yeap in Poland we have this too :L

The whole me being King thing is just the unattainable optimum that we hold out as an ideal.

And the rest is a naked struggle for power.

A depressingly compelling thought.

1. To what extent do we abandon libertarianism as being hopelessly unstable because it requires people in power to refrain from exploiting that power? Or is libertarianism no less stable than any other governing philosophy?

2. Assuming Democrats regain power, what should they do about the “structural” advantages that Republicans have created for themselves? Specifically, should the Democrats seek merely to undue those advantages, or to build in their own advantages?

A. District gerrymandering. The Supreme Court appears to have concluded that gerrymandering is irreducibly a political question. Should the Democrats seek to draw districts that reflect bona fide communities of interest, or should they draw them to promote the election of Democrats?

B. The K Street Project. Republicans basically refused to work with any number of private firms unless the firms would hire conservatives and fire liberals. Should the Democrats respond in kind?

C. Demagoging. It’s populist and powerful, and Republicans have successfully used it to bash Democrats about gays and health care reform and taxes. Arguably Democrats have used it to bash Republicans about Soc. Security reform. I suspect Democrats will have the opportunity to tie the Republican Party to a disastrous war, and use the issue to brand future Republicans that had nothing to do with the war. Similarly, we may be entering an era in which the public is inclined to regard high-profile religious leaders as hypocritical egomaniacs and public professions of faith as suspect. Should Democrats seek to exploit such advantages for partisan gain?

D. “Faith-Based Initiative”-type programs. Recent books suggest that the Bush Administration’s “Faith-Based Initiatives” program was basically a taxpayer-funded vehicle to whip up the party faithful. Should the Democrats develop comparable tax-payer funded programs? (Latte trucks?)

E. Instant run-off voting. Instant run-off voting would permit people to vote for their favorite candidate with the knowledge that their vote would roll over to benefit a second-choice candidate if their favorite candidate lost. The policy is arguably in the best interest of democracy, but not in the best interest of either the Democratic or Republican parties. Should the Democrats push for it?

F. “Selling” public goods for partisan benefits. In a more innocent time, the public got exercised about whether or not Clinton permitted campaign contributors to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom. Since then we have observed plenty of politicians trading much larger favors for campaign contributions and other private reimbursements, and inserting “ear marks” into spending bills. Think Enron deregulation, tax code changes, energy bills drafted by industry, Halliburton no-bid contracts, securities regulations, the Abromoff and Cunningham scandals. Should the Democrats maintain these practices for their own benefit?

G. Karl Rove practices. Traditionally the White House had a policy staff and a politics staff, and they’d argue over the positions the White House should adopt. The Bush Administration is (in)famous for having subordinated (in effect, eliminated) the policy staff to Karl Rove’s office. Arguably even the question of whether to go to war in Iraq was engineered with an eye to the next election. And the practice has proven to be powerful way to govern a nation split 50/50. It has also resulted in the subordination of technical expertise to political practitioners throughout government, with predictable results. However, the disastrous results have not generally had electoral consequences (until now?). Should the Democrats emulate this practice?

On another forum, I recall Robert throwing in the towel on libertarianism and openly campaigning for the job of Emperor or something. If people aren’t going to even try to play by democratic rules, why should Robert be the last Boy Scout? I’m not quite there, but I’m getting closer.

The problem is that there is no agreement about the meaning of all these definitions. For example, racism: Do you mean racism as defined by dictionaries or racism as defined by anti-racist activists?

I’d say that, in current US discourse, the unspecific principle that “racism is wrong” is in the donut hole. Everyone has to agree that racism is wrong, and claim to not be a racist, if they want to be considered in the range of acceptable views.

However, the precise meaning of “racism” is, by and large, in the donut, not in the hole – it’s something that people can disagree on and still be seen as part of “respectable discourse.”

There’s an image of a donut of discourse. Inside the donut hole are the principles that everyone in the society who is at all respected, agrees on: A constitutional democracy is better than a dictatorship, racism is bad, cheating on elections is wrong, etc..

The problem is that there is no agreement about the meaning of all these definitions. For example, racism: Do you mean racism as defined by dictionaries or racism as defined by anti-racist activists?

Either way, this can not be true: If one uses the dictionary definition one can easily find anti-white racism that isn’t considered bad by everyone, and on the other hand, if one uses the activist progressive definition (with power-over etc.) it can not be true either, because usually according to these activists racism is pervasive fact of society and thus it is inconsistent to argue that everyone at all respected agrees that racism is bad, because then racism can not be pervasive.

Ideological tribalism and bunker mentality of supporting “our side” sucks, and to echo what RonF said in Alas, conservative does not equal Republican, or vice versa.

Politics is depressingly dirty, but I suppose ideological disagreement doesn’t have to necessarily be that. I’d also say that faking respect can be a form of respect: It shows a willingness to moderate oneself for the sake of civil disagreement.

On the other hand, I do agree partly with Toysoldier: It can come across as condescending, and sometimes saying what one really thinks is actually a better way of showing respect (as in: I respect you enough to let you know what I truly think).

And the rest is a naked struggle for power.

And I think it’s worth faking it…

If one is good at faking respect to the extent that a person cannot tell the difference, then I think such a thing is fine. However, if one is not good at it, then one comes across as facetious and patronizing. I think that only fosters greater disdain, animosity and distrust between the groups. It becomes as if people are speaking through their teeth, as if they are speaking at each other rather than with each other.

…I think the whole party has been hijacked…

He misspelt “country”.