'Centrists won't save Britain'

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting article. I think it gets the vacuity at the heart of the idea that centrism is somehow the best of 'both' worlds correct.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/opinion/britain-centrists-labour-conservatives.html

[Rhiannon]

What would be interesting would be to see a political movement that makes decisions based on merit and not only because of ideology.

[Nearly Sane]

What would be interesting would be to see a political movement that makes decisions based on merit and not only because of ideology.

But what people regard as 'merit' is surely determined in the main by ideology?

[Rhiannon]

But what people regard as 'merit' is surely determined in the main by ideology?

Yes, I thought that as I typed it. It used to be a Green Party thing though, to be neither left nor right but act in the best interest for the common good. Maybe its a load of pie in the sky but I like that. I think it prevents playing to to the gallery, prevents gesture politics. A lot of stuff that we see from the left and right isn't really driven by ideology, at least on the part of the politicians, but what they perceive as being the things that their core support want to see.

[Nearly Sane]

Surely though Trump is an example of a politician that doesn't really do ideology, and yet it's all gesture politics? I would agree that solutions shouldn't easily be determined by ideology in most things. Indeed, there's an argument that there is except on the extremes so little difference about actual ideology, that it's mere window dressing to colour them.

[Rhiannon]

Surely though Trump is an example of a politician that doesn't really do ideology, and yet it's all gesture politics? I would agree that solutions shouldn't easily be determined by ideology in most things. Indeed, there's an argument that there is except on the extremes so little difference about actual ideology, that it's mere window dressing to colour them.

Well that's kind of what I meant. He plays to the ideology of others, not his own. Blair did too, except on Iraq.

[Nearly Sane]

There's surely though an element in the realpoilitik approach that ends up making decisions like it's ok to sell arms to Saudi to bomb children in Yemen because overall it's in our best interests, and is nothing to do with ideology? I think we need politicians with more flexibility in terms of not selling solutions as certainties as regards achieving outcomes but I don't think the electorate seem to respond to that

[Rhiannon]

There's surely though an element in the realpoilitik approach that ends up making decisions like it's ok to sell arms to Saudi to bomb children in Yemen because overall it's in our best interests, and is nothing to do with ideology? I think we need politicians with more flexibility in terms of not selling solutions as certainties as regards achieving outcomes but I don't think the electorate seem to respond to that

Well that's because politics infantilises the electorate, doesn't it, and increasingly does so. Gwen Taylor's character in Yes Minister referred to 'the little people' who don't know what's good for them, and I think that describes the attitude of both left and right, although in different ways. People who are infantilised want certainty in the same way that children want to know that there are no monsters under the bed and that it'll be happy ever after.

[Nearly Sane]

Well that's because politics infantilises the electorate, doesn't it, and increasingly does so. Gwen Taylor's character in Yes Minister referred to 'the little people' who don't know what's good for them, and I think that describes the attitude of both left and right, although in different ways. People who are infantilised want certainty in the same way that children want to know that there are no monsters under the bed and that it'll be happy ever after.

Isn't that just saying that Gwen Taylor's character is correct? How do you 'un-infantilise' an electorate, if that's what you think they are?

[Rhiannon]

Isn't that just saying that Gwen Taylor's character is correct? How do you 'un-infantilise' an electorate, if that's what you think they are?

I don't know.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know.

Fair enough. I would be happier if there was more I don't know in politics as well. Perhaps that's what the less ideology thing is really about? I've seen a number of pieces arguing for the mythical centre which book down to, the centre people are the only ones who can have adult discussions because those other people in the extremes are just children so we can dismiss them. It's almost as if they don't get 'English irony'.

[Rhiannon]

Fair enough. I would be happier if there was more I don't know in politics as well. Perhaps that's what the less ideology thing is really about? I've seen a number of pieces arguing for the mythical centre which book down to, the centre people are the only ones who can have adult discussions because those other people in the extremes are just children so we can dismiss them. It's almost as if they don't get 'English irony'.

People not getting 'English irony'? What an idea.

[jeremyp]

What would be interesting would be to see a political movement that makes decisions based on merit and not only because of ideology.

+ 1,000,000

[jeremyp]

But what people regard as 'merit' is surely determined in the main by ideology?

What people regard as merit is not the same as actual merit.

[Shaker]

What people regard as merit is not the same as actual merit.

Bloody hell.

That's tantamount to saying that what people might think/believe is the case isn't actually the case.

This is a lying down in a dark room job.

[jeremyp]

Bloody hell.

That's tantamount to saying that what people might think/believe is the case isn't actually the case.

This is a lying down in a dark room job.

Well Nearly Sane is the person who seems to be conflating ideology with merit. Take it up with him.

[Rhiannon]

Well Nearly Sane is the person who seems to be conflating ideology with merit. Take it up with him.

But how can anyone decide something on merit without an ideology? I know I proposed this, I just don't know how it could work.

[Nearly Sane]

What people regard as merit is not the same as actual merit.

What is 'actual merit'?

[Rhiannon]

What is 'actual merit'?

If I think that selling arms to Saudi is good because it boosts jobs and the economy that's because ideologically I prioritise this country's financial wellbeing over the safety of Saudi's enemies. Likewise if I think selling arms to them makes them co-operative in terms of information and peacekeeping, that is an ideology. If I think it is immoral that is because ideologically I am opposed to weapons, or how Saudi uses them or both.

But there are some decisions that are driven solely by ideology that do fly in the face of reason, Brexit being a huge one. The merit for it is very dubious

[Nearly Sane]

If I think that selling arms to Saudi is good because it boosts jobs and the economy that's because ideologically I prioritise this country's financial wellbeing over the safety of Saudi's enemies. Likewise if I think selling arms to them makes them co-operative in terms of information and peacekeeping, that is an ideology. If I think it is immoral that is because ideologically I am opposed to weapons, or how Saudi uses them or both.

But there are some decisions that are driven solely by ideology that do fly in the face of reason, Brexit being a huge one. The merit for it is very dubious

We agree on the first paragraph.

The second reads as a non sequitur to me. Surely those voting for Brexit's ideology is based on what they see as the merit of the position?  Further, I don't think there is one single ideology behind Brexit. Just to take two opposed ones, there are those who see the EU as a neo liberal conspiracy to enrich an elite and think we have more chance of wresting back control from that elite in an independent UK. On the other hand, there are those who see the EU as a communist structure controlling our abilities to take advantage of a proper neo liberal globalist vision,

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Interesting article. I think it gets the vacuity at the heart of the idea that centrism is somehow the best of 'both' worlds correct.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/opinion/britain-centrists-labour-conservatives.html

Ah so you do not care for Lenin's idea of "democratic centralism" then?

[Nearly Sane]

Ah so you do not care for Lenin's idea of "democratic centralism" then?

Bizarrely, there is an echo of it in some of the rhetoric attached to the empty set centrism that is covered in the link. It is described by what it isn't, and is therefore somehow more binding. It is the expression of wrong opinion that marks what is right.

[jeremyp]

But how can anyone decide something on merit without an ideology? I know I proposed this, I just don't know how it could work.

Do you need an ideology to decide to have universal healthcare? Or to make rape illegal?

[Nearly Sane]

Do you need an ideology to decide to have universal healthcare? Or to make rape illegal?

To the first the answer is surely, yes!

And indeed given that marital rape was disregarded for millennia, yes too.


Again what is 'actual merit'?

[jeremyp]

We agree on the first paragraph.

The second reads as a non sequitur to me. Surely those voting for Brexit's ideology is based on what they see as the merit of the position?

What they see as merit is distorted by their ideology. The actual merit or otherwise of the decision can only be determined by analysing the improvement or otherwise in the British people's circumstances as a result of the decision.

There are also ideological reasons for choosing Remain. In fact, it might be that the Remain campaign would have done better to push an ideology a bit more instead of concentrating solely on the merits of staying in.