Irish politics are an ideological void?

Kama · 11-09-2008 1:30pm

Democracy wins again! :rolleyes:

iwudluvit · 09-10-2008 3:47pm

just throwing this out and have only given it the thought required to type this...but are larger populations more idelogically disparate? and smaller more similar?

I mean, percentage-wise and spread wise, all the range of opinions are there in both but in a small village it doesn't do to stick out but in a big city you can find a critical mass of support and go for it. So there's a limiting or widening factor at play.

Kama · 09-10-2008 10:58pm

Interesting question...not sure. My guess is that a larger population both allows a wider range of expression, and can support more of a fringe.

Apropos of the OP, I earwigged a conversation after a recent lecture on the banking crisis, which I'll quote here...

Capitalism or socialism, Left or Right, these things aren't really relevant anymore. What matters is what works

This seems a succinct summation of the 'post-ideological' position, whether Giddensian 'Third Way' or otherwise. It works very well as rhetoric; who is against 'what works'? Enlightened administration over petty partisan ideological concerns, a pragmatic solutions-based position.

Curious what anyone else thinks; proper order, or a dangerous anti-political movement?

iwudluvit · 10-10-2008 11:24am

Kama wrote: »

Interesting question...not sure. My guess is that a larger population both allows a wider range of expression, and can support more of a fringe.

Apropos of the OP, I earwigged a conversation after a recent lecture on the banking crisis, which I'll quote here...

This seems a succinct summation of the 'post-ideological' position, whether Giddensian 'Third Way' or otherwise. It works very well as rhetoric; who is against 'what works'? Enlightened administration over petty partisan ideological concerns, a pragmatic solutions-based position.

Curious what anyone else thinks; proper order, or a dangerous anti-political movement?

I hate when people throw out questions like they are answers. Asking the right clever questions and then walking away thinking you've solved the problem is for charlatans.

Socialism doesn't work at all. What does work most of the time is Capitalism. So that's the answer: the cause of and solution to the problem!

brianthebard · 10-10-2008 12:48pm

I hate when people ignore the point of another person's answer and just display ignorance of something. If you are asking if the Irish population is too small for many ideologies to flourish, I would say that because all emphasis was put on nationalism for forty or fifty years, and supported by almost all (socialists,land reformers, catholic church) that it became by default the dominant political theory. Add to that the issue with the north, and irish politics were not allowed develop past the point of nationalism, imo.

iwudluvit · 10-10-2008 1:37pm

brianthebard wrote: »

I hate when people ignore the point of another person's answer and just display ignorance of something..

Jeez, relax. I wasn't haven't a go at Kama. I was talking about the earwigg-ee in the conversation.

I agree with both your responses to the question I asked.

Kama · 11-10-2008 12:41am

Hmm, given that the earwig-ee didn't ask a question, and I did, the comment does look more at me. Partially fair comment if it was though, throwaway questions and a quote isn't a well thought out post, mea culpa >.<

But (for me) there isn't ever an 'ideological void'...political nature abhors one; its always filled with something. Fish don't have a word for water, And All That.

Your comment does touch on what gets me about the 'pragmatist' point of view; defining 'what works' already has (ideological?) assumptions. Works how, works for whom, etc.

Socialism doesn't work at all. What does work most of the time is Capitalism. So that's the answer: the cause of and solution to the problem!

The above questions apply in spades. A degree of socialism 'works' for quite a number of people, especially those with a less-privileged position in society, which is an equity-based argument. A fair argument can also be made for it 'working' on efficiency principles, especially in provision of public goods where there are market failures, for example.

To say it doesn't work at all would require some kind of substantiation in the face of a degree of socialism being a part of every advanced capitalist economy on the planet, from Singapore to the US to Denmark...

molloyjh · 11-10-2008 2:12pm

To be really basic about it, and trying not to veer too far off topic (given we're talking politics rather than economics), the reason capitalism works better overall compared to socialism is because capitalism appeals to human nature far more than socialism does. Sure people can be empathetic and/or sympathetic towards one another, but humanity is essentially an individualist society. So capitalism will always have a broader appeal than socialism.

To tie this in nicely with the political angle though we have to remember that by its very nature capitalism is unfair, discriminatory and unbalanced. This is where the politics comes in. Our politics must ensure that our economics does not adversly affect our society as a whole. The theory of our democratic system is such that the politicians work for the people. This should mean that our politics acts as a balance or a counter to the negative aspects of capitalism. It should be reigning in the excesses of this economic system and ensuring that it works for everybody. Unregulated capitalism can and likely would be very harmful to our society. This has been shown to be the case with the current recession, and that wasn't even completely unregulated. Imagine what could have happened in a fully unregulated society?

The political and economic set-up we have here is (IMO) a far healthier and fairer system to that in the US. Our financial industry is far better regulated (which is key), however we are still a long way from the kind of political and economic balance required to sustain the best possible society we can get. Our politicians are too involved with business here as it stands to give us that level of balance, giving these business people undue advantages. And almost paradoxical to that a lot of our social welfare aspects for example are not as tight and strict as they should be allowing certain people take advantage of that.

If we were to tighten up on areas like these I think we'd have it sussed, but as we all know the political will and public outrage at the issues we have doesn't exist right now and so it won't happen. I don't think Irish politics is an idealogical void as such (I agree with Kama that by definition it probably can't be) but I think we've reached a point of political "stagnation" whereby the drive for improvement is not there and so change isn't top of the agenda. All that being said I'd much prefer to live here than the US. At least we're a little further along the path than they are even if we're not getting any closer to the finish line.

nesf · 11-10-2008 8:56pm

Kama wrote: »

Concentrating argumentatively on a 'pure' robber-baron capitalism or a Communist dictatorship seems an ideological straw-man game.

This is probably the most apt statement in this thread tbh. Irish politics have been (for the past decade and more) about fine tuning our system and not about overhauling it in its entirety. This doesn't sit well with a sizeable minority on both sides of the political spectrum but the majority seem to vote for this (I've no idea if they'd explicitly state this was their preference but the way people vote can sometimes be more enlightening than the answers they give pollsters).

In a political system where fine tuning is the core dispute, the parties will naturally gravitate to the centre and towards more and more similar solutions (i.e. the solutions that will cause the least amount of hassle to implement). The question shouldn't be why there is an ideological void, it should be why would major parties would form along ideological lines in such a political system. For all the problems that come with inheriting political preference, if the main parties are relatively similar it makes a perverse kind of sense.

turgon · 12-10-2008 10:33pm

nesf wrote: »

This is probably the most apt statement in this thread tbh. Irish politics have been (for the past decade and more) about fine tuning our system and not about overhauling it in its entirety.

Theres a big difference between overhauling the system and introducing small ideological changes, for example legalizing abortion. Yet there is not party which is so socially liberal.

nesf · 13-10-2008 12:09am

turgon wrote: »

Theres a big difference between overhauling the system and introducing small ideological changes, for example legalizing abortion. Yet there is not party which is so socially liberal.

Legalising abortion wouldn't be a small ideological change in this country for parties considering how divisive the issue is here.

iwudluvit · 13-10-2008 12:23pm

Kama wrote: »

Hmm, given that the earwig-ee didn't ask a question, and I did, the comment does look more at me. Partially fair comment if it was though, throwaway questions and a quote isn't a well thought out post, mea culpa >.<

first point - you said that the question works well as rhetoric - which it does. so I wasn't having a go at your view.

my point is that rhetoric of itself is near enough useless unless it inspires positive action.

iwudluvit · 13-10-2008 12:35pm

molloyjh wrote: »

... capitalism appeals to human nature far more than socialism does. ..

I wouldn't just say that capitalism 'appeals' to human nature. I would say that it reflects human nature. Also socialism also has this appeal/reflection in the sense that cooperative communities tend to outperform other non-cooperative communities. Overall, it's the mix of both that would provide the best results. A good incentive to capitalism to foster developments and allow individuals to make progress for the good of humanity and a good cooperative system so that the minimum floor of existence is not inhumane.

molloyjh wrote: »

... by its very nature capitalism is unfair, discriminatory and unbalanced. ..

And so is nature itself you could say!

But I don't agree with this at all. Way too strong. Maybe the 'Monty Burns' version of capitalism is. But not capitalism in the main. You could easily argue the other side that socialism forces great people with greater talents to live an average life and is unfair and restricts progress etc. etc. But I would agree with the poster that these rapidly become straw men arguments.

brianthebard · 13-10-2008 12:56pm

nesf wrote: »

In a political system where fine tuning is the core dispute, the parties will naturally gravitate to the centre and towards more and more similar solutions (i.e. the solutions that will cause the least amount of hassle to implement). The question shouldn't be why there is an ideological void, it should be why would major parties would form along ideological lines in such a political system. For all the problems that come with inheriting political preference, if the main parties are relatively similar it makes a perverse kind of sense.

I've been reading Crotty's "Ireland in crisis" and he seems to believe that for the last 150 years all radical elements have been emigrating, thus causing something of an ideological void, in that the people who stayed at home were most at ease with the status quo and wanted the least change, where those who emigrated clearly weren't happy with the state of the country. This is the main reason (in his opinion) why Irish politics have gravitated to the right of centre.

TomRooney · 16-02-2009 8:07am

brianthebard wrote: »

the title pretty much explains everything, but do you agree or disagree? Imo none of the main parties (including the greens now) display any strong ideological slant. The only parties that do are small and at the fringes. Do people feel this is an accurate description of Irish politics?

in my opinion there is only one political party that truly stands for the irish people and is ideologicly sound that party is Republican Sinn Fein, not to be confused Provisional sinn fein, RSF have remained faithful to there Republican Principles maybe this is why they have remained on periphery of irish politics because simply ideological reliability and principles are not always profitiable financialy.

<snip>

Permabear · 16-02-2009 11:43am

This post has been deleted.

turgon · 17-02-2009 6:15pm

TomRooney wrote: »

in my opinion there is only one political party that truly stands for the irish people

and yet

TomRooney wrote: »

they have remained on periphery of irish politics

Another case of extremists trying to blame the problems in their own views on other people, rather than admitting some home truths. Such as the fact that not that many down south really care about reunification as you would like to think.

TomRooney · 17-02-2009 6:39pm

turgon wrote: »

and yet

Another case of extremists trying to blame the problems in their own views on other people, rather than admitting some home truths. Such as the fact that not that many down south really care about reunification as you would like to think.

oh so i am extremist because i believe in the right of the irish people to determine there owm future without interference from a foreign country namely britain, i suppose that puts me in the same bag as james connolly, Padraig Pearse, Eamonn ceant, Thomas Clarke, Thomas McDonagh, Sean macDermot and Joseph Plunkett. remember these men ...? i suppose they where all extremists aswell...?

or bobby sands and the rest of the 1981 hunger strikers i suppose they where all mad extremists by your logic...?

for your info in a recent poll 98 percent of people in the 26 countys would like to see a united ireland.

turgon · 17-02-2009 7:13pm

TomRooney wrote: »

oh so i am extremist because i believe in the right of the irish people to determine there owm future

Pardon me, the use of the word extremist was wrong, I should have used fringe ideologist maybe.

TomRooney wrote: »

for your info in a recent poll 98 percent of people in the 26 countys would like to see a united ireland.

And I bet 0% of them would be willing to pay for it.

And where was this poll taken - ballymun?

TomRooney · 17-02-2009 7:20pm

turgon wrote: »

Pardon me, the use of the word extremist was wrong, I should have used fringe ideologist maybe.

And I bet 0% of them would be willing to pay for it.

And where was this poll taken - ballymun?

i share the same political outlook as the brave men of 1916, if you consider those men to be fringe ideologists then i am proud to say am such.

also you seem to come across as arrogant and detached from reality with condecending statement like 0% would pay for it, im sure the nation of ireland would not have to realy pay anything at all, and if money is all your worried about it doesnt say much for your principles or lack of.

as for your comment about the poll, i already expalined it was in the 26 countys if you care to actualy read the post, was your reference to "ballymun" supposed to be some sort of slander or another condecending view. i assure you the least educated in ballymun would know alot more about our nation than the likes of your good self.

nesf · 17-02-2009 7:42pm

TomRooney wrote: »

in my opinion there is only one political party that truly stands for the irish people and is ideologicly sound that party is Republican Sinn Fein, not to be confused Provisional sinn fein, RSF have remained faithful to there Republican Principles maybe this is why they have remained on periphery of irish politics because simply ideological reliability and principles are not always profitiable financialy.

<snip>

If you want to advertise for your party then pay for it.

TomRooney · 17-02-2009 8:01pm

nesf wrote: »

If you want to advertise for your party then pay for it.

i dont have a party neSF,

it is my opinion they are the only decent party in the land and i am entitled to that opinion, it is not advertisement.

nesf · 17-02-2009 8:04pm

TomRooney wrote: »

i dont have a party neSF,

it is my opinion they are the only decent party in the land and i am entitled to that opinion, it is not advertisement.

Any post signing the praises of a party and then having a link to their site with the instruction to check them out will be considered to be an advertisement and the link will be removed and/or a ban for the user if they don't contribute anything but advertisements.

Feel free to debate the value of the party and why you like them, that's fine.

TomRooney · 17-02-2009 8:09pm

nesf wrote: »

Any post signing the praises of a party and then having a link to their site with the instruction to check them out will be considered to be an advertisement and the link will be removed and/or a ban for the user if they don't contribute anything but advertisements.

Feel free to debate the value of the party and why you like them, that's fine.

i contribute alot more than links.

so it is the praising of RSF that you have an issue with. may i ask would you be so concerned if i was slandering RSF and then provided a link.

the reason i provided a link was purley to back up my claims, and if anyone had issue they could bring it up. also it was not an "instruction" it was a suggestion.

DublinWriter · 17-02-2009 8:15pm

TomRooney wrote: »

RSF have remained faithful to there Republican Principles

...and semtex by all accounts.

As Crass once sang, you can't destroy the church by pulling down a steeple.

TomRooney · 17-02-2009 8:20pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

...and semtex by all accounts.

As Crass once sang, you can't destroy the church by pulling down a steeple.

semtex....eh the last i checked RSF where a political party so i would say they have held on to semtex no more than Fianna Fail have.

as for crass, it may be true you cant destroy a church by tearing down the steeple, but if you continue tearing parts down after the steeple is gone it wouldnt be too long before the whole church falls apart and leaves plenty of space for a rebuild.

nesf · 17-02-2009 8:53pm

TomRooney wrote: »

i contribute alot more than links.

Indeed, which is why I only removed the link. If you want to link to the RSF site, put it in your sig.

tbh · 17-02-2009 10:24pm

TomRooney wrote: »

semtex....eh the last i checked RSF where a political party

how many members? what kind of the percentage of the popular vote? Truth is, RSF are a throwback to the seventies, and in ten years time will be no more.

turgon · 18-02-2009 6:09pm

TomRooney wrote: »

i share the same political outlook as the brave men of 1916, if you consider those men to be fringe ideologists then i am proud to say am such.

The "brave" men of 1916 were fighting for an independent Ireland and democracy. You are fighting for the transfer of a province into another state despite the fact that the majority dont want that, which is technically undemocratic. So I dont think ye are fighting for the same thing at all.

TomRooney wrote: »

im sure the nation of ireland would not have to realy pay anything at all

Obviously your fine self doesnt realize that the UK Government pumps millions of pounds into the north every year just to keep it ticking over. Do you think, should unification occur, that the need for these payments will just vanish? On the contrary the government of Ireland will have to start paying.

It all comes down to a simple cost benefit analysis. Only benefit of unification: harmonized currency. Cost: million and millions of euro. It just aint worth it. And, before you start, some hairy fairy notions of a perfect Ireland dont count as a benefit because they make absolutely no difference to our lives.

TomRooney wrote: »

was your reference to "ballymun" supposed to be some sort of slander or another condecending view.

The latter but probably both. Because I am smart enough to realize that most people in Ireland think they know about everything they talk about, while in fact they dont, and the tendency for these uninformed views seems to fall upon the lesser off. Ohh, stone that turgon for not being politically correct.

TomRooney wrote: »

i assure you the least educated in ballymun would know alot more about our nation than the likes of your good self.

I got A2 in leaving cert history, 20% of which was on the Northern Ireland conflict. But Im not questioning whether the the "least educated" in Ballymun got an A2 in history, nor whether they did history at all. Im questioning whether they even did the leaving cert.

Look buddy, stop trying to pull fast ones, because I am confident enough to admit that Im well educated and wont shy away from accusations of being cocky and all that, because I know I can support what I say. Im educated way above average on the conflict there, just deal with it.

TomRooney · 18-02-2009 9:04pm

turgon wrote: »

The "brave" men of 1916 were fighting for an independent Ireland and democracy. You are fighting for the transfer of a province into another state despite the fact that the majority dont want that, which is technically undemocratic. So I dont think ye are fighting for the same thing at all.

Obviously your fine self doesnt realize that the UK Government pumps millions of pounds into the north every year just to keep it ticking over. Do you think, should unification occur, that the need for these payments will just vanish? On the contrary the government of Ireland will have to start paying.

It all comes down to a simple cost benefit analysis. Only benefit of unification: harmonized currency. Cost: million and millions of euro. It just aint worth it. And, before you start, some hairy fairy notions of a perfect Ireland dont count as a benefit because they make absolutely no difference to our lives.

The latter but probably both. Because I am smart enough to realize that most people in Ireland think they know about everything they talk about, while in fact they dont, and the tendency for these uninformed views seems to fall upon the lesser off. Ohh, stone that turgon for not being politically correct.

I got A2 in leaving cert history, 20% of which was on the Northern Ireland conflict. But Im not questioning whether the the "least educated" in Ballymun got an A2 in history, nor whether they did history at all. Im questioning whether they even did the leaving cert.

Look buddy, stop trying to pull fast ones, because I am confident enough to admit that Im well educated and wont shy away from accusations of being cocky and all that, because I know I can support what I say. Im educated way above average on the conflict there, just deal with it.

1) the men of 1916 fought and died for a 32 county Republic not a 26 county free state, you as much as you think you are educated are obviously not. the 6 countys are 2 thirds of the original 9 county ulster, ulster was never 6 countys. as far as politics it is I that follow the same political ideology of the men and leaders of 1916.

2) Obviously you are unaware that the 6 countys has the fastest growing economy in the "uk" and the highest rate of economic growth. so it would in fact be an asset not a hindrence.

3) the minute you think you are smarter than the majority of people is the minute you have lost your head, i put your simplistic ignorance down to youth if your older than 18, then it is possible you mat be mentaly challenged.

4) DO NOT EVER THINK REVISIONIST STATE EDUCATION OR ANY EDUCATION eqautes to real intelligence because all the inteligent people know it doesnt....after all even a chimp can learn.

a few quotes for to ponder mr A2,

Education... has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.
G. M. Trevelyan

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.
Oscar Wilde

Irish politics are an ideological void?

Comments