Trying to sum up one's political ideology into a few soundbytes (or in this case, a forum post) is a major fallacy in modern democracies. You
cannot effectively present a position, an explanation, and a plan to impliment said position in a political commercial or short/average-sized forum post. Without a position, an explanation, and a plan (in the case of political candidates), you can't properly gauge that person or candidate on the issue at hand. With so many issues that exist in any democratic political environment, soundbyte politics woefully underrepresents candidates and people.
I'll use myself as an example... If you've read my few replies to threads in here over the past few months, you know I'm pro-death penalty, pro-choice, and anti-Iraq war. You could say I enjoy killing people as a social function but not a political tool. Of course, if you read for detail, you'd have noted that I'd have been for an invasion of Syria or Iran, and going further back, you'd see that I supported the decision to invade Afgahnistan. Oops. Now I'm just someone who likes a humongous body count and loves Sadam Hussein....except that I supported the first Gulf War too. Okay, just a homocidal, body-count kind of guy then... Should I go into my stance on social medicine and/or the second ammendment, or are neurons crossing in ways they weren't meant to already?
It's not enough to say "I'm pro-[blah] and anti-[bluh]," without (at the very least) a relatively thorough explanation as to what you like about [blah] and don't like about [bluh]. I could write a book about my political stance as a whole, and anything less would be inadequate. I'm sure that applies to everyone else on this board. Yeah, I can sum it up and say that I'm a "moderate liberal," but you really have no idea what that means in reference to my ideology. If you feel you can sum up all of your political beliefs and adequately express them in one to two words, then you seriously need to move to one of those nations that still provides political views for its citizens. (I hear Cuba is nice this time of year, and China is always looking for takers on the 'vehicle track fodder'-citizenship deal.
)
As for your link... It's garbage. That thread is blind partisanship on both sides, and neither side is presenting very convincing material. It's quite apparent that both you and Kazan are talking in grandiose terms about issues which you have little to no direct experience with or substantial knowledge of. You're both also totally unwilling to even consider the other person's viewpoint, or you'd realize there are some pretty clear compromises in some of those issues (such as the UN's continued existance) that would be more effective than either of the extremes call for. It's not wrong for you and Kazan to be uninformed on political topics, but when someone refuses to consider another's viewpoint or research both viewpoints, being uninformed turns into being ignorant, and that's a serious character flaw. Sure, some political views are based on 'fundamental truths' that we are raised with, but it's still not going to hurt to at least research the opposing viewpoint instead of calling him/her an idiot or monster.
Of course, when people get so accustomed to sound-byte politics, they become disinclined to do research on political issues, and-- Well, I think I'm already too far on my way to starting a new thread on the failings of modern democracy as it is. Though I think I at least partially addressed your post, I apologize for the derail.
