CDZ Is Donald Trump More Typical of a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent?

[LoneLaugher]

He doesn't have a rigid political ideology. That should be clear to anyone who has spent any time listening to him.

He is Trumpian.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm tempted to say he's pretty much his own political beast, but looking at his proposed cabinet picks, that's pretty right wing.

And disappointing.
.

What would you do to improve his cabinet thus far?

 

[Mac1958]

I'm tempted to say he's pretty much his own political beast, but looking at his proposed cabinet picks, that's pretty right wing. And disappointing.

What would you do to improve his cabinet thus far?

Oh, I haven't really thought about who I would put in what position, there's nothing I can do about this.

It's pretty clear, though, that he's going with straight conservatives and campaign allies, and not independents. I'd really like to see some non-ideological people in positions of power for a change.
.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Washington Post seems to think that Trump more closely resembles an independent that did a 'hostile take over' of the GOP, than a genuine Republican.

But what defines Republican, or Democrat or Independent? Few seem to define these labels as anything other than membership in one of the two main parties or neither of them. There is no hard cast ideological definition of what a Republican is any more than here was eighty years ago, a definition that has been left behind in the dust of history. Back in the 1930's the GOP stood for Protectionism, Nationalism and a strong National Defense while we maintained a pseudo Isolationist view of the world.

No one in the Republican Party advances those same issues today, so why would we expect the GOP to remain steadfast to some other once dominant ideologies? Whatever the GOP was 4 years ago or 8 years ago, one thing it was for certain was a LOSER party that had painted itself into a demographic corner and had no way of getting out of it until Trump came along. While it had co-opted the Tea Party movement, a civil war ignited between the business as usual Party Establishment and the new rank and file over what was to be done.

While Trump is not a Tea Party man, he does have a whole lot of support among them. His problem within the GOP is that the hard core right, the Mark Levins, the Michael Savages, the Rush Limbaughs seem to want purity over effectiveness, and perfection over the 'good enough'. It is way past time for these ideologues to lose their control of the GOP so it can once again lead a more peaceful dialogue with the opposition and the left out of this country.

And Donald Trump has done three things that are simply amazing as a result of his ability to exploit the political situation from what it was a year go; he won the Presidency, he has brought back into the political discussion millions of out cast voters, and he has rebranded the Republican Party into a more populist and less ideologically pure party that once again has a chance to win a Presidential election.

And the GOP is all the better for it.

Yes Donald Trump is a Republican, and he is THE Republican.

The GOP/conservatives are a far more diverse party/group in their ideology and view of the world than are the progressives who mostly march in lockstep and condemn all who refuse to do the same with them. And with each successive election, the more moderate Democrats have been voted out and their representation in Congress becomes more leftwing extreme.

That is the downside of GOP wins because when the Democrats regain control as they invariably will from time to time, we are faced with an ever more extreme radical left Democratic Party.

I suspect the Donald is going to definitely be in the more 'liberal' wing of the Republican Party but he will have some company there. And while I have been dismayed at rather vague inferences from the media that he is now walking back some of his strongest campaign promises, I still believe he understands that prosperity does not come from government. It comes from government allowing the private sector to do what it does best with only NECESSARY regulation but otherwise without government interference.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm tempted to say he's pretty much his own political beast, but looking at his proposed cabinet picks, that's pretty right wing. And disappointing.

What would you do to improve his cabinet thus far?

Oh, I haven't really thought about who I would put in what position, there's nothing I can do about this.

It's pretty clear, though, that he's going with straight conservatives and campaign allies, and not independents. I'd really like to see some non-ideological people in positions of power for a change.
.

You sure got one in the Donald I believe. I haven't detected any ideological traits in him whatsoever. He is neither partisan nor an ideologue. It may be a bumpy ride but it is going to be interesting.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's pretty clear, though, that he's going with straight conservatives and campaign allies, and not independents. I'd really like to see some non-ideological people in positions of power for a change.
.

Do you think some political participants are not ideologues?

Do you think Dr Carson is an ideologue, or Huckabee, or Christie or Rubio?

What is an ideologue in your opinion?

The problem of our collapsing political center is on BOTH sides of the aisle.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm tempted to say he's pretty much his own political beast, but looking at his proposed cabinet picks, that's pretty right wing. And disappointing.

What would you do to improve his cabinet thus far?

Oh, I haven't really thought about who I would put in what position, there's nothing I can do about this.

It's pretty clear, though, that he's going with straight conservatives and campaign allies, and not independents. I'd really like to see some non-ideological people in positions of power for a change.
.

You sure got one in the Donald I believe. I haven't detected any ideological traits in him whatsoever. He is neither partisan nor an ideologue. It may be a bumpy ride but it is going to be interesting.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of his, but I do like the fact that he's not ideological. I guess I was hoping he would keep that going with his cabinet picks.

And yeah, bumpy indeed!
.

 

[Mac1958]

It's pretty clear, though, that he's going with straight conservatives and campaign allies, and not independents. I'd really like to see some non-ideological people in positions of power for a change.
.

Do you think some political participants are not ideologues?

Do you think Dr Carson is an ideologue, or Huckabee, or Christie or Rubio?

What is an ideologue in your opinion?

The problem of our collapsing political center is on BOTH sides of the aisle.

To me an ideologue is a person who can be expected to promote and defend an ideology, even if they have to be intellectually dishonest to do so. A person who automatically defaults to their ideology without carefully considering a question or issue. A person who lacks curiosity.

I would say those you listed are. Christie a little less so, Carson & Huckabee more so.
.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm tempted to say he's pretty much his own political beast, but looking at his proposed cabinet picks, that's pretty right wing. And disappointing.

What would you do to improve his cabinet thus far?

Oh, I haven't really thought about who I would put in what position, there's nothing I can do about this.

It's pretty clear, though, that he's going with straight conservatives and campaign allies, and not independents. I'd really like to see some non-ideological people in positions of power for a change.
.

Further commenting on your post here, I am not seeing him choosing strong ideologues. I'm looking up the resumes for the people he is choosing for his team and wow! Their credentials are really impressive.

His education secretary choice, for instance, has come under heavy fire from the leftwing ideologues who think government and education union controlled schools are the only way to go. And some of the stuff they are using to attack her is not only intellectually dishonest but laughable.

Is belief that the government and education union controlled students are failing us--the USA is waaaaaaay behind most developed nations in education despite that we spend more per student capita than any other nation--ideology? Or is it a valid observation? This was three years ago, but I am confident nothing has changed:
U.S. education spending tops global list, study shows
The proposed education secretary has devoted a great deal of her life, energy, and philanthropy to the cause of good education and both she and Trump see eye to eye on how to start turning that around.

So is it ideology that promotes home schooling, charter schools, school choice, returning the schools to local control, etc. in the face of the failures of the general public schools? Or is it common sense?

 

[Mac1958]

I'm tempted to say he's pretty much his own political beast, but looking at his proposed cabinet picks, that's pretty right wing. And disappointing.

What would you do to improve his cabinet thus far?

Oh, I haven't really thought about who I would put in what position, there's nothing I can do about this.

It's pretty clear, though, that he's going with straight conservatives and campaign allies, and not independents. I'd really like to see some non-ideological people in positions of power for a change.
.

Further commenting on your post here, I am not seeing him choosing strong ideologues. I'm looking up the resumes for the people he is choosing for his team and wow! Their credentials are really impressive.

His education secretary choice, for instance, has come under heavy fire from the leftwing ideologues who think government and education union controlled schools are the only way to go. Is belief that the government and education union controlled students are failing us--the USA is waaaaaaay behind most developed nations in education despite that we spend more per student capita than any other nation. This was three years ago, but I am confident nothing has changed:
U.S. education spending tops global list, study shows
The proposed education secretary has devoted a great deal of her life, energy, and philanthropy to the cause of good education but both she and Trump see eye to eye on how to start turning that around.

So is it ideology that promotes home schooling, charter schools, school choice, etc. in the face of the failures of the general public schools? Or is it common sense?

Well, common sense is in the eye of the beholder, no more so than in politics. The two ends will give you wildly different visions of common sense and swear to have a vice-like grip on it.

What I'm saying is that, if you look at these people from the standard political perspective, they clearly fall on the strong conservative side of the spectrum.

Might they be non-ideological and moderate and open-minded and curious in practice? Sure, it's possible, and I'm looking forward to being proven wrong. I'm just a little nervous at this early stage at what I'm seeing.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

To me an ideologue is a person who can be expected to promote and defend an ideology, even if they have to be intellectually dishonest to do so. A person who automatically defaults to their ideology without carefully considering a question or issue. A person who lacks curiosity.

I would say those you listed are. Christie a little less so, Carson & Huckabee more so.
.

What about defining an ideologue as a person who subscribes to an ideological system to the point that they no longer think objectively and critically in regard to it, but simply assume it must be true, even in regard to tertiary constructs.

For example, when we state an axiom like 1) "freedom is the best environment for human activity" we base it on our own experience in life and most agree with this today. It is an ideological construct that is found in most individualist and liberty based ideologies, but it is important to note it has exceptions. In cases where the individual has mental derangement or other problems that make them tend to engage in self destructive behavior, we often reduce their freedom for their own protection. A drunk driver does not have the freedom to drive a car, for example.

But regarding ideological constructs, if one agrees that 1)"freedom is the best environment for human activity" and also that 2)"market activity is a good and necessary human environment/activity" one can logically make a secondary construct from the two that 2.1) "Free markets are the best kind of markets for human economic activity." But the exceptions to the two axioms it is built on are exponentially expanded to even more exceptions, but it can still be useful.

Were we to then take this secondary construct and combine it with another, say 2.2)"Government intervention reduces freedom" we can then make a tertiary construct, a second layer of 'logic' removed from the original axioms. The exceptions noted in the axioms are multiplied when we make the secondary constructs, but they can still be useful. But, imo, tertiary constructs have an even greater exponentially expanded number of exceptions again, making them possibly even contradictory to the original axioms.

Combining our two secondary constructs we can derive from them that 2.2.1)"Government intervention in a market always reduces freedom in that market" which is false. Government regulation makes an honest market more likely, if it does its job, and reduces the likelihood that the market is rigged for the market makers. So the tertiary construct 2.2.1 is false and the sign of an ideologue when people assert such nonsense.

So, to my perspective, an ideologue will not question or displays an inability to question and evaluate secondary ideological constructs and commonly accepts even tertiary ideological constructs at face value.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well, common sense is in the eye of the beholder, no more so than in politics. The two ends will give you wildly different visions of common sense and swear to have a vice-like grip on it.

What I'm saying is that, if you look at these people from the standard political perspective, they clearly fall on the strong conservative side of the spectrum.

Might they be non-ideological and moderate and open-minded and curious in practice? Sure, it's possible, and I'm looking forward to being proven wrong. I'm just a little nervous at this early stage at what I'm seeing.
.

So you are taking a spectrum view of the selections, i.e. anyone that promotes school vouchers and charter schools is ont he right end of the spectrum and therefore very conservative.

But how is promoting such strong change in our educational system 'conserving' anything that is currently being done?

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm tempted to say he's pretty much his own political beast, but looking at his proposed cabinet picks, that's pretty right wing. And disappointing.

What would you do to improve his cabinet thus far?

Oh, I haven't really thought about who I would put in what position, there's nothing I can do about this.

It's pretty clear, though, that he's going with straight conservatives and campaign allies, and not independents. I'd really like to see some non-ideological people in positions of power for a change.
.

Further commenting on your post here, I am not seeing him choosing strong ideologues. I'm looking up the resumes for the people he is choosing for his team and wow! Their credentials are really impressive.

His education secretary choice, for instance, has come under heavy fire from the leftwing ideologues who think government and education union controlled schools are the only way to go. Is belief that the government and education union controlled students are failing us--the USA is waaaaaaay behind most developed nations in education despite that we spend more per student capita than any other nation. This was three years ago, but I am confident nothing has changed:
U.S. education spending tops global list, study shows
The proposed education secretary has devoted a great deal of her life, energy, and philanthropy to the cause of good education but both she and Trump see eye to eye on how to start turning that around.

So is it ideology that promotes home schooling, charter schools, school choice, etc. in the face of the failures of the general public schools? Or is it common sense?

Well, common sense is in the eye of the beholder, no more so than in politics. The two ends will give you wildly different visions of common sense and swear to have a vice-like grip on it.

What I'm saying is that, if you look at these people from the standard political perspective, they clearly fall on the strong conservative side of the spectrum.

Might they be non-ideological and moderate and open-minded and curious in practice? Sure, it's possible, and I'm looking forward to being proven wrong. I'm just a little nervous at this early stage at what I'm seeing.
.

Conservatism in itself is not an ideology. Only those who defend certain concepts labeled conservative in the face of evidence that such does not merit a defense is ideology. Or pushing for a vision whether or not we see a clear path in how to reach it is an ideological concept.

It was conservative concepts such as those who break the law do not deserve more consideration and protection and sympathy than do the innocent who are harmed by those who break the law that earned Donald Trump votes in the past election. That is not born of ideology but is born of seeing the reality of the situation.

It was conservative concepts such as the education system is failing our students and we need to do something different that will work that turned people to Trump. That is not an ideological concept but is a pure verifiable fact.

It was conservative concepts such as creating a stable and business friendly atmosphere as the best way to get the economy moving that elected him. We are getting closer to ideology here, but we do have some clear evidence that what Trump is proposing has worked in the past.

So these are not ideological concepts. They are hard facts. Facts that most of those on the left disagree with and condemn as 'fascist' or 'anti-school' or 'oppressing the poor' yadda yadda.

Why in the world would you expect Trump to appoint people who want to maintain the status quo that he opposes or take us further left when that has so far failed? This is not ideology. It is in reasoned and reasonable belief in correcting what is wrong and getting it more right.

 

[Mac1958]

To me an ideologue is a person who can be expected to promote and defend an ideology, even if they have to be intellectually dishonest to do so. A person who automatically defaults to their ideology without carefully considering a question or issue. A person who lacks curiosity.

I would say those you listed are. Christie a little less so, Carson & Huckabee more so.
.

What about defining an ideologue as a person who subscribes to an ideological system to the point that they no longer think objectively and critically in regard to it, but simply assume it must be true, even in regard to tertiary constructs.

For example, when we state an axiom like "freedom is the best environment for human activity" we base it on our own experience in life and most agree with th this today. It is an ideological construct that is found in most individualist and liberty based ideologies, but it is important to note it has exceptions. In cases where the individual has mental derangement or other problems that make them tend to engage in self destructive behavior, we often reduce their freedom for their own protection. A drunk driver does not have the freedom to drive a car, for example.

But regarding ideological constructs, if one agrees that 1)"freedom is the best environment for human activity" and also that 2)"market activity is a good and necessary human environment/activity" one can logically make a secondary construct from the two that 2.1) "Free markets are the best kind of markets for human economic activity."

But were we to take this secondary construct and combine it with another, say 2.2)"Government intervention reduces freedom" we can then make a tertiary construct, a second layer of 'logic' removed from the original axioms. The exceptions noted in the axioms are multiplied when we make the secondary constructs, but they can still be useful. But, imo, tertiary constructs have an exponentially expanded number of exceptions again, making them possibly even contradictory to the original axioms.

Combining our two secondary constructs we can derive from them that 2.2.1)"Government intervention in a market always reduces freedom in that market" which is false. Government regulation makes an honest market more likely, if it does its job, and reduces the likelihood that the market is rigged for the market makers. So the tertiary construct 2.2.1 is false and the sign of an ideologue when people assert such nonsense.

So, to my perspective, an ideologue will not question or displays an inability to question and evaluate secondary ideological constructs and commonly accepts even tertiary ideological constructs at face value.

Yes, and as a consequence of that, their observations and opinions simply cannot be taken seriously. I probably shouldn't do this, but I use the term "ideologue" as damn near an epithet.

And I'm dead serious when I say that both perceptions and thought processes of hardcore partisan ideologues are literally distorted. And when you have more and more people in positions of influence who are ideologues, you have rapid deterioration in such fundamental tasks as communication. We're seeing that now.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, common sense is in the eye of the beholder, no more so than in politics. The two ends will give you wildly different visions of common sense and swear to have a vice-like grip on it.

What I'm saying is that, if you look at these people from the standard political perspective, they clearly fall on the strong conservative side of the spectrum.

Might they be non-ideological and moderate and open-minded and curious in practice? Sure, it's possible, and I'm looking forward to being proven wrong. I'm just a little nervous at this early stage at what I'm seeing.
.

So you are taking a spectrum view of the selections, i.e. anyone that promotes school vouchers and charter schools is ont he right end of the spectrum and therefore very conservative.

But how is promoting such strong change in our educational system 'conserving' anything that is currently being done?

No, I don't want to say that if a person believes one thing that they reside on an end of a spectrum. That incorrect assumption is made of me all the time - I'm accused of being a left winger and a right winger constantly, based on one issue statement. And in fact, I support vouchers and charter schools and I lean left overall.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

To me an ideologue is a person who can be expected to promote and defend an ideology, even if they have to be intellectually dishonest to do so. A person who automatically defaults to their ideology without carefully considering a question or issue. A person who lacks curiosity.

I would say those you listed are. Christie a little less so, Carson & Huckabee more so.
.

What about defining an ideologue as a person who subscribes to an ideological system to the point that they no longer think objectively and critically in regard to it, but simply assume it must be true, even in regard to tertiary constructs.

For example, when we state an axiom like "freedom is the best environment for human activity" we base it on our own experience in life and most agree with th this today. It is an ideological construct that is found in most individualist and liberty based ideologies, but it is important to note it has exceptions. In cases where the individual has mental derangement or other problems that make them tend to engage in self destructive behavior, we often reduce their freedom for their own protection. A drunk driver does not have the freedom to drive a car, for example.

But regarding ideological constructs, if one agrees that 1)"freedom is the best environment for human activity" and also that 2)"market activity is a good and necessary human environment/activity" one can logically make a secondary construct from the two that 2.1) "Free markets are the best kind of markets for human economic activity."

But were we to take this secondary construct and combine it with another, say 2.2)"Government intervention reduces freedom" we can then make a tertiary construct, a second layer of 'logic' removed from the original axioms. The exceptions noted in the axioms are multiplied when we make the secondary constructs, but they can still be useful. But, imo, tertiary constructs have an exponentially expanded number of exceptions again, making them possibly even contradictory to the original axioms.

Combining our two secondary constructs we can derive from them that 2.2.1)"Government intervention in a market always reduces freedom in that market" which is false. Government regulation makes an honest market more likely, if it does its job, and reduces the likelihood that the market is rigged for the market makers. So the tertiary construct 2.2.1 is false and the sign of an ideologue when people assert such nonsense.

So, to my perspective, an ideologue will not question or displays an inability to question and evaluate secondary ideological constructs and commonly accepts even tertiary ideological constructs at face value.

Yes, and as a consequence of that, their observations and opinions simply cannot be taken seriously. I probably shouldn't do this, but I use the term "ideologue" as damn near an epithet.

And I'm dead serious when I say that both perceptions and thought processes of hardcore partisan ideologues are literally distorted. And when you have more and more people in positions of influence who are ideologues, you have rapid deterioration in such fundamental tasks as communication. We're seeing that now.
.

I think we need to go back to distingushing axiomatic assertions from the ideologies that adopt them and then build entire systems of thought on them.

I believe that personal freedom is good for human beings, and that there is a God.

These used to be common axioms for both the left and the right, but the old classic liberals are being driven into extinction and the new leftists that run the Democratic Party today disagree with both of them with sadly increasing frequency.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm tempted to say he's pretty much his own political beast, but looking at his proposed cabinet picks, that's pretty right wing. And disappointing.

What would you do to improve his cabinet thus far?

Oh, I haven't really thought about who I would put in what position, there's nothing I can do about this.

It's pretty clear, though, that he's going with straight conservatives and campaign allies, and not independents. I'd really like to see some non-ideological people in positions of power for a change.
.

Further commenting on your post here, I am not seeing him choosing strong ideologues. I'm looking up the resumes for the people he is choosing for his team and wow! Their credentials are really impressive.

His education secretary choice, for instance, has come under heavy fire from the leftwing ideologues who think government and education union controlled schools are the only way to go. Is belief that the government and education union controlled students are failing us--the USA is waaaaaaay behind most developed nations in education despite that we spend more per student capita than any other nation. This was three years ago, but I am confident nothing has changed:
U.S. education spending tops global list, study shows
The proposed education secretary has devoted a great deal of her life, energy, and philanthropy to the cause of good education but both she and Trump see eye to eye on how to start turning that around.

So is it ideology that promotes home schooling, charter schools, school choice, etc. in the face of the failures of the general public schools? Or is it common sense?

Well, common sense is in the eye of the beholder, no more so than in politics. The two ends will give you wildly different visions of common sense and swear to have a vice-like grip on it.

What I'm saying is that, if you look at these people from the standard political perspective, they clearly fall on the strong conservative side of the spectrum.

Might they be non-ideological and moderate and open-minded and curious in practice? Sure, it's possible, and I'm looking forward to being proven wrong. I'm just a little nervous at this early stage at what I'm seeing.
.

Conservatism in itself is not an ideology. Only those who defend certain concepts labeled conservative in the face of evidence that such does not merit a defense is ideology. Or pushing for a vision whether or not we see a clear path in how to reach it is an ideological concept.

It was conservative concepts such as those who break the law do not deserve more consideration and protection and sympathy than do the innocent who are harmed by those who break the law that earned Donald Trump votes in the past election. That is not born of ideology but is born of seeing the reality of the situation.

It was conservative concepts such as the education system is failing our students and we need to do something different that will work that turned people to Trump. That is not an ideological concept but is a pure verifiable fact.

It was conservative concepts such as creating a stable and business friendly atmosphere as the best way to get the economy moving that elected him. We are getting closer to ideology here, but we do have some clear evidence that what Trump is proposing has worked in the past.

So these are not ideological concepts. They are hard facts. Facts that most of those on the left disagree with and condemn as 'fascist' or 'anti-school' or 'oppressing the poor' yadda yadda.

Why in the world would you expect Trump to appoint people who want to maintain the status quo that he opposes or take us further left when that has so far failed? This is not ideology. It is in reasoned and reasonable belief in correcting what is wrong and getting it more right.

I've heard this "conservatism is not an ideology" thing before, and I don't agree. Plus, let's take this in context: We're talking about Left vs. Right ideologies, so let's just keep it simple.

And regarding "hard facts", another counter-productive element of ideologies is that they cause people to make up definitions to match their agenda, creating "facts" as they go. Both Republicans and Democrats have perfectly reasonable arguments for their positions on education and business and economics. In my non-ideological view, the smartest thing to do is just admit that and begin by looking for common ground.
.

 

[Foxfyre]

To me an ideologue is a person who can be expected to promote and defend an ideology, even if they have to be intellectually dishonest to do so. A person who automatically defaults to their ideology without carefully considering a question or issue. A person who lacks curiosity.

I would say those you listed are. Christie a little less so, Carson & Huckabee more so.
.

What about defining an ideologue as a person who subscribes to an ideological system to the point that they no longer think objectively and critically in regard to it, but simply assume it must be true, even in regard to tertiary constructs.

For example, when we state an axiom like 1) "freedom is the best environment for human activity" we base it on our own experience in life and most agree with this today. It is an ideological construct that is found in most individualist and liberty based ideologies, but it is important to note it has exceptions. In cases where the individual has mental derangement or other problems that make them tend to engage in self destructive behavior, we often reduce their freedom for their own protection. A drunk driver does not have the freedom to drive a car, for example.

But regarding ideological constructs, if one agrees that 1)"freedom is the best environment for human activity" and also that 2)"market activity is a good and necessary human environment/activity" one can logically make a secondary construct from the two that 2.1) "Free markets are the best kind of markets for human economic activity." But the exceptions to the two axioms it is built on are exponentially expanded to even more exceptions, but it can still be useful.

Were we to then take this secondary construct and combine it with another, say 2.2)"Government intervention reduces freedom" we can then make a tertiary construct, a second layer of 'logic' removed from the original axioms. The exceptions noted in the axioms are multiplied when we make the secondary constructs, but they can still be useful. But, imo, tertiary constructs have an even greater exponentially expanded number of exceptions again, making them possibly even contradictory to the original axioms.

Combining our two secondary constructs we can derive from them that 2.2.1)"Government intervention in a market always reduces freedom in that market" which is false. Government regulation makes an honest market more likely, if it does its job, and reduces the likelihood that the market is rigged for the market makers. So the tertiary construct 2.2.1 is false and the sign of an ideologue when people assert such nonsense.

So, to my perspective, an ideologue will not question or displays an inability to question and evaluate secondary ideological constructs and commonly accepts even tertiary ideological constructs at face value.

Well done. The only qualification I would make regarding this is that ideology is not in and of itself necessary a bad thing.

To believe that something close to Utopia overall or in any regard can be achieved is of course ideological but is not necessarily a bad goal even when nobody really knows how to get there and probably each of us has a different mental concept of how that would look. It only becomes a harmful thing when Utopia is defined as having things the way I want them and whatever negative effect that has on you does not matter.

 

[Mac1958]

To me an ideologue is a person who can be expected to promote and defend an ideology, even if they have to be intellectually dishonest to do so. A person who automatically defaults to their ideology without carefully considering a question or issue. A person who lacks curiosity.

I would say those you listed are. Christie a little less so, Carson & Huckabee more so.
.

What about defining an ideologue as a person who subscribes to an ideological system to the point that they no longer think objectively and critically in regard to it, but simply assume it must be true, even in regard to tertiary constructs.

For example, when we state an axiom like "freedom is the best environment for human activity" we base it on our own experience in life and most agree with th this today. It is an ideological construct that is found in most individualist and liberty based ideologies, but it is important to note it has exceptions. In cases where the individual has mental derangement or other problems that make them tend to engage in self destructive behavior, we often reduce their freedom for their own protection. A drunk driver does not have the freedom to drive a car, for example.

But regarding ideological constructs, if one agrees that 1)"freedom is the best environment for human activity" and also that 2)"market activity is a good and necessary human environment/activity" one can logically make a secondary construct from the two that 2.1) "Free markets are the best kind of markets for human economic activity."

But were we to take this secondary construct and combine it with another, say 2.2)"Government intervention reduces freedom" we can then make a tertiary construct, a second layer of 'logic' removed from the original axioms. The exceptions noted in the axioms are multiplied when we make the secondary constructs, but they can still be useful. But, imo, tertiary constructs have an exponentially expanded number of exceptions again, making them possibly even contradictory to the original axioms.

Combining our two secondary constructs we can derive from them that 2.2.1)"Government intervention in a market always reduces freedom in that market" which is false. Government regulation makes an honest market more likely, if it does its job, and reduces the likelihood that the market is rigged for the market makers. So the tertiary construct 2.2.1 is false and the sign of an ideologue when people assert such nonsense.

So, to my perspective, an ideologue will not question or displays an inability to question and evaluate secondary ideological constructs and commonly accepts even tertiary ideological constructs at face value.

Yes, and as a consequence of that, their observations and opinions simply cannot be taken seriously. I probably shouldn't do this, but I use the term "ideologue" as damn near an epithet.

And I'm dead serious when I say that both perceptions and thought processes of hardcore partisan ideologues are literally distorted. And when you have more and more people in positions of influence who are ideologues, you have rapid deterioration in such fundamental tasks as communication. We're seeing that now.
.

I think we need to go back to distingushing axiomatic assertions from the ideologies that adopt them and then build entire systems of thought on them.

I believe that personal freedom is good for human beings, and that there is a God.

These used to be common axioms for both the left and the right, but the old classic liberals are being driven into extinction and the new leftists that run the Democratic Party today disagree with both of them with sadly increasing frequency.

Well, indeed, there are relatively few classic liberals laying around. Virtually all of the current energy in the party lies with the Regressive Left, so I'm very hopeful that the post-mortem on the election begins to include a mirror pretty soon.

I've seen some small signs of that, but I'm not getting my hopes up.


.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I've heard this "conservatism is not an ideology" thing before, and I don't agree. Plus, let's take this in context: We're talking about Left vs. Right ideologies, so let's just keep it simple.

We need to distinguish between little 'c' - 'conservatism' and capital 'C' - 'Conservatism', if I may raise the point without being a derp about it.

It is true that 'conservatism' is not an ideology, but 'Conservatism' is.