Online users
???: Message   

Washinton Post STILL doesn't get it - advises 'Crats how to "better sell their brand"...
Post Reply   Forum
Posted by: LateForLunch ®

11/10/2024, 03:23:15
Author Profile Mail author Edit


I wrote the following in the Fox Comments section in response to the article's author suggesting that his advice would help the 'Crat "brand"...I wrote:

There is no "brand". There are only individuals, or groups of them. Not people who are most-accurately-defined by being politically right nor left, but by being morally right or wrong - or even somewhere in the middle striving for morality....but the only "brand" to sell is good governance based on strong, moral decisions. Not just the effort to achieve the APPEARANCE of good governance, but to achieve the thing itself. It is a fiction that all public-policy debates rightfully must be couched in divided terms of left/right, liberal/conservative, racial/non-racial, secular/religious, have/have-not, capitalist/Marxist. Reductionist dualism is not realism, but exactly the opposite. END OF COMMENT

Whenever I hear of someone who believes they have the absolute Truth to inflict, enforce and persecute others into believing, I am reminded of a statement in a Gene Wolfe novel.

In the story, there is a god (Tzadkiel) who is vested with adjudicating whether or Earth should be destroyed or remade anew. The supplicants on both sides (one desiring destruction, the other preservation) implore Tzadkiel to deliver justice to them. He says to them, "I will judge, but it cannot be just." By that statement, Tzadkiel meant that any issue which is adjudicated by a third party will not be perceived as being 100% just by both parties. This is because the immutable nature of third-party adjudicated decisions requires that compromises be made. It's largely impossible for both parties to be happy. Tzadkiel reminds them of this overriding reality before judgment is renderer. 

An almost identical principle applies to ALL decisions involving third-parties esp. public policy decisions. No side of a two-sided dispute should expect to get everything they desire from the decision once it's submitted to adjudication by others. 

A rational dialectic must guide ALL of them, not other inferior sorts of dialectics (Marxist, sophistic, etc.) heavy with ideological, not practical imperatives. 







Modified by LateForLunch at Sun, Nov 10, 2024, 04:09:44

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page