Ideafication

I have been called many things politically over the years; ranging to both ends of the spectrums available. Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, Anarchist, and everything between. Liberal? Conservative? I have appealed to an appalled both. As I learn more, my ideas change, too.

Imagine your favorite political party now… Not the people! The idea of that party. What does it represent, and what ideas does it stand for? Think of as many as you can. After you have done that, imagine a room with 300 people in it that would consider themselves part of that party. If one were to speak to another about a current big issue, it is likely they would agree. However, would they agree on every big issue? What if you get a third person into that discussion?

Eventually you would find your room full of politicians was impure. You could declare the “pure” to be the most common one, or the one that sticks closest to the ideals of the party (written or unwritten). You may even find that there aren’t any “pure” politicians in the entire group (theoretically, of course, since you are imagining them after all!).

What matters more? What party a president represents, or the goals they intend to achieve?

Political parties are intended to give you a general idea of what ideas are related to (for example, taxing the rich to pay for poor needs could be filed under “socialism”). However, there was an unintended side effect: People started calling themselves representatives of idea sets. This would benefit them greatly when appealing to the less educated voting crowd. If some American looks up “Democrat” and “Republican” today, they would get a general idea of what these things are, and if they were to vote, they would be sure that if they voted for one or the other, they would get a vessel for those beliefs in the White House. Parties also put a psychological fence around ideas where certain ideas are unintentionally repressed for the sake of not reaching too far from “purity”, in the group ideal sense.

What are you to do? Well, in conversations, you can start by not jumping to conclusions about someone’s ideals by calling them a representative of something mainstream (not because of its popularity, but because you cannot know what someone represents, or if they have changed their mind since you last learned about them). No matter which one you happen to choose, it is an insult to both you and their intellectual merit (something you should avoid insulting, as insults will not make any progress). If someone calls you something, you could try to sum this up for them, but odds are they require the simplicity of pinning something they understand (a group of ideas/political party) on something they don’t understand (you), in which case they really shouldn’t be trying to debate politics with you.