the phenomenon. Most persons view morality as refraining from certain acts or thoughts, generally of a sexual nature, sometimes of an acquisitive or violent nature. This is certainly ritualistic in character, as it imagines adhering to defined rules secures a right state of moral worth, and we are probably in agreement that it is a limited view of the matter. But being so widespread, it must be accepted as the normal view, and as what most anyone using the word can be presumed to mean by it.

It seems to me unwise, Sir, to presume everyone, looking deep into their own heart, will perceive there what you do in yours. You may wager safely, in fact, mine discloses something very different to my close examination. Nor is there any means by which you could convince me that is the result of error on my part, and it would be a profound mistake to imagine it is uninformed by any spirituality. Spirits come in great variety, Sir.

[IrateCitizen]

35. What lies in each of our hearts...

It seems to me unwise, Sir, to presume everyone, looking deep into their own heart, will perceive there what you do in yours. You may wager safely, in fact, mine discloses something very different to my close examination. Nor is there any means by which you could convince me that is the result of error on my part, and it would be a profound mistake to imagine it is uninformed by any spirituality. Spirits come in great variety, Sir.

The interesting thing I have always found when studying different religions or looking at people who are spiritually devout is the great similiarity in the conclusions at which they arrive. Each and every spiritual tradition that places great value on looking deep within yourself arrives at similar conclusions regarding the power of unyielding love, a committment to nonviolence, an emphasis on mutual cooperation and the true nature of fulfillment as being mostly unconnected from material things outside of what we need to survive. Spiritual figures throughout history -- from Lao Te Ching to Jesus, from Mohammed to George Fox, from Gandhi to Martin Luther King -- have taught very similar lessons on these fronts. At their essence, they are all much the same.

Spirits DO come in many varieties, I most certainly agree. But the most basic truths that they reveal to us seem to be fairly universal -- at least according to my research and experiences.

[The Magistrate]

42. Lao Tzu, Sir

Says nothing about universal love, or love in any form. You will find the concept utterly absent from the Tao Te Ching. He speaks of balance and its preservation, and the indifference of the universe to humankind, which makes it the business of humans to adapt themselves to it, and move within its ways. Nor is there any commitment to non-violence; only a recognition violence is fraught with peril, and not be indulged in unduly. The statement bearing most directly on the question is this: "Weapons are instruments of fear. They are not a wise man's tools. He uses them only when he has no choice." It would be tedious to summarize the several explicit endorsements of capital punishment within the work, but worth pointing out they are clearly meant in dead earnest as advice for a well-ordered polity.

It is not really true all religious and philosophical thought reaches anything remotely resembling the same conclusions about either human nature, or the optimal forms of social organization. All such claims are the result of selective readings informed by a priori conclusions of the reader, and so are not really conclusions at all, but presumptions imposed upon the material.

[IrateCitizen]

45. I stand corrected on the subject of Chinese philosophy, then

Then again, I am only lightly familiar with it -- and you have quite obviously studied it much more than I have.

But based on my own experiences with religion and spirituality -- and, I readily admit, the conclusions that I have drawn from my own search and struggle -- these are the only conclusions at which I can arrive. While I can attempt through empathy to understand how others may arrive at different points of view, in the end I really only have my own perspective from which to approach things.

[The Magistrate]

48. That Is One Of The Things About It, Sir, That Appeals So To Me

It is indeed a pragmatic and material view; it does not postulate entities beyond the senses, and accepts what is as the basis for understanding.

We are certainly in agreement we can only approach things from our individual perspectives, and must be prepared to accept a good deal of disagreement while holding each to our light in such matters.

"What does Heaven ever do? The seasons turn, grain grows, men eat. What does Heaven ever do?"

[mohc]

9. Personally

I think like an idealist and vote like a pragmatist, so its a bit of both. I strive to be as far left as possible in my perspective. When I vote for candidates, or if were voting on the actual issues, I always go with what I believe moves us forward in the best possible way. More than likely, just about everyone thinks that this is what they are doing. The real question is, what is the most effective strategy for moving the country forward. On one side you have the camp that believes you have to declare your beliefs and not compromise at all, on the other the camp that tries to work through the system, and you have those in between. I personally believe the dogmatic approach of the former camp simply delays the achievement of their goals.

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. It depends on the goal.

If you want a change in on-air talent reading the same teleprompter, and some very visible cosmetic changes, more attractive names for policies and "operations," then find somebody with a ton of money and a silver tongue, and you've got your electable candidate.

If you are talking about exercising your right to change your government, and effect significant change from the status quo on the policy level, a political solution is no longer a realistic possibility, and to desire such a thing is a violation of the Patriot Act, anyway.

[Walt Starr]

11. I'm a Five Perrcenter, so I take pragmatism to the extreme

If the nominee is polling within 5% of Bush in my state, they get my vote. If they are 5% above or below in my state, I go third party. This is win-win. My vote is there for the Democratic nominee if they need it, but if they are underperforming or overperforming in my state, my vote goes to help a third party.

Most likely, any Democrat will be ahead of Bush by 7 - 10% in Illinois, ergo, my voting third party does nothing to change the outcome of the Illinois electoral votes, but helps towards legitimizing a third party.

[NashVegas]

15. 5% Nation of Dean?

LOL.

[Walt Starr]

18. If the nominee is going to lose, why should I throw my vote away?

If the nominee is going to win in a blowout, why should I throw my vote away?

[cosmicdot]

12. Athens ... JFK's torch ... MLK's dream ... RFK's promise ...

Let the word go forth from this time and place. . .to friend and foe alike. . . that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans. . . born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage. . .and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today. . .at home and around the world. JFK

our ideals should always guide us
we can be pragmatic in given situations or as applicable

We need to build trust. With trust we have community; and, with community, we can achieve great things. - cosmicdot

I'm a Myers-Briggs INFP personality type. Go figure.

[GreenArrow]

32. INFP here too!

:hi:

[cosmicdot]

46. there are quite a few INFPs here

I'll never forget meeting my first INFP. I have an INFP friend, and we have fun together. Is it wise to send 2 INFPs out together to do something?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=3623&forum=DCForumID59&omm=0

the above is from 9/18/2002

14. Idealist until the crunch

then pragmatist

[NashVegas]

16. I'm a Pragmatist - That's Why I'm Voting for Dean

Kerry's liberalism is commendable, but it's not going to be worth much with an increasingly conservative Republican House & Senate.

[IrateCitizen]

17. Idealism, without a doubt

Real change really never comes about from electoral politics -- it is always borne out of idealism. The politicians must be drug along, kicking and screaming, to make that change a reality.

Therefore, I consider myself to most definitely be an idealist. But I am an idealist who harbors no illusions about the true nature of electoral politics. True idealists and leaders in electoral politics come along only a few a generation. The vast majority of them are twist-in-the-wind tools of the status quo, who must be forced figuratively at the barrel of a gun to endorse any kind of progressive change.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Ideals. Ethics. Principles.

What nonsense. We need someone who will follow the polls, chase the lobbyists, lie through his teeth, kiss any baby or any ass, wave the flag at every opportunity, sacrifice lives for political gain, make two faced speeches with catchy sound bites, cozy up to the military, compromise with anyone on anything, ignore the people's needs, appeal to the basest instincts, and, of course, dress nice.

Oh, we have one of those in the White House and the only way to beat him is to run someone who is more like him.

Idealism is for losers who never win the south.

[IndianaGreen]

22. I am reminded of the words of Emiliano Zapata

Mejo para morir de pie, que vivir de rodillos

"Better to die on your feet than live on your knees."

Thanks to my friend in Mexico for reminding me of Zapata's words.

[John_H]

28. Pragmatism IS Idealism

What could be more idealistic than saving your country from the Chimp?

What could be more cynical than denying a vote to the only person who can do it in order to pragmatically try to advance the agenda of another cause?

[IrateCitizen]

Time does not permit me to list them all here

Ending militarism. Helping to bring in an era of true global cooperation. Taking proper stewardship over the environment rather than exploiting it for short term gain. Stopping the cycle of exploitation that has plagued all of human history. Helping to create a society that is not centered on mindless mass-consumerism.

All of these things are much more idealistic than what you are proposing. While I would agree that the Chimp is an impediment to any of these, it is hardly idealistic to portray his ouster as the ultimate cause to associate one's self with.

[Guaranteed]

40. Those are all issues that could be labeled either idealistic

or practical. I'm not sure I see your point.

[IrateCitizen]

41. My point is that idealism is the "dreaming" of what you want...

... the future to be, while pragmatism is something that is rooted in the short-term of the "possible".

Those calling for an end to slavery in 1790 were considered to be hopeless idealists. Seventy five years later, they would have been considered to be completely pragmatic. Just like women pushing for the vote in 1820 were considered to be idealists at best, possibly heretics at worst. A mere 100 years later, that "idealism" became a reality.

However, if any of these people would have deigned to be "pragmatic" at the time in which they were portrayed as hopeless idealists, none of the progress they fought for would have been realized.

See my point, now?

[Desertrose]

29. ideals or whats the point?

doing anything to get what you want...and you have it...then what?

ideals get one a lot farther than selling them for an immediate result....

do the ends justify the means if you end up forgetting why you were fighting or what you were fighting for?

:shrug:
I suppose the best is to be able to combine ideals & pragmatism.....

guess thats why I like Kucinich....

Peace
DR

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[enki23]

31. another false choice

lots of those around today. how about this: pragmatism to a point. i would vote for anyone who could beat bush *provided* that i predict their policies will be significantly less damaging in the future than bush's. what "significant" means, however, is difficult to easily quantify. and predictions can turn out to be wrong. and we never have enough information. it's a difficult judgement call, in some cases, less difficult in others. lieberman vs bush would have been tough for me. dean vs bush would not have. kerry... i just don't know yet. i don't think kerry will fix anything, not significantly. but he may not do as much *new* damage as bush would. so i'd probably vote for kerry over bush, at the expense of failing to help develop an alternative to the two major parties.

it's a tough fucking call. don't let the "anyone but bush" people fool you. they may be right this case, but it may not for the right reasons. and long term? they might be wrong.

[ulysses]

44. rev. enki speaks my mind

Good to see you around, enki.

[enki23]

47. you too uly

not as prolific these days? or just lost in the surge? or both, maybe, like me.

[ulysses]

49. yeah, a little of both.

Any chance we could get you up here for another gathering this year?

[aldian159]

36. Very pragmatic

but ideology matters too.

[Loonman]

37. Pragmatism and logic triumph over idealism every time

Or as I like to say:

You can shit in one hand and wish in another and see which one fills up faster.

[lcordero]

38. both "side with angels" and "bigger gun fighter" favor an

OPPOSITION DEMOCRAT. Can you rephrase the question?

A turncoat is not pragmatic.

[Guaranteed]

39. Idealism that isn't practical isn't idealism- it's fantasy. nt

[ulysses]

43. no "other" or "both"?

A bigger gunfighter, sure, but without ideals of some sort he's simply a bigger mercenary.

[mitchum]

50. My philosophical touchstones are Machiavelli and Marcus Aurelius

Oh, and "Nothing hurts when you're winning" J. Namath

[The Magistrate]

51. Excellent Choices, Sir

Among the very best the West has to offer towards the subject of governance.

[mitchum]

52. Thank you, Sir

You are not only DU's most eloquent poster, but also one of its wisest