[EM] Partisan Politics, or Rising Above It

[Michael Allan]

Fred Gohlke wrote:

> ... your post is not responsive to what I wrote...

(Sorry, I expanded the context.  See the reasons below...)

> First, with regard to our technological ability, we now have the means to 
> allow everyone to participate in the political process.  We can use the 
> advances in transportation, communication and data processing developed 
> over the 200-plus years since the founding of my homeland to build a more 
> democratic political system.  Arrangements that were undreamed of in 1787 
> are now practical.

(It's interesting how similar are the technological changes of Europe
in the 1700s, and of the world today.  We'll do well if we make such
good use of them, as did our ancestors.)

> re: "At issue is a proposed structural transformation to society."
>
> I agree that we are moving toward a structural transformation, but it's 
> early days.  My post did not propose a 'structural transformation to 
> society', it described flaws in the existing system.  Since those flaws are 
> integrated into our system, our first concern must be to understand them so 
> we can eliminate them and prevent their recurrence.  We can't transform our 
> structures successfully unless we know why the present structures failed.

Eliminating those flaws would be a transformation.  So you do intend
it, even if you didn't propose it. ;)

Only to clarify: There is technically no structural failure.  The
structures are still intact.  This is important, it has practical
implications.  (But I do understand your point: those structures
failed, to some extent, in their function.)

> re: "But any such transformation (T) raises these critical
>      questions ..." (Practical, Probable and Moral and the
>      ensuing 'proof'), all leading to:
>
>     "The crucial thing, however, is that, despite those evil
>      aspects, the transformation TO [which you define as the
>      status quo] is a fact.  The fact of its success proves that
>      T0 [the status quo] was both practical and probable.  In
>      other words, it had good answers to T0(p,q)."
>
> That is fallacious reasoning.  To prove the status quo is the result of the 
> forces that made it is simply stating the obvious. It requires no 'proof'.

To state the obvious is not fallacious, unless the obvious is wrong.
The crucial phrase here is "despite those evil aspects", and I go on
to explain the significance of this (see below).

> Furthermore, the 'proof' errs in its most basic assumption.  It 
> (apparently) assumes that, because T0 (the status quo) was successfully 
> attained, it is the most desirable state for society.  Such reasoning would 
> undoubtedly have appealed to all the seemingly stable governments that mark 
> the history of mankind, not least of all dictatorships and those based on 
> the divine right of kings.

What appears as an assumption, is not.  I do not consider that a thing
is desireable, merely because it is a fact.  I do not consider that
"good answers to TO(pq)" imply good answers to TO(m), nor vice versa.
And that is my whole point (again, see below).

> And, finally, the listed 'critical questions' do not include (at least, not 
> in an identifiable form) the will and welfare of the people.  When 
> discussing electoral methods, there is nothing (in my opinion) more 
> fundamental than "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive 
> of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and 
> to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and 
> organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to 
> effect their Safety and Happiness."  (cadged from the American Declaration 
> of Independence)

The question of the will and welfare of the people is a moral
question.  It is covered under T(m).

> re: "If your argument of T0(m=parties,evil) is valid, then it
>      follows that the moral question T(m) is not essential to a
>      successful transformation."
>
> That's silly.  It does not follow a rational train of thought. The proper 
> statement is:  If my argument is valid, since our society reached its 
> current state, our political systems have integrated the evils I cite.

I already granted as much, for the sake of the argument.  That
granted, it then follows that a transformation need not be good, in
order to succeed.  "In other words," as I explained, "even if we have
the technology to transform society, we have no guarantee that the
result will be an improvement.  We may succeed in doing harm."

> Any attempt to improve a system must start with an understanding of the 
> flaws in the current version of the system.  I raised the issue of those 
> flaws in my post.  I have outlined, as you say, "a tiny piece of ... the 
> evil aspects of the existing party system." If you have superior arguments 
> or can show those evil aspects are inconsequential, would you care to offer 
> a rebuttal?

You are going to suggest a transformation (call it Tp).  The question
of its morality - Tp(m) - is entirely separate from that of the status
quo - T0(m).  The good and evil aspects of T0(m) are inconsequential,
because they have no bearing on the good and evil aspects of Tp(m),
except in so far as Tp(m) includes them.  Exclusion (no party system)
is, in itself, neither a good nor an evil.  It is, by definition, a
nothing.

Do you follow?  Until you have answered the moral question of your
proposed transformation, you cannot compare it to that of the status
quo.  And logically, you cannot answer the moral question until you
have answered the practical questions - How does it work?  How will it
occur?  Until then, you must leave morality out of it.  You cannot
fall back on moral arguments.

(In a separate thread, Juho and I had the opposite problem.  We were
discussing morality, and we kept falling back on practical questions.
So we learned to separate the two, and treat them in priority order.)

Besides, as Juho cautioned earlier, you have nothing to gain from
villifying the party system.  Better to learn practical lessons from
it, not just moral ones.  (A soldier learns from the enemy, and learns
to respect the enemy, too.)

> Since you did not address the flaws, should I take it that you agree with 
> my delineation of them?  If, in fact, you agree with my comments on the 
> destructive nature of party politics, perhaps we can move on to proposing a 
> structural transformation that avoids their adverse effects.

Sure, I'll take a stand on parties.  But let's first weigh them in the
balance.  At present, we have parties in one pan, and nothing in the
other.  So you please proceed...

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/