I suffer from coming to any type of definate position on any political issue, with a few exceptions. I force myself to have an open mind to any situation or issue regarding the governing of a populace. This has forced me to accept that my beliefs are no where near correct, and no where near false. They are an ever changing view of the world as I see it, with each instance providing proof and another question.
That thought process has forced me to accept that I will never fall into the category, in the political spectrum of the United States, of a democrat or republican or in a worldly sense a conservative or a liberal. I am a devout freedom lover, and I understand the impractical application of freedom in our current world of science, I would advocate essential anarchy if the world were left to myself which would be the most pure form of freedom. I also understand the tendancies and nature of mankind, we are generally hostile, unreasonable, and pursue futile dreams. I see this as grim and changeable, as long as the general populace of the world portrays a willingness to change.
Right now the state of US political discussion strikes me as dangerous and advocates one extremist view or the other. I have finished reading Bertrand Russell's "The impact of science on society." for the third time. Every time I read it, I have nothing but more questions about our current society, it's norms, and perceptions of truth and reasoning in the sense of a two political party system.
Relating to common US political issues, abortion, gun control, economics, death penalty etc.
Are all topics which are divided by our political parties, and those parties require a limitation of free thought and opinion by restricting it to a party line which must be followed to be elected and supported by either party. Is it dangerous? I think so, a limitation of political lines stalls forward progress of anything beneficial to society as a whole. Also the hostility towards the other parties opinions and thoughts are discredited and disregarded, which further limits an understanding of the issue at hand. Compromise is a sense of establishing laws and regulations to create a better society, listening and understanding establish a further enlightenment of mankind in general through conservative, liberal, old, or new thoughts. There is no singular answer to any problem under the guise of government rule.
What type of a limited thought process do you have to have to be a republican or democrat, and is it disruptive to the further evolution of political systems in the US? How dangerous is it for us to maintain these two parties, projecting such power and greed over our political system while limiting opinion, and free thought on any issue or subject?
The following passage from "The impact of science on society" struck me in my last reading of the material. I found it to be insightful and more than relavent in regards to the United States' current political discourse. While I would agree that whole of "The impact of science on society" was more suitable for it's time in history, something can be taken from any piece of literature written at any given point in history and applied to the modern area we live in. It is why Plato, Aristotle, Nietzschein are all parts of discussions on any philosophy spoke of at any point since their writings. I thought the two paragraphs from Russels work provided my point and questions about the current political situation in the United States.
>>>"Oligarchies, throughout past history, have always thought more of their own advantage than of that of the rest of the community. It would be foolish to be morally indignant with them on this account; human nature, in the main and in the mass, is egoistic, and in most circumstances a fair dose og egoism is neccessary for survival. It was revolt against the selfishness of past political oligarchies that produced the Liberal movement in favor of democracy, and it was revolt against economic oligarchies that produced socialism. But although everybody who was in any degree progressive recognized the evils of oligarchy throughout the past history of mankind, many progressives were taken in by an arguement of a new kind of oligarchy. "We, the progressives"- so runs the arguement- "are the waise and good; we know what reforms the world needs; if we have power, we shall create a paradise." And so narcissistically hypnotized by contemplation of their own wisdom and goodness, they proceeded to create a new tyranny, more drastic than any previously known. It is the effect of science in such a system that I wish to consider in this chapter.
In the first place, since the new oligarchs are the adherents of a certain creed, and base the claim to exclusive power on the rightness of this creed, their system depends essentially on dogma: whoever questions the governmental dogma questions the moral authority of the government, and is therefore a rebel. While the oligarchy is still new, there are sure to be other creeds, held with equal conviction which would seize the government if they could. Such rival creeds must be supressed by force, since the principle of majority rule has been abandoned. It follows that there cannot be freedom of the press, freedom of discussion, or freedom of book publication. There must be an organ of government whose duty it is to pronounce as to what is orthodox, and to punish heresy. The history of the Inquisition shows what such an organ of government must inevitably become. In the normal pursuit of power, it will seek out more and more subtle heresies. The Church, as soon as it aquired political power, developed incredible refinements of dogma, and persecuted what to us appear microscopic deviations from the official creed. Exactly the same sort of thing happens in the modern States that confine political power to the supporters of a certain doctrine." <<<
"The impact of science on society", Bertrand Russell.