American ideology

[fpb]

Every time I found myself arguing politics with an otherwise illustrious writer on my f-list (which is richer in fine and great writers than I deserve), I have found my own testimony about my own past, life experience, country and background treated as fraudulent. It was not always the man himself who did it, but if he did not, someone else would. That was because it did not fit into the categories of the persons who argued against me. Rather than believe me when I spoke of the experiences that shaped me and taught me my views, they insisted that I would essentially lie about my own past in order to prove a point. This throws a nasty light on their own view of discussion, where evidently evidence is less important than ideological conformity. It is exactly like arguing with a committed Communist: if you disagree with her (or him), it is not because you have reason to, but because your class interests - or, even worse, the class interests of your masters - have warped your understanding. The last time a discussion started, I threw in a positive request that my testimony should NOT be questioned. Nonetheless, as punctual as a Swedish bus (and if Swedish buses are expected at a station at 16.08, they will arrive neither at 16.07 nor at 16.09), came the statement that perhaps I was not telling the actual truth about my own experience - worsened by the suggestion that I was doing it because I was pushing some sort of anti-American agenda. What can one do with people who, when challenged in their ideology, deny the facts? And who are convinced that only their opponents suffer from ideological blindness?

Never again. Whatever happens, I WILL NOT BE TRAPPED INTO DEBATING POLITICS OR ECONOMICS WITH AN AMERICAN FREE MARKETEER. I have learned my lesson.

Comments

[expectare.livejournal.com]

I'm an American free marketer and I gave up debating politics with...everybody a while ago. It has made my life better. I hope it does the same for you.

[jamesenge.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean. It's hard to talk to a zealot (of any ideological stripe), and rarely worth the trouble (at least on the topic of their monomania).

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Isn't it?

Alas...

[affablestranger.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean. I gave up debating or otherwise much discussing politics at all with, well, just about anyone for the same reason. Either I was lying about things or I was stupid, or at least that what was generally implied when I passed along my own experiences. Generally I believe my health and overall life-outlook is better for it. Just as people are going to do what they want to, they will believe what they want to as well.

[darkthirty.livejournal.com]

I'm a commie, sort of, but I'm also an anti-idealist, and a pessimist, and more or less a realist. I don't give a fuck about ideology, as my posts clearly state and demonstrate. I would NEVER give up discussing politics, because otherwise, you end up talking about stupid useless garbage, like last night's LOST or HOUSE episode, which would nauseate me. It is disingenuous not to talk about what one believes, especially when one IS some kind of zealot. If someone is a secret zealot, that would be far worse thing to encounter than an open one, who can be opposed. What I do hear you saying is that this person does not give you respect, but reduces you to a stereotype, and you arguments to what they consider a trope. That happens in more areas than just politics, to be frank. For example, I remember one fellow telling me I HAD to like band X because I liked band Y. For him, I must have been lying about not liking band X. He started trying to convince me I liked band X. Needless to say, I wasted no further time with this guy. Contemporary psychiatry is fraught with this attitude too, and because it is unwilling to look at it's own dilletantist tendancies, it invites idiotic critiques like Scientology. Gosh, I could go on. But in any case, all these people saying "because intransigence, I hide my beliefs" just sounds wacky childish to me.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I am not going to HIDE my beliefs. I am just going to be very careful who I DISCUSS them with. There's a difference.

And perhaps tomorrow I will feel differently, but today I have had enough. It's not nice to have your own experience denied to your face.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

From the outside looking in, American politics seems to have become incredibly polarised and yet fiscally the two parties appear to be close together.

There seems to be no appetite to accept that someone holding a different view to your own can do so honestly and retain a moral core. So to liberals all conservatives are corrupt and in the pockets of 'big oil' while conservatives feel that, to quote the writer I think you are referring to, "the modern liberal always prefers evil to good, ugly to beautiful".

The other side are always lying, hiding their motives and trying to trick the public into supporting them so they can carry out their evil left/right -wing (delete as applicable) agenda.

In these circumstances debate is not possible.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Especially if you take pride, as I do, in explaining that you are conservative, liberal AND socialist.

[elskuligr.livejournal.com]

well, explaining to an American you are socialist and yet not a dangerous anarchist terrorist is sometimes difficult ;)
Let's face it, we have very different political histories and what in Europe is a fairly mainstream political current is considered extreme on the other side of the pond so obviously misunderstandings arise... Not to mention that our conceptions of the role of the State in general are radically different.

I don't know you all that well, of course, but I'd be very surprised if that resolution of yours lasted very long: from my previous discussions with you, it seems to me you are much too passionate (and that's not a bad thing, far from it) about your opinions to resist the temptation of trying to explain them to people who disagree, especially if they start the debate themselves.
I know that as far as I'm concerned, I may be careful not to start a discussion on death penalty in some circles, but I would be totally unable to shut up if the debate was on and someone said something that went totally against my convictions.

You might have to resort to Slytherin ruse to prevent them from starting debates on liberalism in your presence, so that you are not tempted ;)

[elskuligr.livejournal.com]

by the way, when you say liberal, you mean politically I suppose? Like valuing the political freedom of individuals and that kind of stuff?

Or are you both socialist and in favour of economic liberalism? or perhaps a form of moderate economic liberalism?

(I know you're fed up with such discussions for today, so a short answer or a link to a previous post will be plenty enough. I'm just intrigued, that's all)

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I am conservative, because I believe in standing by the values on which our civilization was built. (And, incidentally, I regard representative government and individual freedom as fundamental to Western civilization; http://fpb.livejournal.com/141494.html. From my point of view, it was monarchy "by divine right" that was the innovation and the usurpation, and the French Revolution that placed the feet of Western civilization back into their proper path, from which they had been nearly driven off.) I am liberal because I regard individual liberty as fundamental to these values, and because I believe in free markets as being a positive force for good. (For this reason I fear and hate monopolies, especially private ones.) And I am a socialist because I believe in collective endeavour, I prefer equality of opportunity, fear and hate violent social inequalities, would encourage collective ownership as far as possible, dislike large-scale private property, and regard the State as the proper vehicle of public endeavour and the guardian of laws and rights.

[baduin.livejournal.com]

Consider it for a moment again. You will see that your - or anyone's - personal experience has exactly NO value in Internet discussion, thanks to the impersonal nature of Internet communication. Since both sides are usually pretty anonymous, personal experience can be neither corroborated nor rejected.

It is much better, as a debate tactic, NOT to use your personal experience as argument, and to try to find facts which can be indepently checked.

As to the free market theory and practical economy, I would suggest:

http://www.dcu.ie/dcubs/research_papers/no27.html
http://www.quickmba.com/strategy/global/diamond/
http://www.amazon.com/Competitive-Advantage-Nations-Michael-Porter/dp/0684841479
http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Dp/pdf/dp_103.pdf

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I enter the internet with my own name - fpb, as everyone knows, are my initials. So, for that matter, do some of the people I have issues with. As for separating my own experience from the debate, I find the very notion ridiculous; from whose experience should I argue? As for economics, I am not at present in the mood for being lectured, and I suggest that at the age of 46, with several private business experiences and working as a freelance - that is, as a one-man enterprise - I may be supposed to know a thing or two about it. Please do not start from the position that only those who share your viewpoints are properly educated, and that the rest only need to be taught to join the rank of the enlightened. Some of us simply draw different conclusions. And having experienced free marketeering at first hand since 1979, I think I have seen enough to form my own views.

[baduin.livejournal.com]

Actually, I tried to show some arguments FOR government intervention. Unfortunately, it seems I failed to do so, despite eg following recension:

http://www.amazon.com/Competitive-Advantage-Nations-Michael-Porter/dp/0684841479
"From Publishers Weekly
Harvard economist Porter suggests that it is no accident that Japan leads in exporting electronics and computer-controlled machinery, Italy in fabrics and home furnishings, and the U.S. in software, medical equipment and movies. In each of the 10 countries that he and his international research team investigated, clusters of firms gained a global competitive edge by capitalizing on innovation, raising productivity, and drawing on unique elements of their country's history and character. Porter, who served on Reagan's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, sees government's proper role as pusher and challenger, rather than as giver of subsidies to protect industries. Stressing renewed effort and competition as keys to gaining global advantage, he questions regulations that would limit competition and recommends enforcement of U.S. antitrust laws to end monopolistic mergers. This massive, impressive, salient tome is structured so that business executives, economists, policymakers and ordinary readers can turn to the sections most relevant to their needs. 50,000 first printing; first serial to Fortune.
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc."


Anyway, here is another book in the similar vein:

http://www.amazon.com/Conflicting-National-Interests-Robbins-Lectures/dp/0262072092

"Review
"The church of global free trade, which rules American politics with infallible pretensions, may have finally met its Martin Luther. An unlikely dissenter has come forward with a revised understanding of globalization that argues for thorough reformation. This man knows the global trading system from the inside because he is a respected veteran of multinational business. His ideas contain an explosive message: that what established authorities teach Americans about global trade is simply wrong--disastrously wrong for the United States."
-- William Greider, The Nation

Product Description
In this book Ralph Gomory and William Baumol adapt classical trade models to the modern world economy. Trade today is dominated by manufactured goods, rapidly moving technology, and huge firms that benefit from economies of scale. This is very different from the largely agricultural world in which the classical theories originated. Gomory and Baumol show that the new and significant conflicts resulting from international trade are inherent in modern economies.

Today improvement in one country's productive capabilities is often attainable only at the expense of another country's general welfare. The authors describe why and when this is so and why, in a modern free-trade environment, a country might have a vital stake in the competitive strength of its industries."


And remember, for yourself you are a person, you have life, experience etc. Unfortunately, for me you are only a few bits on the Internet - and the other way round, of course.

Also, personal experience as a freelancer is not necessarily applicable when directing national economy.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Personal experience is suitable as a citizen to assess national policy and those who make them, which is all I want and all that, in a free state, I have a right to.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I apologize for misunderstanding what you had to say. I am afraid I can be pretty stupid - and hurtful - when I am angry.