On the Nature of Things | Forum

Folks,

Around the time of general elections there is always a lot of hype about the leaders of political parties. I have been wondering if people tend to base their vote more on a political leader that they like or more on the ideology of the party that they like?

Personally, I am drawn to ideology as I am aware that there is a whole apparatus behind a political leader and also parties have a track record of legislation which tends to follow a pattern over time.

The media, and folks in general, do to talk as if the leader is the big deal, but I’m not so sure about that.

Alex.

Ideology? Never! Values and principles, yes, ideologies are mere scripts for failure.

Endovelico wrote:Ideology? Never! Values and principles, yes, ideologies are mere scripts for failure.

But isn't an ideology essentially a systematized set of values and principles?

I prefer to judge by actions whenever possible. Dubya and Obama are ideological opposites but have been functionally identical.

Marcus wrote:

Endovelico wrote:Ideology? Never! Values and principles, yes, ideologies are mere scripts for failure.

But isn't an ideology essentially a systematized set of values and principles?

Marcus,

I don't think it even needs to be systematized, just fairly coherent. Quite often we find a person holds a certain view and then we find that their other views fit in broadly with this view maybe under 'conservative' or 'liberal' headings. The views seem to form families of ideas which we can recognize and name.

If a political leader espouses such a family of ideas that we already hold, it gives them a good start when the ballot is in front of us.

Alex.

Marcus wrote:

Endovelico wrote:Ideology? Never! Values and principles, yes, ideologies are mere scripts for failure.

But isn't an ideology essentially a systematized set of values and principles?

Sort of but not exactly. An ideology proposes one adopt a systematic set of values and principles in an effort to achieve a certain result. The means are secondary to the desired results in an ideology, but values and principles are ethical standards where the ends never justify the means.

This is a great remedial topic that never gets attention. The way it is framed is unfortunately a false binary.

The factors of electing human beings to post are numerous. Ideology, party (which is different than ideology) personality (which can be broken down a dozen ways), pedigree, name recognition, good times, bad times, strategic counteraction, voting positively or negatively. It is endless. A truly great politician knows how to position their advantage in the above.

For example, for me, the leading factor (you will be very surprised) is Party. The reason is simple, politicians regardless of everything else, race, gender, education, fame, what they ran on, you name it, votes with the party 90% of the time. The party in the end is almost all that matters.

That doesn't produce a great outcome every time, but produces the best possible out come. In the primary though, everything comes into play. That's where you look at all these other factors.

Buckley used to say to run the most electable conservative which is a pretty good idea.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:

Marcus wrote:

Endovelico wrote:Ideology? Never! Values and principles, yes, ideologies are mere scripts for failure.

But isn't an ideology essentially a systematized set of values and principles?

Sort of but not exactly. An ideology proposes one adopt a systematic set of values and principles in an effort to achieve a certain result. The means are secondary to the desired results in an ideology, but values and principles are ethical standards where the ends never justify the means.

Ideology is when principles and values meet realpolitik.

Mr. Perfect wrote:For example, for me, the leading factor (you will be very surprised) is Party. The reason is simple, politicians regardless of everything else, race, gender, education, fame, what they ran on, you name it, votes with the party 90% of the time. The party in the end is almost all that matters.

That doesn't produce a great outcome every time, but produces the best possible out come. In the primary though, everything comes into play. That's where you look at all these other factors.

Buckley used to say to run the most electable conservative which is a pretty good idea.

Mr P,

I am in agreement with you regarding party.

Your point about electability is a good one. Electability is what the party wants the voter to see in a politician running up to election. After that electability is a done deal (for now) and the party apparatus can kick in. I think this works in any functional democracy, not just the US system.

Once the party starts working on legislation we see core ideology kick in and we will get what we expect to see most of the time. There are some limits on what can be achieved practically but the direction is never in doubt, expect maybe with nascent parties such as the US Tea Party or UK UKIP. Those guys haven't lived in the real world.

Alex.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:

Marcus wrote:

Endovelico wrote:Ideology? Never! Values and principles, yes, ideologies are mere scripts for failure.

But isn't an ideology essentially a systematized set of values and principles?

Sort of but not exactly. An ideology proposes one adopt a systematic set of values and principles in an effort to achieve a certain result. The means are secondary to the desired results in an ideology, but values and principles are ethical standards where the ends never justify the means.

I would tend to agree with that.

Political positions grow out of intentions and world views of various kinds derived from education, experience, and accidents of birth. We tend to support leaders and/or parties that reflect how we want to see ourselves and what we want to be, not necessarily what we really are or what conditions we really inhabit. The vicarious experience of power and security through leadership is paramount, much like it is in the deference of baboons to troop leaders. The ideology stuff is rooted in assumptions about the world that we have cultivated, consciously and unconsciously, over time to support that effort.

Ideology, opinions, and positions are not primary but derivative. Personality will guide how views regarding leaders and parties are expressed, stridently or tentatively, rigidly or reflectively, etc. But I do not see either personality or ideology as primary. Our choices of leaders and parties are not as rational as we like to flatter ourselves, but more often are based upon primitive identifications with power.

What to do if you’re like me and see both our political parties and leaders as intellectually fraudulent, morally corrupt, and incompetent so it is impossible to honestly support or identify with any of them? Wandering the jungle outside the baboon troop on one’s own I suppose. Better than having to smell the hindquarters of our current crop of baboons in power.

kmich wrote:. . Ideology, opinions, and positions are not primary but derivative. Personality will guide how views regarding leaders and parties are expressed, stridently or tentatively, rigidly or reflectively, etc. But I do not see either personality or ideology as primary. Our choices of leaders and parties are not as rational as we like to flatter ourselves, but more often are based upon primitive identifications with power. . .

Or perhaps based on Envy . . ?
Review: http://www.kelsoinstitute.org/book-review.html