Centrists: The Vanilla Ice Cream of Politics (2 Viewers)

[_dhj_]

It's silly because you can say 'the goal is ultimately more important' but the goal is likely very well intrinsically linked to the method, so how can you make a judgement call?

Well like I said the outcome is all-encompassing. If we are not talking about goal/view/method-outcome in the context of a strict cause-effect relationship, but rather in the ordinary sense of the words in the context of politics, they refer to ideological stance. In that definition the ideology affects the outcome by the degree of ideological 'satisfaction'. It also affects the perceived quality of the outcome but in reality that is encompassed by ideological satisfaction and pales in significance compared to the overall outcome. Generally, food is better than no food, having clothing, shelter and safety is better than not having them. Procreation is better than no procreation and intellectual masturbation is better than no intellectual masturbation. Likewise, high quality and quantity of the aforementioned is superior to low quality and quantity. Generally, it is your genetically entrenched 'tastes' that determine the quality of the outcomes rather than your ideology.

 

[bshoc]

Slogans are stupid, always.

Well simply by his philosophy the more hard right and left ideologies would be idealism, and the more centrist ones a form of marginalism.

 

[bshoc]

It's interesting to consider Deng's proverbial explanation that 'no matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat'. I have always thought that we should do what is right, but Deng's maxim has significant merit. Logically, what is more important is the outcome. Goals, methods and views are mere means to reach the outcome. What is a good outcome? Of course, if policy maker A's goal was X and the outcome is Y, A might not be satisfied with the outcome, although another individual B may well be. But the reality is that the concept of outcome is all-encompassing, while ideology on the other hand, depending on the person in question, will probably only influence a small part of what the person in question lives for.

I don't believe that for a second, either the white cat or the black cat would in totality be better at catching mice. The rest of it is mostly subjective and hard to create any genuine political approach for,

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The rest of it is mostly subjective and hard to create any genuine political approach for

I think the fact is that much as we can percieve life is very subjective requiring pragmatism more than 'genuine political approaches'.

 

[_dhj_]

Well simply by his philosophy the more hard right and left ideologies would be idealism, and the more centrist ones a form of marginalism.

It's quite simple. What did Communist China in the seventies need to for its people to be marginally better off? It needed free-market policies. What did laissez faire Britain need to be marginally better off? It needed some social and industrial laws to protect the exploited proles. Of course, when we are already close to the 'centre' it is more difficult to ascertain what we need, but it's clear that the extreme utopias don't provide the best outcomes.