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

[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.