Discussion in 'Education' started by night_son, Aug 3, 2018.
From your comments it is very clear that you do NOT understand America.
No, I disagree.
I don't disagree that universities could be a threat to sensible life in the US.
However I don't think this is the gravest threat.
The gravest threat is the system of electing "representatives".
The FPTP system favors the biggest two parties. In fact there really aren't any other viable parties. This leads to partisan politics that is getting worse and worse and worse.
This leads to universities becoming partisan, along with religious groups, and everyone else.
This partisanship is destroying the US.
In simplest terms: ideology has led America to the precipice of a historical, even politically epochal death drop into a cultural abyss. Ideology can save her; reinforced by a powerful enough government (authoritarian lite), guided by laser-like focus on projecting necessary reforms.
I disagree; the individual is and has been since America's founding, the "reason for the season". Western Civilization post-Enlightenment is predicated upon individual freedom and rights. Nowhere is this agency-spirit of the foundation for Modernist Western civilization more purer and true than in America's founding.
I enjoy reading your posts, Tehon. However, we seem to disagree at the most fundamental level of political philosophy. Marx and Engels believed in an eventual, natural death of capitalism-- perhaps a bit too condescendingly or cynically for the "natural death" part--at the hands of voluntary revolution in the name of the working class. However, the upper and middle class are not the enemy of a functional, individually beneficial society. Only in the Western democracy--no more so than in America-- can Marx's oppressed worker rise on his merit to join or even surpass the despised bourgeoisie without a bloody revolution; social, cultural or shooting. American followers of Marx to me seem to have no respect for the power of the individual freedom granted them by the equilibrium of the law and constitutional protections.
Thanks, Frigid. You introduce an important position to this thread. The two party system is a either a byproduct or intended binary ideological control construct of a centuries long running, highly destructive to the American way of life Hegelian dialectic. I agree with you on the effects of the two party system. However, we are past the point, for the immediate present, of undoing two party damage when the ideological war is ripping America apart across the civilizational spectrum.
Use the wonderful education you received to explain why anyone would expect you to find a problem with becoming more of what you already are, or why you may think being exposed to more of the ideas you like, would not lead you to consider that what you think is anything other than merely correct.
Well, past the point because nobody actually seems to want to change the system, then I agree.
But even what you've said is "yes, there's a problem but let's not deal with it because..."
No, you mistake my tone. Counter-ideology is the way of dealing with it. I was agreeing with you in the spirit of American founding political philosophy as a center mark, one too far deviated both Left and Right by their respective radical political and cultural philosophies. We need to get back to the center, however, the de-politicization of the power held currently by America's two dominant parties to a degree allowing a third or fourth, etc, isn't going to happen mid-stride in a climate of relentless ideological warfare. The entire machine is running on the fuel of sharp ideology based division by culture, philosophy, political and economic theory, etc.
What is your solution for high value, meaningful change beneficial to our America of today?
But you won't get "counter-ideology" with the current FPTP system.
My solution is to change FPTP to PR.
Or, better said.
For the presidency.
A French style run off system. Two votes. One for all candidates, the next one for the last two.
Or, potentially a system where different parts of the executive are run by different people, and they're elected separately and independently of the head of state.
For the House, straight up PR. One person, one vote. People in Guam, Puerto Rico have the same power of vote as people in Wyoming.
For the Senate I don't know. Depends on how people want things to go. But certainly some kind of better system.
Thanks. Well thought out.
What about our current judiciary who often bypass our vote with their rulings and have basically become ideological dictators?
Well yes, there's a problem with how the judiciary is appointed.
I like the Swiss system for executive. They have a 7 member executive and each member is appointed by the legislature. You literally have to have impressed people on all sides in order to get put into the executive.
Why not for the judiciary. Right now it's simply a case of gaining the attention of one side and hoping they get into power. Ridiculous.
If both sides had to agree on someone, the Supreme Court might be sensible.
Separate names with a comma.