My OperaMuch can be said..
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:01:36 PM
..about religion in politics, but sometimes the problem is more subtle than first thought. It is, for example, easy to document how some turn their childhood beliefs into more mature political rhetoric when they grow up. But how does this happen? Is it simply a general idealistic belief that evolves into something more politically correct? Or is it a common theme through either belief? Is it actually possible to find the same dualism in the person's convictions, even though they change over time?
With thoughts like that, I listened to the local marxist- cadre's hero speak yesterday - and for some reason I couldn't find a way to avoid thinking the same afterwards. True - the financial crisis is real, and I agree that with the current mechanisms we insist on saying is good business in the world, we will inevitably face crises like these every couple of years. We have, and we will. There are a few particular beliefs you need to have as well when you think a plan- economy is the answer to the bad and destructive decisions "the market" has produced of late. So from the point of view that individuals are clever and smart, but people are idiots - it makes perfect logical sense to advocate a type of authoritarianism that abolishes the unaccountability that usually follows after an election where there are few real issues being voted on, etcetera. Does it also justify removing capitalism as the instrument for producing social mobility and opportunity for the individual? When you believe in that people are that trustworthy you can put your life in their hands, then sure.
What I can't seem to figure out is why the extremes here are so enticing. I have been in opposition all my life. If it was up to me, I would not choose democracy
. But why remove the idea of human enterpise from the equation? Doing so is no better than suggesting everything will work out - if you only invade this country, or change that country into this.
But how appropriate - he's still less radical than the general consensus in Washington. Helped immensely by actual knowledge, rather than rhetoric without substance.
With thoughts like that, I listened to the local marxist- cadre's hero speak yesterday - and for some reason I couldn't find a way to avoid thinking the same afterwards. True - the financial crisis is real, and I agree that with the current mechanisms we insist on saying is good business in the world, we will inevitably face crises like these every couple of years. We have, and we will. There are a few particular beliefs you need to have as well when you think a plan- economy is the answer to the bad and destructive decisions "the market" has produced of late. So from the point of view that individuals are clever and smart, but people are idiots - it makes perfect logical sense to advocate a type of authoritarianism that abolishes the unaccountability that usually follows after an election where there are few real issues being voted on, etcetera. Does it also justify removing capitalism as the instrument for producing social mobility and opportunity for the individual? When you believe in that people are that trustworthy you can put your life in their hands, then sure.
What I can't seem to figure out is why the extremes here are so enticing. I have been in opposition all my life. If it was up to me, I would not choose democracy
. But why remove the idea of human enterpise from the equation? Doing so is no better than suggesting everything will work out - if you only invade this country, or change that country into this. But how appropriate - he's still less radical than the general consensus in Washington. Helped immensely by actual knowledge, rather than rhetoric without substance.
