Logic of Politics

[farzad didehvar]

What are the rules and principals that a political discussion should obey?

A view is considered in below, any other view or experience? any objection?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Seemingly a complete Political dialogue should containes 4 elements:

 

1.To be critical of the present situation (or to defend it)

2.What would be the ideals and alternatives for the present situation?

3.Is there any way to achieve these ideals and alternatives?

4.Are there any ways to stablize these ideals and alternative?

 

Most of the wrongs with political dialogues is to concentrate simply on 1 and to neglect

most the times the problem of politics is either modifying a structure and rebuliding it or to bulid it

from foundation.

 

So, in any Political dialogue two views should be considered:

 

1. Ideological dialogue

2.Architectural discussions(How to make and to stablize a structure?)

 

The usual mistake is to forget the second.

 

The key words and key questions in the second are words and questions like: Equilibrium and how to have an achievment in this way, Dynamic equilibrium, Conciousness of the sicety how to grow it, the complex relation among groups (Cooperation , Compeition), How to define groups and parties in a rational way, what are the relations among culture and programs?, The question of solidarity, ... .

 

So any text or dialogue that is simply critical should be considered either as an incomplete dialogue

that is waiting for to be completed or just a political action.

Edited July 10, 2013 by farzad didehvar

[iNow]

What are the rules and principals that a political discussion should obey?

There is a difference between what it "should" do and what it "does" do. In politics, the only requirement is to say whatever it takes to get people to align with you and to vote in your favor, even if it's a lie or complete misrepresentation. Use whatever it takes to win. That's not necessarily how it "should" be, but it's definitely how it is... at least here in the US, IMO.

They "should" ensure their positions are based on facts and evidence, that they are logical and internally consistent, and that they change when circumstances change instead of remaining dogmatic and ideological.

[krash661]

There is a difference between what it "should" do and what it "does" do. In politics, the only requirement is to say whatever it takes to get people to align with you and to vote in your favor, even if it's a lie or complete misrepresentation. Use whatever it takes to win. That's not necessarily how it "should" be, but it's definitely how it is... at least here in the US, IMO.

They "should" ensure their positions are based on facts and evidence, that they are logical and internally consistent, and that they change when circumstances change instead of remaining dogmatic and ideological.

exactly,

popularity and nothing more.

[farzad didehvar]

Dogmatic and ideological?!

To be ideological is not necessarily to be dogmatic (It depends on the ideology). And it is not true to say that any dogmatic view

is wrong totally(The second is said as my personal view) although we need to be reflexibe.

I suggest even in your examples (US, IMO) there is an exageration in your view.

Discarding ideological views and their disputations,any socity loose its motivations, and its feelings.

Logic and the discussions around(Consistency,...) are powerful devices but it is not sufficient.

The combination of oportunism and Logic is not sufficient too.

The engine of society needs ideologies(even the weak form of it) otherwise the society goes to be a dead body.

But any how the societies are diferent, some are heavily ideological in culture and some not.

Some western countries are strange in this respect, specially US. There is a contradiction in a sever form in them.

In one aspect they are heavily ideological, and in the other aspect so engaged to economical reasons and oportunism.

Seemingly harsh contradictions has exIsted from first US constitution and couple of times people used to this situation, but

in the other cases many society movements was fed by these ideological disputations and not simply economical reasons.

[Delbert]

In politics, the only requirement is to say whatever it takes to get people to align with you and to vote in your favor, even if it's a lie or complete misrepresentation. Use whatever it takes to win.

That's it. You may have the best, most moral, sound, fair and all the other wonderful policies, but if you're not in power you might as well throw the lot in the dustbin.

 

As I understand Churchill said: democracy is the worst form of government, but better than all the others.