Question: ideology or practicality?

[Winslowalrob]

If you could "run stuff," how would you make your decisions: your political ideology or emperical practicality? I am presuming that liberals and conservatives believe in their views because they think their philosophy, if implemented, would lead to the best society possible, whatever that might look like. Using that starting off point, what formulation do you guys have when improving the world? IF gun-control lowers crime, would you be against it? IF no gun-control laws were in place and that lowered crime, would you be against it? Is it a matter of proving the utility of a policy, and are there things that you will support or fight against regardless of percieved utility, such as abortions or torture? Is it best to stick to your ideological guns or just be a breezy utilitarian, choosing whatever works?

Me, I vote for the latter . I think that everyone wants low-crime, good schools, jobs, housing, etc and it is just a matter of finding the best policy. If the policy works, go with it, whoever came up with it. Thoughts?

[Ghost of]

Hmm, I can't help but be reminded of Serenity. I'm sure they thought the "Pax" would be for the better but (while allowing for some exaggeration) I liked how they linked conflict and violence to the very will to persevere and live.

There may indeed be some issues where the RESULTS matter but for many the ideology (on some level) is not inseparable from the results. Many predicted what would happen with XYZ policy and were not only ignored or scorned but after being proven right, there are those who want more of the same.

As Andrew Napolitano said, I'd rather be free and have it be somewhat dangerous than be totally secure and unfree.

After all, a well-fed slave is still a slave.

Also, I believe there can be multiple solutions but we are mortal, resources are scarce and humans have something resembling 'free will' and genetic predispositions and we cannot achieve utopia or perfect solutions. So it may be that the 'best' solution is the one that leaves people alone while getting 50 percent improvement/results rather than one that nets 75 percent i/r and leaves people more beholden or less free.

So it's a hard question to ask. Certainly if we gave the death penalty to every drug user, dealer, lookout, etc you would EVENTUALLY see a precipitous drop in drug use (at least illegal.) But do you want to become THAT in order to rid the society of the problem? I certainly don't, especially when there's a solution that requires less evil, restores more liberty and might actually make SOME headway while not ignoring human nature...

(and i'm no anarchist, so even I am probably bowing to 'practicality' on some level. I think most men rankle under the control of others but realize human nature makes some concessions necessary for the optimal mix of order and liberty and prosperity.)

[Burgold]

Because we can't know the future and can't control all the variables within a society, our guidance needs to be influenced by a philosophy of ethics of values. Cold practicality, doing it strictly off the numbers may lead to solutions that are too short sighted. I think it is important to remember what the UNITED STATES of AMERICA is. We are a nation founded in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are equal... and that is a hell of a good ideology to try to live up to.

Bush is actually the best example of a practical President. After 9/11, he saw us endangered and said, "What's the most practical way to stop it?" The means is justified by the ends. Take the fight to them. Manufacture or exagerate evidence. Spy on Americans. Torture and deny Americans judicial and Constitutional rights. It's all very practical. It's also very wrong.

[Zguy28]

Its a balance between practicality and principles.

[Midnight Judges]

Because we can't know the future and can't control all the variables within a society, our guidance needs to be influenced by a philosophy of ethics of values. Cold practicality, doing it strictly off the numbers may lead to solutions that are too short sighted. I think it is important to remember what the UNITED STATES of AMERICA is. We are a nation founded in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are equal... and that is a hell of a good ideology to try to live up to.

Bush is actually the best example of a practical President. After 9/11, he saw us endangered and said, "What's the most practical way to stop it?" The means is justified by the ends. Take the fight to them. Manufacture or exagerate evidence. Spy on Americans. Torture and deny Americans judicial and Constitutional rights. It's all very practical. It's also very wrong.

That's an interesting take although I'm sure you would agree the war in Iraq is not practical.

As a progressive, I am more practical than idealogical. The approach is to look around the world and see what programs are effective, and then see if those programs can be implemented here in the States. The war on drugs is not practical. We spend billions to barely scratch the surface. Our immigration policy is clearly not practical as it has proven unenforcable for 20 years.

[Burgold]

I think the war on Iraq was done for "practical" reasons. I don't think that it was done for good reasons (well, some of them were good, but were either the minor drivers or proved false)

I certainly agree, that common sense or logic or practicality ought to be used in formulating the plans, but I do think that an ideology or guiding philosophy ought to temper it. What works now may be good for right now, but if it will screw you down the road, what good is it? It's like paying our national debt with credit cards or taking out additional loans. It's a practical or reasonable solution for right now, but when the bills come due...

[alexey]

Practicality is a part of ideology.

[gbear]

I'll go for the middle ground (towards practical). I'm all for setting goals, and I'm all for ideology setting the priorities for my goals. However, when it comes to implimentation, I'm all about doing it in as practical a manner as possible. If it steps on the toes of a goal of lesser priority, so be it.

I want to slow AIDS. I want to minimize the amount the state has to pay for drugusers' healthcare. Thus, I'm in favor of a needle exchange program. Could this theoretically be against the priority of lessening drug use by making it easier for the drug users (empiracal evidence says no, but...)? Sure. I vote for the do it anyway practical side.

Put me in the get it done category. I want measurable results not platitudes.

[Destino]

Give me results. The rest is disturbing nonsense that frankly borders on insanity. Loyalty to ideas thought up by some political goober years ago is crazy.

[headexplode]

Give me results. The rest is disturbing nonsense that frankly borders on insanity. Loyalty to ideas thought up by some political goober years ago is crazy.

But as a christian, what if the results, though positive, were brought about through very unchristian means? Or, aren't your judgements of the positive or negative aspects of results (and/or the kind of results you'd like to see) colored by your ideological predilections?

Or, aren't our ideas of practicality influenced by our ideological foundation?

[Riggo-toni]

My ideology is practicality...at least, I like to think it is.

[ACW]

My ideology is practicality...at least, I like to think it is.

Ditto. You're a libertarian too, right? Of course, the question his how quickly we'd cut gov't. Some departments (ONDCP/DEA) could go immediately, others (Education, Soc. Sec.) would take time.

[PokerPacker]

Ditto. You're a libertarian too, right? Of course, the question his how quickly we'd cut gov't. Some departments (ONDCP/DEA) could go immediately, others (Education, Soc. Sec.) would take time.

pretty much.

[Predicto]

I'm a pragmatic idealist. I want us to strive to uphold our principles, but actually accomplish something.

[Darth Tater]

Best answer is that what is practical is my ideology.

[Larry Gude]

If you could "run stuff," how would you make your decisions: your political ideology or emperical practicality?

That's a very good question and one that illustrates the need for underlying support system to tie us all together as ideology and practicality could run all over the place as far as policy. That 'tie' is our constitution. It sets down the bedrock rules of what the government can and can not do and when we ignore it, we invite chaos.

We're not a democracy; 2 wolves and 1 sheep don't get to vote on what's for dinner. No matter how popular something is, if it violates the basic rights of an individual, you can't do it.

Having said that, our constitution is amendable so, we can do an awful lot within the framework of the constitution...if it is a very popular idea that stands up over time and across the nation.

So, just a few things we do wrong;

Our limits on campaign speech are terrifying. They put most of the power to convey ideas in the hands of the media and lobbyists; not we, the people.

Next, when we remove an individuals right to protect their self, their family and property, we've made them a subject, not a citizen.

Next up, our right to privacy has gone out the window and illegal search and seizure is going on. This includes from telling a restaurant or bar that they may not allow smoking all the way to collecting information from computers, cell phones and other methods.

Other tidbits include the government claiming a right to prohibit gay marriage.

Our president declares wars without the approval and consent of congress.

We have begun subjugating ourselves to laws and treaties far outside the scope of what the constitution allows.

There's more and it all falls back on our system of checks and balances be it the executive or the legislative or judicial falling down on the job. And that, ultimately, falls back on us.

So, governing can be done ideologically or from practical standpoint IF whatever idea you have passes on basic test; is it constitutional?

As a practical matter, I think we would be far better served, we the people, if we continued to agree to abide by our common principles.

That's my ideology.