The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)
1–10 of 138 posts
Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)
#2This is an interesting read, and it makes me want to read more. But the intro could use some context. I have so many questions now.
Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)
#3This is an interesting read, and it makes me want to read more. But the intro could use some context. I have so many questions now.
> But the intro could use some context.
What do you mean by that?
Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)
#4The rise of populism, especially in the US, has accelerated the breakdown described here. It's difficult to place political parties or even individual politicians in neat boxes, which would be a benefit in some ways in theory if it wasn't really caused by the political parties (and one in particular) becoming completely unmoored from their historical platform and agenda.
These shifts have happened a few times in the past, and it'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)
#5This reads to me as a somewhat quaint snapshot of politics from 30 years ago.
What the author is getting at is the overlapping of the bundles of individual policy stances that we give the label of a single ideology, the folding of the left-right political axis through higher dimensional space. People who agree on some things disagree on others and the old categories become less useful.
These days I think JREG is doing good work tracking political categories if you’re interested and don’t mind some irony-poisoned jargon check him out.
Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)
#6[deleted]
Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)
#7Afaik, there are already specific political definitions. It's just that "the common man" isn't very educated in them, and the "language of politics" eschews logic and specificity in favor of generalization (in order to induce rancor and thus party-alignment).
Here is the political classification of the top 50 developed nations (I tried to organize them, but it's hard...):
Qatar Absolute monarchy
Oman Absolute monarchy
Saudi Arabia Absolute monarchy
Brunei Darussalam Absolute monarchy
United Arab Emirates Federal absolute monarchy
Kuwait Constitutional monarchy (emirate) with parliamentary elements
Bahrain Constitutional monarchy (unitary)
United Kingdom Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Netherlands Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Japan Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Denmark Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Norway Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Sweden Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Luxembourg Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Spain Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Australia Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Belgium Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Canada Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Liechtenstein Hereditary constitutional monarchy with elements of direct democracy
Croatia Parliamentary republic
Czechia Parliamentary republic
Estonia Parliamentary republic
Greece Parliamentary republic
Hungary Parliamentary republic
Israel Parliamentary republic
Italy Parliamentary republic
Latvia Parliamentary republic
Lithuania Parliamentary republic
Poland Parliamentary republic
Slovakia Parliamentary republic
Slovenia Parliamentary republic
Finland Parliamentary republic (semi-presidential features)
Austria Federal parliamentary republic
Germany Federal parliamentary republic
Switzerland Federal directorial republic (collegial executive of seven Federal Councilors)
Andorra Parliamentary co-principality (two Co-Princes: French President & Bishop of Urgell)
Chile Presidential republic
Portugal Semi-presidential republic
Argentina Federal presidential republic
United States Federal presidential constitutional republic (representative democracy)
Cyprus Unitary presidential republic
South Korea Unitary presidential republic
France Unitary semi-presidential republic (Fifth Republic)
Iceland Unitary parliamentary republic
Ireland Unitary parliamentary republic
Malta Unitary parliamentary republic
Singapore Unitary parliamentary republic
New Zealand Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Hong Kong (China SAR) Special Administrative Region of China with “one country, two systems”Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)
#8In the United States, terms such as "conservative" and "liberal" seem to be used primarily to describe whatever currently happens to be popular in the duopolistic Republican and Democratic parties. I'm old enough now to have witnessed both parties, and the definitions of those terms, morph into something unrecognizable to partisans of my youth. And the (morbidly) funny thing is that people today call themselves "true conservatives," for example, apparently with no recollection or recognition of the recent past.
My own view is that the terms don't signify real, stable ideologies but rather just give the pretense that the duopolistic political parties are backed by ideologies rather than by constantly shifting power dynamics.
Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)
#9This reads to me as a somewhat quaint snapshot of politics from 30 years ago. What the author is getting at is the overlapping of the bundles of individual policy stances that we give the label of a single ideology, the folding of the left-right political axis through higher dimensional space. People who agree on some things disagree on others and the old categories become less useful. These days I think JREG is doin…
Yeah, I think we've all seen the term "socialism" prettymuch destroyed into having no coherent meaning beyond "when government does stuff" for as long as I can remember, for example.
I mean, I've seen people decry market-oriented solutions to problems (eg congestion pricing) as "socialism" which is broadly hilarious.
Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)
#10In the United States, terms such as "conservative" and "liberal" seem to be used primarily to describe whatever currently happens to be popular in the duopolistic Republican and Democratic parties. I'm old enough now to have witnessed both parties, and the definitions of those terms, morph into something unrecognizable to partisans of my youth. And the (morbidly) funny thing is that people today call themselves "true…
The problem is that these terms do signify real, stable ideologies, but the vast majority of people are superficial trend-chasers who don't actually adhere to any stable ideology, so misuse these terms to refer to whichever tribe they emotionally associate themselves with at the moment.
IMO, the current US administration seems to be the most left-wing in my lifetime, but contrived cultural wedge issues seem to have eclipsed actual policy positions in most public discourse, so gets called "conservative" despite its policies being almost the diametric opposite of what was called "conservative" 30 years ago.