|
|
Пишет Journal de Chaource (![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/syndicated.gif){kind=small} lj_chaource)@ 2019-02-09 02:05:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Good stuff, with some caveats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuBHJbEE
Mostly, I'd agree with him. There are some minor points where I would differ: This guy calls the "left" what I prefer to call the "delusional extremist left". This guy argues that there are no shared goals between the "left" and the rest of the political scene, but he fails to explain what the goals of the "left" really are and why there is such an insurmountable gap between the new "left" politics and the American politics in the previous generations.
In my view, the gap is between ideologues and pragmatics. An ideologue would not agree with a policy that can have pragmatic success if the policy contradicts a chosen ideology. An ideologue has a set of "correct" facts that is fixed in advance, and anything else contradicting these facts is declared to be incorrect and ignored. (For example, a currently "correct" fact is that women are under-represented in certain occupations, such as mathematics or engineering, because men don't want to hire women due to sexist prejudice. If you openly dispute that "fact", you are likely to lose your job.) A pragmatic politician will treat a chosen ideology as only a rough guide to action, and would be ready to compromise and to argue on specific policies based on the available facts. A pragmatic politician is usually open to new factual knowledge.
Another gap seems to be between the "new left" politician who, on the surface, follows some ideology but actually just wants unlimited and unchecked power, and wants it at any cost, - and the more traditional left and right politicians who do want to be in power, of course, but will play by the rules to get there, and will not want to dismantle the separation of powers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuBHJbEE
Mostly, I'd agree with him. There are some minor points where I would differ: This guy calls the "left" what I prefer to call the "delusional extremist left". This guy argues that there are no shared goals between the "left" and the rest of the political scene, but he fails to explain what the goals of the "left" really are and why there is such an insurmountable gap between the new "left" politics and the American politics in the previous generations.
In my view, the gap is between ideologues and pragmatics. An ideologue would not agree with a policy that can have pragmatic success if the policy contradicts a chosen ideology. An ideologue has a set of "correct" facts that is fixed in advance, and anything else contradicting these facts is declared to be incorrect and ignored. (For example, a currently "correct" fact is that women are under-represented in certain occupations, such as mathematics or engineering, because men don't want to hire women due to sexist prejudice. If you openly dispute that "fact", you are likely to lose your job.) A pragmatic politician will treat a chosen ideology as only a rough guide to action, and would be ready to compromise and to argue on specific policies based on the available facts. A pragmatic politician is usually open to new factual knowledge.
Another gap seems to be between the "new left" politician who, on the surface, follows some ideology but actually just wants unlimited and unchecked power, and wants it at any cost, - and the more traditional left and right politicians who do want to be in power, of course, but will play by the rules to get there, and will not want to dismantle the separation of powers.
