Politics is messy. It's most often just about doing the least harm. And it needs doing all the time.

I'm always disappointed at the people who are passionate (on Facebook, realistically) about the US presidential election, but have no idea who their local city councillor is. Local stuff has a much bigger impact, but it's not very exciting. And it requires a bit more engagement than memes.

Edited to add: This disappointment slides into full-blown contempt for anyone wah wah-ing about how the political process they engage with in no meaningful way has failed to deliver a candidate that is championing their issues. And then fail to understand why the politicians we do get prefer to focus on the people who actually vote, rather than the Bernie or bust, I didn't win the big prize so I'm taking my ballot back to reddit to rage at thee!!!

The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good in almost all endeavors, whether it be art, politics, love, science, cooking, child rearing, etc.

If all you will accept is Perfection, you will never be happy and you will never complete anything. It becomes almost impossible to actually make improvements, since you never start over, using what you learned from the last, imperfect endeavor.

One of my favorite professors used to sometimes come up to a student struggling to rescue a project and say, "Think you can save it?", which really meant, "Accept that you can't make that what you want it to be. Take what you've learned and try again."

At the end of the day, an imperfectly working machine is better than 1/3 of a perfect machine that can't actually finish the job.

At the end of the day, an imperfectly working machine is better than 1/3 of a perfect machine that can't actually finish the job.

That's not an argument against finishing the perfect machine, and that's even ignoring the implication that Clinton is "good," rather than an opponent.

In my experience, you can never finish the perfect machine. As you proceed, you come to realize that earlier elements were, in fact, incompatible with perfection. The Platonic ideals are only mental abstractions that don't exist in this imperfect world.

I'm not saying Clinton is necessarily "good", but it does seem pretty clear that she is "less bad."

Is she, though? If the goal is a progressive president, then it's far worse for Clinton to win then to lose.

Are you suggesting that America would ultimately benefit from a Trump presidency because he'd smash everything to hash thereby leaving the way clear for a more progressive system? I'm not playing rhetorical games mate, I'm genuinely interested in your ideas. I've read enough of your views to know that you take this shit seriously, and I take your views seriously.

You're far more diplomatic about than I would have been.

No, a Trump presidency will be terrible, but not any more so than any other Republican. Likely it would be less so, as he would be a lame duck. Your system, as it currently stands, guarantees that there will be another Republican president. That's unavoidable, so fighting it at any costs justs means you'll pay those costs without achieving the goal in any long term sense.

If Clinton wins, there won't be an opportunity to nominate a progressive for eight years, and her presidency will make a Republican following her into office very likely. That means there isn't a real chance to elect a progressive for 16 years.

Hillary will block real progress until at least 2032.

Not surprised by the downmods, especially from what seems like a very predictable voting bloc, I would ask the downvoters- why is this not a question worth discussing- especially as earnestly invited by pleaides?
Even if the author represents a biased organization, it is a legitimately broad political/philosophical question. So what I get here is a group of users who might consider themselves 'idealists', who tend to reflexively denounce a point of view that simply questions the effectiveness of their idealism. Is there not a kind of arrogance to this reaction?
I'd especially ask steele- sure, you're as entitled to your views as anyone here, but as administrator/moderator of this forum, who usually seems eager to encourage posting and discussion- why downmod a legitimate post and invite to discuss a reasonable subject, especially with a recent proliferation of posts that seem little more than clickbait?

sanepride, you've given your own answer in asking the question. As Kyle has pointed out this is a strawman, basically a reframing of the past arguments we've already had on this site. Only now, the dismissal of the nonconformists' concerns are being prepackaged in the question being asked. "What is wrong with you idealists? Why are you so obsessed with perfection?"

Not wanting to actively support people to continue dying in wars is not idealism. Not wanting to actively support people to continue going hungry, to continue losing their homes, to continue being swept under the rug of the system is not idealism. These are things happening to people right now and the Two Partier's threats of losing their rights to an abortion, or Trump, or the Supreme Court are not going to convince people otherwise. It is not just idealism that has people reaching for third parties, it is that the options being presented to them by the two parties are not really options, they are dismissals of the things people are suffering from right now in exchange for threats of more suffering.

Personally, I have no faith whatsoever that Hillary Clinton or half the Democrats out there have the slightest concern for the suffering of their constituents or any intention of doing anything about it. To me, a vote for HRC is a bit like voluntarily showing up for your own execution. Sure she's not Trump, but if you're not in the right economic class, you're still going to hang. Voting for third party isn't just idealism to be dismissed, it's a necessary resistance for survival.

And that's not even getting into the shit my reading list covers. ;)

Beat me to it:

Next time, instead of asking me this question read what I had to say where I already fucking address the point, kthnxbai.

I will never downmod and not explain myself, unless it's obvious (like with numbers trolling.)

But it is idealistic to expect those things to emerge from a system if you don't engage with it.

What's necessary for survival is not chucking your vote at whoever isn't powerful and hoping it sends a 'message', but actually engaging with the political system. Turning up, giving a shit, supporting local candidates you believe in so they can rise, holding others to account do they cannot, voting down the list.

Well, obviously now that they're engaged the best thing we can do is dismiss their suffering and tell them stop being idealistic. Great idea.

Here's another idea, instead of dismissing their concerns maybe try asking why they weren't engaging in the first place? For example, I have a couple of friends who are typical lower middle class families, the man works 60 hours a week third shift while the mother works a minimum 45 hours a week during the days, they have a child we'll call Cuteness. One day a week Cuteness gets to see both her parents at the same time for more than a few minutes. However, it's not often they get to be together because the one day both parents have off is often spent running around doing errands they weren't capable of getting done during their regular work week. And here's the fun part, because Cuteness is getting to be that age where her parents want to get her involved in group/team activities they now need to scrape together some extra cash so that now means that Mommy or Daddy has to pick up some extra hours which leaves them even less time to see each other. Now keep in mind this has been sanitized, but not exaggerated. So when would you recommend is the best time for them to get more involved in the political process? Is it during the 4 hours of sleep Daddy gets between his shift and before Cuteness wakes up in the morning, during the one day off together Mommy and Daddy try to get a handle on keeping the house from falling apart, or maybe Mommy could cut back on the hours and everybody can go on a diet? I hear eating is very overrated anyways.

I know at least four couples living like this, not to mention the single parent families! And they didn't vote themselves into this life. Much like many people out there, they did everything they were told they were supposed to do to be successful and found themselves to be wageslaves in a world they didn't create.

Or, how about all the homeless people I run into in the woods? One of the interesting things about my favorite camping spots is that while they're not fancy schmancy popular sites, they sit right off one of the interstates and they're cheap/free. So they get a lot of traffic from transient types. People heading out looking for greener pastures. Californee way, if you get what I'm saying. Now while I do run into the voluntarily nomadic like me, at least once a month I run into people who are obviously not living that way by choice. (Those of you who are subscribers may be happy to know you've inadvertently bought quite a few meals for these people the last two years.) Sometimes it's a loner who couldn't find their place in society, sometimes it's a couple down on their luck looking for a fresh start, but every once in a while it's an entire fucking family; Parents, kids, dog, the whole freaking clan living out of a minivan or SUV. When should I tell all these people that they need to get more involved in the political process? How are they going to change a system when they can barely spare more than few moments that aren't focused on their own survival?

You are blaming the victims for not being the solution to a problem that they inherited and then telling them they need to vote for someone who is probably going to make it worse.

Because it's a strawman. Progressives are not idealists any more than centrists are, and we have as much right to demand representation as anyone else.

Thanks mate

So by "How political idealism leads us astray"

they actually mean "Embrace political idealism by toeing the party line"

Huh.

If you like this article, you'll love this one by the same writer where he tells us that inequality isn't thanks to the rich rigging the system in their favor, it's because government regulation is squashing our economic liberties. This guy might as well be writing straight out of the Dark Money playbook.

Hahaha, oh man, this was a good laugh. I especially love the part where he blames the rigged economy on regulations against Uber.

pleaides, the writer of your article is basically a walking talking shill for the policies and ideology we're looking to a third party to get away from.

Will Wilkinson is the vice president for policy at the Niskanen Center.

The Niskanen Center is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that advocates for environmentalism, immigration reform, civil liberties, and a national defense policy based on libertarian principles.[1][2][3] The center is named after the late William A. Niskanen, a former economic adviser to president Ronald Reagan. The Niskanen Center states that its "main audience is Washington insiders.
Niskanen Center

Thanks for the information Raphael. Needless to say, had I known that the article was authored by someone recognised by everyone (except me apparently) as a 'shill' I would not have posted it, or if I had I would have employed some suitable caveats of disendorsement.

Having said that, is what we're witnessing here some new unspoken etiquette about posts here on SE? Is the poster expected to thoroughly research the author and the publication before posting lest they have some unpleasant associations?

I'm a long-time (20 years) supporter of the Greens party in Australia. Indeed, I spend my day every time an election comes about voluntarily handing out 'how to vote' cards for them, and enduring an exciting amount of vitriol as a result. I am not, in short, a cynical conservative troll seeking to undermine or diminish the laudable (imho) idealism of those who envision a better world for themselves and others.

Never, whether in my formal studies in political science at university, or in my copious reading on the subject since, had I encountered the perspective elucidated in this article. I thought "that's an interesting take on this, maybe I'll share it with my SE people to see what they have to say about it". That's all.

You're welcome!

Having said that, is what we're witnessing here some new unspoken etiquette about posts here on SE? Is the poster expected to thoroughly research the author and the publication before posting lest they have some unpleasant associations?


Have you met sanepride?

That's not why you're getting downvoted. You're getting downvoted because calling people who are thinking of voting third party idealist and then attacking or dismissing them for it was one of the first thing Two-Partiers did after Bernie lost. Even more so than that, it's often how Bernie supporters have been attacked this past year. Oftentimes by the media, often by vox itself! We were called idealists for not wanting corporate money, single payer healthcare, clean drinking water, education equality, and a long list of other causes that used to be a normal part of the progressive movement. Now we're idealists and idealists is being used as an insult by left, much like liberal is often used as an insult by the right.

How you've missed that this past year, where you think is a new take on it, I'm not sure. But I assure you it's not.

"You're getting downvoted because calling people who are thinking of voting third party idealist and then attacking or dismissing them for it was one of the first thing Two-Partiers did after Bernie lost."

- 'I' did nothing of the sort, the author did. I did not endorse the content of the author's case, all I did was propose that case as something worth discussing. I thought we were adult enough to engaged in such discussions.

"How you've missed that this past year, where you think is a new take on it, I'm not sure."

- As astonishing as this might be, I actually reside in a portion of the world that is NOT the United States of America. Is engaging in political discussions forbidden to those of us in the rest of the world? Is there some test foreigners must pass? If so, would you please inform Plato, and perhaps Voltaire? They'll be very embarrassed that they've not been informed of your sensorious stipulation.

- 'I' did nothing of the sort, the author did. I did not endorse the content of the author's case, all I did was propose that case as something worth discussing. I thought we were adult enough to engaged in such discussions.

And we've been discussing it. As Steele pointed out this is a conversation we've had many times often without the strawman. Alright, let's be honest, without this particular strawman.

- As astonishing as this might be, I actually reside in a portion of the world that is NOT the United States of America. Is engaging in political discussions forbidden to those of us in the rest of the world? Is there some test foreigners must pass? If so, would you please inform Plato, and perhaps Voltaire? They'll be very embarrassed that they've not been informed of your sensorious stipulation.

Wow, you've suddenly put a lot of words in my mouth. You are more than free to your opinions and discussions, but I'm sure if I showed up in your country offering unpopular opinions without properly understanding the situation and nuances of what you and your countrypeople were dealing with, my reception would be less than positive.

This is so bad, I am having option paralysis as to where to even begin.

No one is asking for perfection. Perfection is a stupid and unattainable ideal. Most people are just looking for basic represenation of views that they actually hold. Spam is not hamsteak, so it doesn't matter if it's closer to what someone wants than hamburger. In the end, I will take undercooked and rotten hamsteak over spam, because if you never put your foot down, you never get anything different. You see, despite spam being LIKE hamsteak, it's not hamsteak. Really good spam is still different from the thing I want. I am willing to get a shitty version of what I want, rather than a really good version of something akin to what I want. A good analogy are bike tires vs car tires. They are both tires, but one of these will fit on your bike and make it go. It doesn't matter if the car tire has really nice all weather groove and puncture resistance, while the bike tire is shitty and about to deflate. Only one of those options is actually what you need.

Presuming that you can handwave away people's concerns by calling them idealist is naive to say the least. It's not idealism to want basic representation. That is the foundation of voting. It is people making less evil arguments that have failed to understand the purpose of voting. It's not to win nessicarily, it's to effect policy. If a candidate wins by a landslide, we tend to call that an political imperitive, yes? So then, how exactly do we establish a political will towards any goal not stated in one of two people's campaign promises when voting for president?

Claiming we are looking for some perfectly just society is condecending to us both as adults and as voters. I am never going to get everything I want, in fact, if I am voting 3rd party (and I am not, I am not voting at all) I don't even expect to win much less get what I reall want. When and if I vote 3rd party I am saying "neither of these mainstream policies are sufficient towards the needs I feel we as a people have." The onus is then on whoever wins to review not only how they won, but the popularity of opposition so they can understand how to rule. If we never indicate to these people that we are willing to vote counter to their views, they never have cause to change them or even consider changing them.

Basically, the whole premise of this argument is based on a strawman.

This engagement with the ideas in the article is precisely what I was hoping to create, so thanks for playing.

If I may engage with your ideas by way of response, I'd say that there's some some confusion between the author's use of the word 'ideal' and yours. You mention how far we are falling short of the fundamental ideas of democracy, that is; representation of one's views on the future of the polity. This is perfectly true of course, but the author contends that we should be mindful of how far we've come and not sacrifice that on the altar of how far we might go. It seems to me that your use of the word 'ideal' is in reference to some Platonic notion of a faultless society. Ie; you're not talking about perfection in its literal sense, just something that is at least a long distance phone call from what we've got. The author's use of the same word uses the word 'ideal' to refer to some unspecified (and to him unattainable) elevation from our current situation.

I don't think that the author is suggesting we shouldn't want to improve our polity, only that we should keep in mind how far we've come and focus on incremental improvements. The obverse of that, it seems to me, is to be unappreciative of the distance we've traveled over the last 100 years or so, and be willing to sacrifice the 80% we've achieved because we're annoyed at the relative un-attainability of the last 20 %.

It might be instructive to draw a parallel with violence; Violence has declined in concert (with a delay) with our revulsion against violence. Thus our outrage against violent acts has increased while actual occurrances of violence have declined precipitately. We are therefore more upset about a diminishing amount of violent acts. Those violent acts seem the more egregious because of their rarity. We see a single act of violence as a demonstration not of how far we've come, but of how far we've yet to go. Our intuitive outrage increases while the gravity of the problem decreases. My opinion (for what it's worth) is that our outrage over political issues does not scale with the gravity of our situation.

Either way, cheers for engaging with the arguments. I've enjoyed it :)

I would almost concede your point, were it not for the fact the author's language includes the word "perfect" in some form 14 times (granted only 13 of those are in the context I am actually trying to point out.) Clearly, this argument is about ideals in the more Platonic sense. This is further enforced by the section Maybe we don’t need political ideals at all and the following paragraph from the next:

Indeed, a theory-driven ideal of perfect justice is likely to demand that we go down the mountain — making our society less just — in order to set out for a higher peak. It’s inherently risky. It’s easy to go downhill, making life more harsh, oppressive, and unfair for some of us, in the hopes of eventual significant improvement for all (or almost all). But there’s no guarantee we’ll ever get to that higher mountain, to the more perfectly just society. There’s no guarantee it’s even there.

That said, that doesn't necessarily take away from your points. See, I do not agree with foobar for that exact reason. I view a Hillary win as better than a Trump win insofar as keeping the parts of the status quo I enjoy. However, I see in both candidates the same likely outcome: no discernible progress at all. I am of the mind that if Clinton were to lose that is not necessarily the worst possible outcome, just an outcome that makes the worst possible outcome more likely. The worst outcome is that we do not progress and instead regress. I don't believe Donald Trump has the political acumen or willpower to effectively govern. No one likes him and he is politically isolated. The worst he can do is veto good ideas. Hillary can get things done, but I am pretty convinced that she stands to keep the status quo almost across the board. The same issue, just different ways of arriving at it. So while you are concerned with losing that 80% trying to get the last 20%, I am convinced you scared of a bogeyman, brought on by a strawman.

Yes, it's amazing how less violent we are. However, that is probably due more towards the fact that we stopped putting lead in our gasoline, and that the last of the generation that was exposed to that is even alive and kicking at this point. So yes, we are surprised by the violence we see, but also... the violence we see is now far more prevalent and graphic. The outrage isn't over the amount, it's over the nature and ubiquitousness of each event now delivered to us through the very mechanism of progress (the internet, etc.) This is actually good, and how progress is supposed to work. We have become less environmentally prone towards it due to sufficient understanding... and that same understanding is the engine of our continued outrage.

The outage isn't disproportional to the effect. Poverty cripples us all, it's just the rich are too stupid to realize how much better even they would have it, if more people had more chances to have positive effects on the shared habitat we call earth. Clearly, they are never going to come to this realization, en masse, on their own. We are reaching a critical point in our history where we are securing the means of wealth of the few, at the expense of the prosperity of us all. It might not be as sexy a cause as ending war and violence, but being able to live and advance in society is nothing less than the most important question we can face as the human race. This is literally how we will live together.

I'd say it time some of you started getting a bit more outraged about that.

Edit: Unless I am misremembering the concept of Platonic Idealism? As I recall, that would be akin to the ideal gingerbread man not even being a gingerbread man, but the cookie cutter you used to form it. Basically, Platonic Idealsim is that which forms the world around the concept, rather than the concept around the world. To me, it seems the author is stating that we (those of us against LEV) want that form of idealism, and I am saying that is naive in the extreme and clearly a strawman... except for Foobar there, who seems to be advocating exactly for that.

Yeah see this is what I wanted. Substance, ideas, meaningful exchange.

- Atmospheric lead may account for a difference in violence since about the 20s, but it can by no means explain the steady decline of violence over recorded history, which is well documented. The violence we see is *not* more prevalent, as in more frequent.

"I see in both candidates the same likely outcome: no discernible progress at all."

- Agreed, but it seems to me that the danger of a Trump presidency is that it *might* entail a thoroughgoing destruction of most of those qualities of a secular republic that we apparently don't really appreciate at the moment, but we'll sure as hell be upset when they're not around anymore. Things like government, public waste disposal, maintenance of plumbing for fuck's sake. The stuff that, after the Romans left Britain, just fell into disrepair. I'm overstating the case of course, but we ought to beware of the danger of handing the launch codes to a person who can't even make sense with himself within the confines of a single sentence.

As to the 'poverty cripples us all' thing. Yeah, it sure does that, but the rising tide of capitalism has genuinely lifted all boats. We're ALL a massive amount better off than we've ever been. Granted, the providers of capital are really STUPIDLY well off, and I'd advocate some legislative restriction on the boss's wages in reference to the wages of the guy who cleans the toilets, but we ought not forget just what resulted historically from the church's restrictions on usury (systemic poverty of a kind that would make the poorest of us in the west unabashed alongside a minor prince of 14th century Europe).

Anyway, I must retire for the night, but it seems to me that I (and the author, if I may presume to speak on his behalf) have no quarrel with what you're advocating. The pith of the piece was (as I read it) to respond to exactly the attitude that foobar seems to hold; ie that everything is so shit that it'd be better to burn it down and hope for some imagined future state of grace. To that I'd say - try Somalia on for size.

No, it can't, but what I was talking about in the abstract can... that is that progress builds progress. We have become less violent because we have removed more and more need for violence over time. The leaded gas, for example, just being the latest and most obviously pronounced. With the advent of television, we saw a rise in violence, then fall in violence as well... which coincides with the wide availability of the internet. And as we go back in time, you find that every noticable drop or rise in violence is inextricably linked to technological progress with strong social connotations.

See, you are going right back to the logical fallacies* here. You are worried about the worst that Donald Trump could do in a vaccum, and that ignores that he does not exist in a vaccum. First, and most obviously, is the fact he is doing miserably poor in the polls, as is the rest of the party he would presume to lead. Even if by some miracle of math and indifference he became our president, he does not have the power to do the things you are scared of. Most of that is local government, whom are going to continue to do what is in the best interest of making a paycheck, which means keeping the voters as happy and healthy as they can. Donald Trump is a miserable failure, but even he would find it difficult to squander 20 trillion dollars. Especially when he will be faced with stiff political opposition from both the opposition party, and HIS OWN PARTY. Donald Trump may not be harmless, but he isn't the end of Western Civilization either.

I am not arguing for Communism, I do, in fact believe a person should benefit from their sweat of their own brow. I even believe the people who innovate and manage should have more money than those that work under them. The harder, more requirement fueled work, the more they should be paid. Capitalism is a pretty solid engine for progress, it's undeniable. What I am saying is that people who work need to make enough to live where they work, and be able to go to school and better themselves. Surely, some of the people who currently make more per year than everyone currently making minimum wage combined could spare to make a little less so that society can keep it's promise to humanity: to be the engine on which we move into a better, and not worse, future. I am asking for everyone to be equal in every way. I am simply saying that there are better things to spend our money on that wars, and there are better laws than ones that move wealth into the hands of the fewer and fewer.

Edit: I realized the amount of logical fallacies involved was too many to easily explain and enumerate in a single sentence.

First, the negative version of the appeal to consequence:


If P, then Q will occur.
Q is undesirable.
Therefore, P is false.

(P being voting as self expression, Q is "bad guy wins." Not exactly directed at you, just Noam Chomsky :P, but it is a direct stab at Lesser Evil Voting.)

Secondly, affirming the consequent:

If X, then Y.
Y.
Therefore, X.

(X being worst case scenario, Y being you didn't vote for my guy)

Appeal to Fear:

Either P or Q is true.
Q is frightening.
Therefore, P is true.

(False dilemma fallacy is also involved, suggesting P is the proposed idea's sole alternative.)

Artical looked interesting, and related to something that has occured to me lately.could not get in to it. Seemed too much like a sales presentation. What seems obviouse tome, the way things should be set up in society, are way different from the way most people think things should be. I am now a pensioner, and more interested in the pensions continuing and society not failing in a way that would take the pensions away or make worthless. I do my little bit when I can. Hope new people entering life have harm reduction as a tenet of their direction.

My grandfather never got to become a pensioner because of Bill. Do you trust his wife to see you through?

Not that you should trust Donald Trump either.

Believe me sir, it's my concern for people like you that keeps me from voting for either. My only wish was that there was someone seriously worth considering.

Sorry about your grandpa. I am registered in a safe state, so will vote green. Do not want to give the apearance the Shill has a mandate.

Shit, even if I was registered in a swing state I would probably vote green.