Understanding Politics


I think that understanding politics in terms of Conservitism vs Liberalism sucks. (the rest of this short paragraph will be a short indictment of leftrightism [see: tag leftrightism])

Instead we can choose a small set of positive values and understand a person's political leaning based upon how they prioritize those values.   For example one set of values might be (safety, environment, God, liberty, tolerance, nation, social-spending).  I will bet that these political animals woulld prioritize as follows ...

Neoconservatism:
{safety, religion, nation, tolerance,liberty,enviromment, social-spending}

George Bush:
{safety, religion, nation, tolerance,liberty,enviromment, social-spending}

Ann Coulter,  .
{religion, nation, safety, liberty, tolerance, environment, social-spending}

William F. Buckley Jr
{religion, liberty, nation, safety, environment, tolerance,social-spending}

Al Gore:
{environment, tolerance, liberty, safety, nation, social-spending, religion}

Seth of group seth:
{tolerance, liberty, safety, environment, social-spending, nation, religion}

M of group mark:
{liberty, nation, safety, environment, tolerance, social-spending, religion}

How would you prioritize them ?

Tags

  1. politics
  2. values
  3. thinking out loud
  4. platforms
  5. legos
  6. reference
  7. sexy

Comments


Mark de LA says
At first glance your values seem to be taken out of a much bigger bag at random. I assume God no need to put her in the mix. People don't prioritize what they assume - that also excludes tolerance. So I would probably go for: {liberty, nation, environment}.

Seth says
M 2006-07-14 06:00:04 3929
At first glance your values seem to be taken out of a much bigger bag at random. 

Yes there was some but not a lot of thought in choosing the particular set that i started with as an example of this process of cognition.  Notice that what each of these catagories mean is going to vary from person to person.  The more discussion of each catagory preceeds one's choices, the more accurate the comprehension of where that person stands.  For example whole books have recently been written on the changing notion of "Liberty".  More about that later.

I assume God no need to put her in the mix. People don't prioritize what they assume - that also excludes tolerance. So I would probably go for: {liberty, nation, environment}.

I don't get your exclusions.  All of the catagories can equally be excluded or not.  Perhaps "prioritize" means something different to you ... think of it as the relationship: "is more important than" between values or things that you assume.  If you stumbel on it, then it just is like refusing to participate. 

Mark de LA says
Until 9-11, I assumed that I was fairly safe in this country - therefore safety was not much or a value for me since I already had it (at least in my mind). After 9-11, safety was a value I sought more. If something is already in your domain then you usually don't have it in front of you as something you want or need. Money, for example, is not something that Bill Gates seeks (i.e. values) - he already has it all.

Mark de LA says
See also the Vals Survey 2393

Seth says
M 2006-07-14 06:25:41 3929
Until 9-11, I assumed that I was fairly safe in this country - therefore safety was not much or a value for me since I already had it (at least in my mind). After 9-11, safety was a value I sought more. If something is already in your domain then you usually don't have it in front of you as something you want or need. Money, for example, is not something that Bill Gates seeks (i.e. values) - he already has it all.
You have a good point.  I will put "safety" in my example list above.  As soon as i finish this comment my example list will become (safty,environment, God, liberty, tolerance, nation).

Note that the list is subjective to the person trying to understand some political animal.  That is very important to understand about this process of cognition that i am proposing.  There is no definitive list.  There cannot be.  The list that applies today to people in Australia will be quite different than the list for people in the USA. 

Perhaps now you can give me a reading of the entire example set.  Let me know if you still need to change some terms.  Perhaps you would like a different word for God.

Seth says
Notice that the pairwise relationship between two values is what we are after, not necessarily the absolute position of those values in the list.  For example, currently i have "safety" as third on my list ... and guess what ... so does Ann Coulter.  But that in itself means nothing.  Look how different some of my pair wise comparisons are to Ann's ... me: (tolerance,safety) ... ann: (safety,tolerance) ... me: (liberty,safety) ... ann: ( safety,liberty) ...  me: (safety,god) .... ann: (god,safety) ... me:(safety,nation) ... ann (nation,safety).   Now of course i am attibuting beliefs to Ann ... to be honest she would need to prioritize her own list and/or we would need to find where in her writings she specifically put one value ahead of the other.

Mark de LA says
I would leave God out of the picture entirely - she is only important to an Atheist (5% of the population - something he/she/it does not have ). I would take the list in 3914 and ponder what one-word values would be a discriminator in them; perhaps there being more than one in each & try again.  Your list & presumed values for each person is evaluating your stereotype of these people's values, of course - I don't think that says a whole lot about understanding politics.  Ann Coulter is not the standard bearer for conservatives - no more than Al Franken is for liberals. Bill Buckley or Rush Limbaugh are more the standards for "conservative" IMHO. You can map politics in many ways. Look at the Vals Survey & see what crazy kind of map they have. Left-Right in 2 dimensions may be simple, but hardly leads to real understanding.  In the end, I'm confused as to what you really are trying to understand in politics. What specifically are the questions you want answered regarding politics & the political animals that inhabit the domain of politics ?



Seth says
Whatever, M, go soemwhere else, you bother me with your lack of cooperation.

Mark de LA says
The political parties also send me surveys to fill out & I throw them immediately into the trash.  I spent some time thinking about yours. I am genuinely confused about what you expect out of your survey or your experiment. But then I can take you at face value & at your suggestion & not waste my time!  Apparently you refuse to answer the age old question what do you want out of what you are doing ?


Seth says
M 2006-07-14 08:07:34 3929
The political parties also send me surveys to fill out & I throw them immediately into the trash.  I spent some time thinking about yours. I am genuinely confused about what you expect out of your survey or your experiment. But then I can take you at face value & at your suggestion & not waste my time!  Apparently you refuse to answer the age old question what do you want out of what you are doing ?
At face value it is not a survey or a poll.  It is a mechinism that helps a person comprehend the political landscape.  It is a subjective model of that landscape.  3914 might be an excellant place for you to start.  Name your catagories, publish your own prioritization, then i will give you my prioitization.  After that ask yourself whether you think i understand you better as a political animal ... and after reading my prioritization ask yourself if you understand me better as a political animal.  Because right now i have you down as a right wing pig ... and i bet you have me down as a wishy washy liberal.  But i have a sneeking suspicion that both of our political insights go quite a bit deeper than that. 

Seth says
M 2006-07-14 08:59:20 3929
M 2006-07-14 08:56:55 3929
   Well, Seth, you can cut through the crap & just ask me directly.  With your publishing of 3909 I can say with about 95% certainty that I agree with John Mackey.  ...
That's fine Mark.  If you don't want to participate in this expermint that is attempting to find a political model  more advanced than just classifying people as conservitives/liberals, then don't. 

Mark de LA says
Perhaps it is your pigeon-holing of the Christian right that gives you the need to put God in your political spectrum. Since she is not running for political office or heading a political party she is not in my political spectrum. It is over 65 years since I heard her voice so I can't remember what her political affiliation is.  I think she would be against war. I think she would be for individual responsibility since she hid from us to teach us something like that. I think she would be for Gaia & the environment since in her incarnation in Christ she united herself with the Earth. I know she would be anti-abortion (hardly a debate there). I know that she would be for the Golden Rule as that is something she taught with Christ in the parables. etc... 


Seth says
I think perhaps there is a way for you to comprehend why i put God on my list.  It really has nothing to do with my own beliefs about God.  It has to do with how i comprehend politicians.  It is my subjective mechinism ... my subjective model ... of political animals.  Certainly the religious right in this country would have no problems with publishing where they put God in their priorities.  Certainly the Sheei in Iran would have no problems with publishing where they put Alla on their list of priorities.  Knowing those priorities gives me a better model of how those political entities will behave.  It increases my ablity to predict how they will respond to issues. It has nothing to do with my own beliefs in God ... except perhaps when i publish my own priorities.

Mark de LA says
M 2006-07-14 08:56:55 3929
   Well, Seth, you can cut through the crap & just ask me directly.  With your publishing of 3909 I can say with about 95% certainty that I agree with John Mackey.  When I first heard Rush Limbaugh he sounded like he was speaking to some of the thoughts that I had even though I disagreed on several main fronts like drugs & victimless crimes, the environment & a few others. I have never heard John Mackey speak.  I think that the Libertarian camp best fits my political persuasion at this passage of my life.
   I don't need a political party or a political stand to serve or find my identity. I can argue from either side & I can find my identity without one.  I also listened a lot to Laura Flanders 3838 when I was in LA for the left-wing perspective when she was on NPR.  When I was going to college I was internally a liberal. The older I grow the more I tend to see the error or that way.
   I have always been interested in Utopian societies - having checked out the book Utopia by Sir Thomas More (a very boring book) in junior high school. I think I was trying to create something in that realm with Common Logic, Inc.  Digressing for a moment, the first books that I remember mother reading to me while teaching me how to read were about the Revolutionary War & the Sons of Liberty & I think that it was her voice in my head & the stories of the founders of this country that made me first love this country. I still do! 
   I think that Utopian societies can't exist. I think that RS has a better answer to Utopia than anyone else with his Threefold Commonwealth which is as a model for all parts of society to come together in dynamic equilibrium just like the human body is in dynamic equilibrium. 


Seth says
M 2006-07-14 09:17:16 3929
Perhaps it is your pigeon-holing of the Christian right that gives you the need to put God in your political spectrum. 
If you ignore God in US politics today, you will not be able to accurately predict the behavior of politicians.
Since she is not running for political office or heading a political party she is not in my political spectrum. It is over 65 years since I heard her voice so I can't remember what her political affiliation is.
  Interesting experimint in attributing political opinions to God .  I don't think i've ever heard anyone else do that.  You should make an item of it independant of this one where it is buried. 

In fact it is quite ot here.  This item is not about arguing politics.  This item is about one particular political model.   Note that a model is all about predicting behavior.  It is not about aspousing a position.  It is not a forum to propogandize from.  It is merely a method of predicting behavior.


Seth says
M 2006-07-14 09:22:34 3929
I don't know if you can really put politics in quads.
I don't know about putting politics in quads ... but you certainly can express this modeling technique in quads .

Seth says
M 2006-07-14 09:54:47 3929
seth 2006-07-14 09:32:56 3929
If you ignore God in US politics today, you will not be able to accurately predict the behavior of politicians.
Hmmm... JFK, Teddy Kenedy & John Kerry - all Catholics - can you predict their politics from that ?
The question is not what a politicians private religious beliefs are.  The question is what priority they give to those beliefs in their political actions and writings in sacrifice to other values.  Can you point to where those politicians have factored religion in their political actions?  If so, then where would God fall in their pairwise relationships with other values.  George Bush on the other hand went on a crusade to support faith based initatives.  He did that in sacrafice to what other value? ... perhaps (God,liberty) or (God, tolerance) ... or who knows perhaps some other catagory would need to be included in the list to tease out that behaviro.   Btw, this is not the item to argue about Faith from a partisan point of view.  I really don't want to loose focus here on the modeling technique. That is the subject before us in this node.

Seth says
M 2006-07-14 10:18:31 3929
So, since I expressed my political ideas a little while back, what order you think I place your values in?
Well from previous discussions i know that you do not believe that religion has any place in government ... and i know that you have recently been alighning with the liberty of the individual vs the concerns of the nation ... i would attribute your priorities as follows ...

{liberty, safety, nation, tolerance, environment, God}

It obviously would be better if you would choose your priorities as my attribution of them is relatively meaningless and assumes that i understand everything that you have said from your perspective .. which i certainly do not.  For example i am very unsure about the your pairwise beliefs quad {mark: liberty is  more important than safety} ... also i am very unsure about what you would call liberty ... it might be totally different than what i am talking about.  But at least this is a start .. no?

Seth says
M 2006-07-14 10:21:52 3929
All politicians want to be elected & say what their constituents want to hear in order for their constituents to vote them into office. That's where the inquiry belongs. All politicians, IMHO, are vote-whores!
Good point.  There is a big difference between what a politician promises and what they actually do.  If this becomes a useful tool we would need to compose two lists for each animal ... on what they say out of the side of their neck ... and the other what they actually do.  I could give many examples as i am sure you could too ... but let's not go there. 

Mark de LA says
Well from previous discussions i know that you do not believe that religion has any place in government ... and i know that you have recently been aligning with the liberty of the individual vs the concerns of the nation ... i would attribute your priorities as follows ...

{liberty, safety, nation, tolerance, environment, God}
Hmmm... {liberty, nation, safety, environment, tolerance, God} seems closer with tolerance & God null-pointer exceptions because they are assumptions for me.  The price of freedom is eternal vigilance (my idea of liberty is freedom).

I learned in a Tony Robbins seminar that it was improbable to get a room full of people ~ 250 to divide in groups of five & come up with the five words that either meant sex or education & have any of the groups of five agree. In other words reducing politics down to 6 words that everyone would agree mean politics (or anything else) is absurd.

Seth says
M 2006-07-14 11:09:07 3929
In other words reducing politics down to 6 words that everyone would agree mean politics (or anything else) is absurd
Perhaps, but it is 3 times less absurd than reducing it to 2 .  Btw everyone does not need to agree what the words mean.  That is one of the features of this technique that i think you are missing.  Point is that this is a subjective model.  The words you would choose to be in your model might be totally different than the one i choose.  And if you think about it that is the best we can do ... everyone thinks in their own terms.  Anyone can use this technique to grok the political landscape.  No agreement on terms is necessary.

Btw, this article i just read is related "Bestseller Study: Long Tail = Shorter Head" ... though it might not be immediately obvious.   If you think in just 2 catagories, your black and white thinking is severly limited.  Here we are adding more catagories ... and we are looking not at the catagories themselves, but rather the relationships between them.  The tail is growing ... the head is shrinking. 

Seth says
After some testing of the particular model that i started with here i have decided that the term "religion" would be far better than the word "God" to identify that particular catagory.  Hopefully this will make more sense now.   Incidentally this term used in this context has to do with the relationship of governmental politics to religion.  


Mark de LA says
seth 2006-07-16 09:42:48 3929
After some testing of the particular model that i started with here i have decided that the term "religion" would be far better than the word "God" to identify that particular catagory.  Hopefully this will make more sense now.   Incidentally this term used in this context has to do with the relationship of governmental politics to religion.  
Perhaps a better choice!

Seth says
And btw ... one could take any group and elaborate its politics with this technique.  In fact this has been done in US politics as far back as i can remember.  Every party has a platform.  All this is, is a person making up a platform that is party independant and measuring all of the platforms with the same stick.  I'm not going to spend any more time in discussion with you about the validity of this process.  Rather i want to spend what time i have to spend on this learning experience using and improving the process.  

Seth says
Continueing my improvement of my example catagories, i have added social-spending.  I have added that catagory to each of the example entities above, but i did it with very little thought so don't be surprised if i got some of them wrong.  Later when we look at some specific political party platforms, we can make these more precise.  Also there needs to be an item in a group written for each catagory.  Don't forget this is a learning experience.  It is not an epousal of any particular party or of any particular value.  

Seth says
M 2006-07-18 07:38:54 3929
The more I look at that list of yours which has your opinions about the values priority of certain public politicians & commentators, the more I think you should retitle this item:
    Understanding Seth's Politics
Perhaps it appears that way to you becuase you have made very little substantive contribution to it.  I thank you for that which you have ... changing one catagory from "God" to "religion" and adding the catagory "safety".  This node and all such kind of "thinking out loud" nodes is like life: you get out of it what you put into it. 

Mark de LA says
Good Luck in getting a party platform in writing!  I looked around for one in the last campaign & could not find one. Lots of luck indeed having a politician conform to a pre-announced, written set of things he/she/it want's to do!   The last time I remember someone doing that was Newt's Contract With America & Congress changed hands to the Republicans ! ... I hope Newt does it again.


Mark de LA says
Here presumably is the Democrat Party Platform for 2004 (pdf) & here is the presumed Republican Party Platform for 2004 (pdf). I remember looking for these during the campaigns & not finding them - must have given up too soon.
Analyze & Enjoy
 

Seth says
M 2006-07-18 09:40:57 3929
Presumably, somewhere in "understanding" something you are interested in the truth. In which case you would be more interested in what the actual people's values are instead of just your own prejudices. 
As soon as i can find evidance in their wirtings, of as soon as they state their prioities in their own words, then i will change my comprehension of their politics.  You still seem not to comprehend what i am doing.  There is no element of my predjuice wanted here at all.  If it still exists here, then it needs to be removed.  In fact this is an attempt to revove the very prejudices that you are accusing me of.  Like i said in the very beginning ... this is a learning experience ... the whole point of it is to make the catagories better and to make my understanding of the various partisan views more accurate.  You seem to have assumed that i am espousing some particular point of view ... but i am not. 

Mark de LA says
Maybe this will help your project:
A quick easy to understand guide to political ideologies ;
FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk. 
FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.
PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbours help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
APPLIED COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.
DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
NIGERIAN DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you and sends the cows to Zurich.
MILITARISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you. 
SINGAPOREAN DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment. 
PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbours decide who gets the milk. 
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbours pick someone to tell you who gets the milk. 
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate". The cow sues you for breach of contract. 
BRITISH DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You feed them sheep's' brains and they go mad. The government doesn't do anything. 
EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. 
HONG KONG CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly-listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the right to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because of bad feng shui.
LESBIANISM: You have two cows. They get married and adopt a veal calf.
TOTALITARIANISM:You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: You are associated with (the concept of 'ownership' is a symbol of the phallocentric, warmongering, intolerant past) two differently aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of nonspecified gender.
COUNTERCULTURE: Wow, dude, there's like...these two cows, man. You have *got* to have some of this milk.
SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.



See Also

  1. Thought Zen & the Art of the Right-Wrong Game with 594 viewings related by tag "politics".
  2. Thought Inquiry: The nature of an individual to a group. with 279 viewings related by tag "politics".
  3. Thought Politics is the Art of making the possible happen ... with 204 viewings related by tag "politics".
  4. Thought Copy of - An agreement to avoid an unthinkable war with 138 viewings related by tag "politics".
  5. Thought Why my trains of thought break ... with 123 viewings related by tag "ThinkingOutLoud".
  6. Thought #MyVote2016 with 97 viewings related by tag "politics".
  7. Thought P r e s e n t a t i o n ! with 67 viewings related by tag "reference".
  8. Thought Making it easy for Mark with 66 viewings related by tag "sexy".
  9. Thought about: thought 23251 - comment 74736 with 62 viewings related by tag "politics".
  10. Thought An agreement to avoid an unthinkable war with 59 viewings related by tag "politics".
  11. Thought Value of Thought & Story with 52 viewings related by tag "values".
  12. Thought Representing something changes my awareness of it with 42 viewings related by tag "thinking out loud".
  13. Thought Zen Gorilla offers his Point-of-View with 42 viewings related by tag "politics".
  14. Thought What informs hearing truth? with 30 viewings related by tag "politics".
  15. Thought Copy of - What do we value as a nation? with 28 viewings related by tag "values".
  16. Thought Politics = RWG with 24 viewings related by tag "politics".
  17. Thought What does thinking live mean? ... and where might it be going? with 23 viewings related by tag "thinking out loud".
  18. Thought What do we value as a nation? with 21 viewings related by tag "values".
  19. Thought Ancient Wisdoms in Politics & Ethics with 15 viewings related by tag "politics".
  20. Thought Group on Politics with 12 viewings related by tag "politics".
  21. Thought 9 years left & counting .... with 8 viewings related by tag "politics".
  22. Thought The Dunning-Kreuger Effect with 8 viewings related by tag "politics".
  23. Thought Questions - Always Questions with 5 viewings related by tag "politics".
  24. Thought Democracy as Spinach with 5 viewings related by tag "politics".
  25. Thought Al Franken plus a pile of shit still is Al Franken with 5 viewings related by tag "reference".
  26. Thought Not in my network with 3 viewings related by tag "values".
  27. Thought Comparison: Left-Wing, Right-Wing By Issue with 3 viewings related by tag "platforms".
  28. Thought Obama versus the Wright with 3 viewings related by tag "politics".
  29. Thought FAIR ? with 3 viewings related by tag "politics".
  30. Thought Project 6 - The Politics of the Golden Rule & beyond with 3 viewings related by tag "politics".
  31. Thought Otherness & Culture with 3 viewings related by tag "politics".
  32. Thought Political Campaigns, Straw men, and Hyocracy with 3 viewings related by tag "politics".
  33. Thought Serious Proposition Node with 3 viewings related by tag "politics".
  34. Thought It's Hard to get Americans to Riot over a Cartoon with 3 viewings related by tag "politics".
  35. Thought about: Tempting Faith with 2 viewings related by tag "politics".
  36. Thought Internet Politics - internet primary anyone - 3rd Street with 2 viewings related by tag "politics".
  37. Thought The message is on the cover! with 2 viewings related by tag "politics".
  38. Thought The Big Stories and views that don't make major network news ... with 2 viewings related by tag "politics".
  39. Thought about: the great theft: wrestling islam from the extremists with 2 viewings related by tag "reference".
  40. Thought Schrodinger's Cat with 2 viewings related by tag "thinking out loud".
  41. Thought Dragon Bones with 2 viewings related by tag "reference".
  42. Thought Politicizing a Disease - Ebola Czar with 2 viewings related by tag "politics".
  43. Thought Ship of Fools with 1 viewings related by tag "politics".
  44. Thought A Great Sleeve Job with 1 viewings related by tag "politics".
  45. Thought The Voice of Leadership with 1 viewings related by tag "politics".
  46. Thought Bipartisan Flush of the Government 2008 with 1 viewings related by tag "politics".
  47. Thought about: Video: 50 year study says conservatives 'followers' with 1 viewings related by tag "politics".
  48. Thought Of Ego Trips & the Last Refuge - (Adolfz Result) with 1 viewings related by tag "politics".
  49. Thought Tar & Feathers for Congress with 1 viewings related by tag "politics".
  50. Thought Polls VS Polls VS Polls with 1 viewings related by tag "politics".