Morality in politics

[vla1ne]

Stay on topic.

 

If you want a thread on morality in politics, feel free to create one.

well i'm not very invested in russia colluding with america, but i've got my share of thoughts on morality in politics. and seeing as it was looking to bleed out into the other thread (and it occasionally bleeds out elsewhere when politics is involved) i thought i'd start the topic this time, instead of jumping in two to three pages like like i usually end up doing.

 

so discuss as you like, what is your opinion on morality in politics? what guides your moral compass? how important is it to you? what lines can you accept being crossed, what lines make a candidate politically dead to you? and if you have time, why do you hold said beliefs? Or, you can just poke at somebody else's beliefs, either one is fine.

 

[spoiler=starting off]

keeping it short to start with, my view is somewhat simple; if you can convince me that you not only have america's best interests at heart, but that your solutions can be viable, then you've generally got my attention. doesn't matter your party, and your overall views don't have to align with mine. so long as you've got a good argument (or in some cases, just having a reasonable/believable stance in comparison to your opponent) then i'll be willing to give you a chance to try your hand.

 

 

[Sunshine Jesse]

Let's see how deep YCM can take this. I'm expecting to be disappointed.

 

 
I want to discuss the importance of morality in politics and political strategy. My position on its importance in strategy is as follows:
 

There's nothing saying you have to believe in the morality you leverage. There's nothing wrong with leveraging it for the sake of victory, because winning is all that matters in the end. Republican politicians do it all the time and built their whole party on it to great success. The problem is when that lack of true belief makes you unable to properly argue for it, rendering you unable to convince anyone on the fence. Why is this so important, you may ask? And why do Republicans get to operate under such a different standard? I'll explain:
 
Republicans have tethered their party to religion (...and abortion), giving them an "easy out," as (both) are things people can believe strongly in. Democrats have no such luxury. Their party has no true moral foundation that's "easy" to believe in strongly like religion is. The party is almost entirely powered by short-sighted compassion and guilt. Religion is tried and true, and has (in broad strokes) withstood the test of time as something people can believe in. As a result, anything a Republican politician fails at is just (supposedly) a failing on the end of the person, not the set of standards they're supposed to adhere to. Anything a Democrat fails at weakens the (nonexistent) Democratic "ideology" in general, because it shows that said ideology offers no real guidance and can't be relied upon.
 
Morality is nothing more than a set of goals and standards one adheres themselves to. It's a kind of "higher power" that gives people guidance. The collective, abstract "America" no longer offers such guidance, so people on the fence will vote for whoever promises that guidance, whether it's right or wrong.
 
To put it as simply as I can:
Religion= Defined, "trustworthy." Offers guidance.
Not-religion= Not defined. No evidence to suggest it offers guidance. Needs to be adhered to in order to convince people it does.
 
Ergo:
Republicans= Strong.
Democrats= Weak.
 
This is why having the moral high ground is important in politics. It's not the only factor, but it's a hell of a lot bigger than people like to give it credit for. It's not more important than winning. It's a useful tool to aid in victory when properly utilized alongside other ones.

 
 
To respond to Winter's post:

He was fired for lack of candor as recommended by the FBI, so not sure how much worth his Memos will have beyond the Russiagate fanatics
 

---

 
Outside abortion, what moral issue holds weight in current politics anymore?

Religion is still very deeply rooted within the Republican party. It's just not on the surface anymore. Many different Republican narratives (liberally-biased media and schooling, anti-intellectualism) have their basis in needing to defend the religious aspect from further scrutiny, and their view on taxation is born from the core "taxation is theft" position, which is also entirely a moral issue. The fact that they try to turn these into policy positions doesn't change their basis. Traditional values are also entirely moral.

 

The Democratic party is also almost entirely built on short-sighted morality without concern for pragmatism or long-term social/economic consequences.

Right now, politics is largely about trying to disguise moral positions as pragmatic, even when they're not. There's arguing based on what people do or don't truly deserve, which is still morality at its core. We take a moral position- such as whether or not people deserve healthcare- and try to argue its pragmatic value. That moral position is the basis for argument rather than its pragmatic value, getting in the way of its actual pragmatic value.

 

Nothing about the current political climate is pragmatic and we should stop fooling ourselves that it is. We have to convince far too many people who can't think beyond morality for it to be anything else. This is actually the core problem with democracy. And it's a critical flaw, in my view. So, let's get started with the central question:

 

What's the place of morality in politics?

 

Should morality take precedence over pragmatism?

 

And, perhaps the most abstract and difficult question of all:

 

From a purely moral standpoint, what, if anything, do people deserve?

 

I'll give my own answers to these at a later date if actual discussion is inspired.