Principles vs reality

Great Debates
1

There have been some interesting discussions here lately about political issues. In the Equality vs Freedom thread I tried to discuss a basic concept of conservative and liberal. We got off track a bit talking about smoking bans but it was still helpful to me.

Now we see Obama getting criticized for compromising too much. There’s an interesting article on Huff Post with seven recommendations for Obama.

There’s also am I’m a Liberal but… thread that I thought was revealing. Lot’s of Liberals have some conservative views {I’m one} and conservatives hold views traditionally assigned to Liberals.

In thinking about these things it occurs to me that one of the problems is our inability to set a realistic boundary line between the principles we may see as ideals and their application in our real society with it’s real problems.

For example, Conservatives are very reluctant to approve of anything that smacks of socialism and wealth redistribution, thinking that a free market system will sort itself out. I understand the principle and in some regards agree. Too much welfare can create a portion of our society that becomes dependent on others paying their bills. I also feel that the free market system does not address cooperate corruption and greed adequately. The principles may be sound but applying them to reality is another matter. OTOH Liberals sometimes seem to miss the negative consequences of trying to legislate equality.

The debate, I think fighting too hard to support certain principles we are attached to actually hinders progress. I assert that the willingness to compromise for the sake of moving forward is better for our society in general. Progress, and gradual improvement is as worthy a goal , and a more realistic goal , than any of the ideals that influence us. We can still hold our ideals and be realistic about where we are right now. Both parties and conservatives and liberals can unite behind the concept of progress and gradual improvement and still hold onto their principles. We can as citizens, accept that both conservatives and liberals want the nation to prosper and progress. We may not agree on the method but surely the willingness to communicate and compromise will help us find our way and solutions to very real problems better than some competitive team like desire to win.
Can we realistically compromise our principles and still move forward?
How much compromise is too much? How do we encourage communication and compromise over the more competitive sports team attitude?

2

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
There have been some interesting discussions here lately about political issues. In the Equality vs Freedom thread I tried to discuss a basic concept of conservative and liberal. We got off track a bit talking about smoking bans but it was still helpful to me.

Now we see Obama getting criticized for compromising too much. There’s an interesting article on Huff Post with seven recommendations for Obama.

There’s also am I’m a Liberal but.. thread that I thought was revealing. Lot’s of Liberals have some conservative views {I’m one} and conservatives hold views traditionally assigned to Liberals.

In thinking about these things it occurs to me that one of the problems is our inability to set a realistic boundary line between the principles we may see as ideals and their application in our real society with it’s real problems.

For example, Conservatives are very reluctant to approve of anything that smacks of socialism and wealth redistribution, thinking that a free market system will sort itself out. I understand the principle and in some regards agree. Too much welfare can create a portion of our society that becomes dependent on others paying their bills. I also feel that the free market system does not address cooperate corruption and greed adequately. The principles may be sound but applying them to reality is another matter. OTOH Liberals sometimes seem to miss the negative consequences of trying to legislate equality.

The debate, I think fighting too hard to support certain principles we are attached to actually hinders progress. I assert that the willingness to compromise for the sake of moving forward is better for our society in general. Progress, and gradual improvement is as worthy a goal , and a more realistic goal , than any of the ideals that influence us. We can still hold our ideals and be realistic about where we are right now. Both parties and conservatives and liberals can unite behind the concept of progress and gradual improvement and still hold onto their principles. We can as citizens, accept that both conservatives and liberals want the nation to prosper and progress. We may not agree on the method but surely the willingness to communicate and compromise will help us find our way and solutions to very real problems better than some competitive team like desire to win.
Can we realistically compromise our principles and still move forward?
How much compromise is too much? How do we encourage communication and compromise over the more competitive sports team attitude?
[/QUOTE]

ok well I haven’t much time tonight… ok well maybe I do, but I should be using it for things that need doing rather than what I like to do, so I’ll keep this brief. Ok no I won’t, but I had to pretend that was my goal for a second there.

Part of my issue regarding political views is the divisions that everyone seems to try to make and accept as implacable… liberal vs. convervative, democrate vs. republican. I consider myself a die hard “liberal” in the sense of the actual definition of the word, not the would be recent zeitgeist of the populous. To me, if you are to affiliate yourself with a principle, then you have to understand what it is you believe in, and I would submit that most people don’t, at least not fully. It’s a bit like team fanaticism - you learn a bit about the players, the game, the history and the colors, and suddenly BAM!, you’re a cubs fan, or a bears fan… and from that point on its pure loyalty, often without much thought. People become defensive of their “side,” which can turn to aggression of vindictiveness, or just a plain old lack of respect for anyone who is on the other side… they may even share the same beliefs regarding a subject, but they’ll often never find out because they are blinded by the colors of their team, or flag, or what have you. Extreme patriotism is another example of this - “I was born here, I stand by my country or state no matter what… I can do no wrong, loyalty without question is a virtue!” The most egregious crimes are committed in the name of blind devotion of this kind, and are approved of by those of the same “side,” and are never questioned, for that is heresy! Religious faith can do this as well… hell, it almost invariably does.

OK so that was tangentesque… my point is, believing in a principle really comes down to logic; whatever follows through reasonable inference is what you stand behind, it is an idea you believe in. Everyone is welcome to their own logic, to interpretation, but they need to understand what it is they are backing before they start ranting and pushing in the name of loyalty. I base my politics (among other things) on my experiences, readings and studies, and logic… I try to be as objective as possible, and for me that is an inherent attribute of being a liberal, or at least it’s supposed to be. Some of my views have been dubbed “conservative” or “republican” before, to which I always respond; “not if you understand what liberalism is, rather than what people think it is.” I have no team, I make no leaps of faith, and if someone who calls themself a republican enlightens me to a perception I hadn’t considered before, and makes sense to me, it virtually always fits into my conception of being a liberal… the fact that it might be shared by a republican or conservative, and that it also makes sense to them, does not change the merit of the view… it is a GOOD thing that it crosses our preconceived boundaries, that it has no team or color, yet people criticize and reject these ideas constantly in pure self-righteous short sighted defensiveness of their “side”. It is so infuriating to me that people almost intentionally lose sight of the ideas that so inspired and moved them in the first place (hopefully that’s why the subscribed to them)… and just adopt a prejudice, leaving logic and compassion and understanding in the gutter, because they now know they are right.

“The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.” --Joseph A. Schumpeter
I think that is only true of those who have abandoned their ideals for faith… logic has no sway over the faithful, and evidence is irrelevant, although it is always jumped upon when it supports their needs, and disavowed when it doesn’t.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAnyway… my soap box is creaking, I think it might be infested with termites by now. So I’ll sum up… when it comes to principles and compromise based on pragmatism and mutual understanding; none of it should even be approached until we (or one) identifies what the principles actually are. I, for example, believe that freedom is the most important right of every human being, and stands far and away above morality, which is more ambiguous (at best). But neither am so naive enough to believe in a lack of structure, or anarchy, nor of regimented rules so as never to offend or risk impeding basic rights, as with communism (a gross misnomer really). There is a logical middle ground for me, and though some areas may be gray, I’m sure many of my principles happen to coincide with those of a different idealogy… if we keep in mind what our beliefs are grounded in, stay away from herd mentality, and are willing to question and listen to everything: only then can we truly and accurately communicate, and begin to wrestle with the issues we disagree on. A discussion, or even a debate, need not be a division, or represent one… it is an opportunity to understand one another. It is a serious vexation of mine that few seem to use it as such. No one ever convinced anyone of different mind of anything, without first listening.

Amidst a wide array of utensils probably not altogether distant from your present location, you may indeed be able to retrieve a fork. If you do, stab me repeatedly, “Psycho” style… for I am done.

3

[QUOTE=twgm]

To me, if you are to affiliate yourself with a principle, then you have to understand what it is you believe in, and I would submit that most people don’t, at least not fully. It’s a bit like team fanaticism - you learn a bit about the players, the game, the history and the colors, and suddenly BAM!, you’re a cubs fan, or a bears fan… and from that point on its pure loyalty, often without much thought.
[/QUOTE]

I’d agree to an extent. The average person doesn’t or take or even have the time to examine the issues in detail. They decide who seems to agree with them most on the issues and choose a side. I was just talking to a conservative friend about the fact that once we pick a party we do develop party loyalty. We overlook or justify the negatives of our own party and are overly critical of the opposition. I think with effort and a focus on communication for the sake of problem solving and progress rather than “winning” this can be overcome. I also think a lot of pepople on both sides are ready to make an effort.

I agree. People pick out an issue such as gay marriage, abortion, the war, UHC, taxes, more government programs vs less government etc and decide based on an issue or two what they believe in. It’s based as much on emotion as facts IMO.
We must be willing to deal with both, and respect both. Even if you think it’s stupid and factually incorrect for people to call a cell cluster a “baby” we have to start with trying to respect the feeling.

We just had an interesting thread I linked to in the OP, in which conservatives and liberals revealed they agreed with the opposition on certain issues , or at least in part. IMO we need to stress looking at the issues one at a time without attachment to a political or ideological label. Join whatever party you feel comfortable with , but when it comes to the actual issues , don’t be bullied into holding a position you actually don’t hold because it’s the party line. We should not accept browbeating from anyone even if we agree with them on the issue. I have liberal friends I can’t talk to about certain issues because they refuse to entertain the oppositions view as valid in any way. That doesn’t help. I have conservative friends who I can talk to because they are willing to listen and make a sincere effort to understand.

I also agree and see it on both sides of political issues.
I can see the validity in conservative economic issues. I understand not wanting to support others with your own efforts, but the reality of that principle is that poverty is a much more complex subject than that. So is the issue of self motivation and economic opportunity.
OTOH people who want more government programs to help the needy tend to minimize the self motivation issue. For them, the important thing is helping, but sometimes they can’t determine the line between helping and enabling.

True, but we can calmly and consistently ask for relevant facts. Most people on either side of an issue will express a concern for the truth. I think we have to point out the difference between our emotional attachment to an position, {understandable and human} and the actual relevant facts. We also can point out the need to make some progress through compromise.

And the relevant issues that surround that principle. Pro Life sounds so positive, but I asked my brother in law who was going to care for all the children woman were told they had to carry to term? Who was going to step up and look out for the welfare of a living child who was in need?
It’s fine to say people should help the less fortunate but how we do that on a practical level raises a lot of issues.
It’s fine to feel that people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps but ignoring the needs of our fellow citizens because we hold to that principle strikes me as a little cold and unrealistic. If we try to long to ignore certain problems those problems are eventually on our doorstep affecting our lives, or our children’s lives, directly.

Interesting. I heard a recent conservative say that conservatives value freedom and accept inequality of outcome to preserve it while liberals tend to sacrifice freedom to gain equality of outcome. In general liberals have a reputation of supporting more government regulations rather than less.

I would rather see less myself but I think society has to grow up first. I came to the conclusion that conservatives and liberals need each other to maintain a better balance. It’s one of the things I love about our democracy. Nobody, no principle or ideal solves all the issues. We can, through effort, discover them together, even when we don’t agree. When we begin to see that we’re really working together and helping each other rather than competing as rivals or enemies. I think more of our media and our leaders need to move in that direction.
Citizens in general need to spend a little more time staying aware of the issues and working to solve them.

Thanks for participating. The thread didn’t seem to spark much interest. Too broad perhaps.

4

Reality should always be the master. You need principles but you should take a “pirates code” approach to them, letting them serve as guidlines rather than rules. Zealous adherence to principles could cause a lot of suffering in the world.

5

[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
Reality should always be the master. You need principles but you should take a “pirates code” approach to them, letting them serve as guidlines rather than rules. Zealous adherence to principles could cause a lot of suffering in the world.
[/QUOTE]

My extended family watched “Storm of the Century,” the Stephen King mini-series from several years ago, last night.

In the story, residents of a fictional Maine island are cut off from the outside world by a horrific blizzard. As the storm worsens, the two hundred or so that are trapped on the island seek shelter in the town hall basement. There they are bedeviled by a sinister man who has killed an old woman, and whose mere presence causes others to commit suicide in gruesome ways, each scribbling “Give me what I want and I’ll go away” before they die. This turns out to be the demonic man’s message: he convinces the town that he has the power to kill them all, and he will; hypnotically compelling them to walk into the ocean and leave the town abandoned. But if he’s given what he wants, he’ll go away.

The prize he wants is a child, one of the eight that are part of the trapped populace. He explains that althogh he’s lived for hundreds of years, he’s not immortal, and is now (for his kind) old, sick, and dying. He wishes a child to take with him, to transform into another of his kind, that evidently being the process by which his kind continues their existence.

The town constable is violently opposed to this. He insists that the people join together to fight, and that even if they die, it’s better than living with the knowledge that they gave in. No one else agrees; they all feel (or tell themselves, anyway) that since death is certain for everyone if they refuse, it makes sense to comply.

Sorry for the long-winded setup and drawing a lesson from something obviously fictional, but now I can pose my question: what should the islanders have done, and why? Should principles triumph over reality?

6

[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
Reality should always be the master. You need principles but you should take a “pirates code” approach to them, letting them serve as guidlines rather than rules. Zealous adherence to principles could cause a lot of suffering in the world.
[/QUOTE]

That’s the thought behind the OP. People on both sides of the political spectrum get so attached to the principle they feel they are fighting for that they aren’t willing to see reality is a little more complex than any one principle and requires some compromise to get things done.

That assumes our common goal is progress which isn’t always the case. We have to contend with those who want control and have no real principles about how they acquire it.

In the political arena I think we need to set higher standards of transparency with less corruption for both parties and try to adhere to them. There can’t be much progress if each party is finding fault with the other for issues they aren’t willing to address in their own party. That kind of smokescreen gamesmanship is hurting the public.

7

[QUOTE=Bricker]
My extended family watched “Storm of the Century,” the Stephen King mini-series from several years ago, last night.

In the story, residents of a fictional Maine island are cut off from the outside world by a horrific blizzard. As the storm worsens, the two hundred or so that are trapped on the island seek shelter in the town hall basement. There they are bedeviled by a sinister man who has killed an old woman, and whose mere presence causes others to commit suicide in gruesome ways, each scribbling “Give me what I want and I’ll go away” before they die. This turns out to be the demonic man’s message: he convinces the town that he has the power to kill them all, and he will; hypnotically compelling them to walk into the ocean and leave the town abandoned. But if he’s given what he wants, he’ll go away.

The prize he wants is a child, one of the eight that are part of the trapped populace. He explains that althogh he’s lived for hundreds of years, he’s not immortal, and is now (for his kind) old, sick, and dying. He wishes a child to take with him, to transform into another of his kind, that evidently being the process by which his kind continues their existence.

The town constable is violently opposed to this. He insists that the people join together to fight, and that even if they die, it’s better than living with the knowledge that they gave in. No one else agrees; they all feel (or tell themselves, anyway) that since death is certain for everyone if they refuse, it makes sense to comply.

Sorry for the long-winded setup and drawing a lesson from something obviously fictional, but now I can pose my question: what should the islanders have done, and why? Should principles triumph over reality?
[/QUOTE]

Ever see Sophie’s Choice?

side note. I’m not sure when King wrote that but we actually had a storm of the century about 12 years ago in Maine. Days of freezing rain knocked out power for hundreds of thousands. Some were without power for a couple of weeks.

In the story the outcome is uncertain as it often is. They didn’t know the ultimate outcome if they complied or fought. I think we have to have some guiding principles and then we deal with the situation at hand. The reality in politics and public policy is that we can change it and adjust. I asked my conservative and successful friend if the worse case scenario of wealth redistribution is those that have more than enough have a bit less but still more than enough, how bad is that?

No solution is going to be perfect. The more welfare we have the more it will be abused. The less we have the more that slip through the cracks and suffer when we have the means to help. There will be monumental problems with a UHC system but is our currant system a better choice. I believe in personal responsibility. Earn your own way and don’t whine about your bad luck. I also believe we can, as a society choose to offer encouragement and real aide to those in need. Finding the balance of helping while still motivating will not be easy or smooth.

8

Neil Kinnock is often credited with at least starting the process of making the British Labour Party electable again - and was consistently criticized by those who thought themselves ideologically pure. I have heard a quote from him (though have no clue as to its veracity) of “I only have one principle left - to get rid of Margaret Thatcher.”

There is also an old (I am sure aprocryphal) story of him at the Labour Party Conference one year, taking a trip to the men’s room, and finding Derek Hatton (a Trotskyite local party ‘leader’ from Liverpool who had been one of the lightening rods in the battle for the party’s soul). Hatton allegedly turned to him and said “Neil, you’re a traitor to the working class.” To which Kinnock replied “Derek, you’re a wanker.”

The issues the Labour Party got tied up with seem to frame this debate well. Often they were, IMHO, blown way out of proportion by the ideological wing of the party (and it is important to remember the Labour Party was not established as an ideological group, unlike many members of the European Socialist/Social Democratic movement). In particular, nuclear disarmament, which I fail to see as a particularly socialist issue, became a shibboleth for many. The battle then shifted to “clause 4” which was the ultimate example, IMHO, of ideology over practicality. Clause 4 committed the Labour Party to pursuing nationalization. Pretty much the entire party accepted this was never going to be public ownership in the style of the 40’s and 50’s, yet the battle to remove the clause from the constitution (which I opposed though only moderately) was bloody to say the least. The bottom line is removing the clause did not change the party’s policies at all, but merely the presentation of those policies.

9

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sorry for the long-winded setup and drawing a lesson from something obviously fictional, but now I can pose my question: what should the islanders have done, and why? Should principles triumph over reality?
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t base my morality on how to handle a situation that isn’t physically possible in the world in which I live.

10

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I wouldn’t base my morality on how to handle a situation that isn’t physically possible in the world in which I live.
[/QUOTE]

You just made Jesus cry :frowning:

11

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I wouldn’t base my morality on how to handle a situation that isn’t physically possible in the world in which I live.
[/QUOTE]

In the face of the supernatural I’m afraid most of the underpinnings of pretty much any moral system which conflicts with the supernatural are going to be irrelevant. Imagine a god appears who decides that we should all have been sodomizing each other and turning strangers away from our homes unless they let us sodomize them. Said deity claims sole providence upon which morals should be based, and finds us all(except for a very small handful) in violation of said decrees. Then decides to rain fire and brimstone upon the Earth until all but a handful of people are dead.

Same-same if humanistic morals are judged against the supernatural might of a Judeo-Christian god. Your only choice is to comply with the moral code laid down by the controlling authority or to die.

Enjoy,
Steven

12

Another way of expressing this sentiment is that the perfect is the enemy of the good. You may have a direction to an ideal, but unless you know that the next step you take is actually going to improve things, you can make things worse on the way.

But another problem is weighting different ideals. We can say that free enterprise is good, and that minimizing suffering is good, but sometimes these ideals conflict. Picking one exclusively over the other usually gets you neither. Only caring about reducing suffering gets a paternal state which reduces the general well being, only caring about free enterprise, in a democracy anyway, generates a reaction which reduces it more than necessary.

Which leads to measurability. Actions rooted in reality let you see how well you met your goals. Actions targeted to an ideal don’t, since any negative impact can be explained away as necessary pain to reach the ideal. Plenty of examples of this around, to be sure.

13

[QUOTE=Mtgman]
In the face of the supernatural I’m afraid most of the underpinnings of pretty much any moral system which conflicts with the supernatural are going to be irrelevant. Imagine a god appears who decides that we should all have been sodomizing each other and turning strangers away from our homes unless they let us sodomize them. Said deity claims sole providence upon which morals should be based, and finds us all(except for a very small handful) in violation of said decrees. Then decides to rain fire and brimstone upon the Earth until all but a handful of people are dead.

Same-same if humanistic morals are judged against the supernatural might of a Judeo-Christian god. Your only choice is to comply with the moral code laid down by the controlling authority or to die.

Enjoy,
Steven
[/QUOTE]

We already have certain guiding principles laid down in our founding documents. Those principles in some measure prevent any particular religious doctrine from gaining ultimate authority. One of the great things I see in our founding documents is the principle that whatever rights and freedoms we want to claim as our own we are bound to defend for others.

We aren’t great at it but we keep getting better. Ot’s one of the things I really appreciated about Obama’s “making a more perfect democracy” part of his speech about racism.

14

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I wouldn’t base my morality on how to handle a situation that isn’t physically possible in the world in which I live.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I agree that planning moral guidelines to handle the potential appearance of demonic visitors is probably not the best use of our time.

But my thought was that there was an analogy in the story which we could apply in real life, and which was consistent with the topic in this thread: should every choice be evaluated simply in terms of the end result, or are there choices which some sort of natural law or overriding moral considerations forbid us to take, even if the results would arguably be more desirable if we selected those choices?

15

People need to recognize that a principle is just a theory. Nobody knows what the future will bring but we need to deal with it anyway. So we look at past events and try to guess what the best policy is.

This is why two people can look at the same problem and have two different answers. They just have different theories about how to solve the problem and neither of them knows if their answer is better.

Problems occur when people treat their principles as facts instead of theories - when they start claiming that they have the right answer instead of admitting that what they have is their best guess.

16

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Another way of expressing this sentiment is that the perfect is the enemy of the good. You may have a direction to an ideal, but unless you know that the next step you take is actually going to improve things, you can make things worse on the way.

But another problem is weighting different ideals. We can say that free enterprise is good, and that minimizing suffering is good, but sometimes these ideals conflict. Picking one exclusively over the other usually gets you neither. Only caring about reducing suffering gets a paternal state which reduces the general well being, only caring about free enterprise, in a democracy anyway, generates a reaction which reduces it more than necessary.

Which leads to measurability. Actions rooted in reality let you see how well you met your goals. Actions targeted to an ideal don’t, since any negative impact can be explained away as necessary pain to reach the ideal. Plenty of examples of this around, to be sure.
[/QUOTE]

Well said.
I love that last part** Voyager**. Although, I’d say some pain is necessary and inevitable. Still, I agree we should gauge the results as best we can and try to adjust accordingly. If we see welfare is creating generations of dependent people we can tweak the rules to encourage self motivation. If we see free enterprise is encouraging too much greed and corruption we can tweak the regulations.

One step in the right direction is to encourage education, public awareness, and involvement.

17

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
People need to recognize that a principle is just a theory. Nobody knows what the future will bring but we need to deal with it anyway. So we look at past events and try to guess what the best policy is.

This is why two people can look at the same problem and have two different answers. They just have different theories about how to solve the problem and neither of them knows if their answer is better.

Problems occur when people treat their principles as facts instead of theories - when they start claiming that they have the right answer instead of admitting that what they have is their best guess.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. In some sense we must have a belief that a certain direction will be the better choice, but I think it helps if we admit we don’t know for sure and we’re willing to listen and learn.

It also comes with respecting the rights of others. If we’re going to share a democratic society then let’s embrace the process rather than find ways to circumvent it.