Ideologues - The Biggest Danger to a Society

[The Grand Nudger]

It sounds like you're describing a non specific danger equally present in a non idealogue. Both, however, are working from the same ideology.

Wouldn't it also be worthwhile to note that a green ideology that doesn't accurately take into account possible economic issues (and even set aside provision for unknown unknowns) is a green ideology with lacking contents?

[CapnAwesome]

It sounds like you're describing a non specific danger equally present in a non idealogue. Both, however, are working from the same ideology.

Wouldn't it also be worthwhile to note that a green ideology that doesn't accurately take into account possible economic issues (and even set aside provision for unknown unknowns) is a green ideology with lacking contents?

I think a difference between the ideologue and a pragmatic person who likes an ideology is whether or not they view something as a finished product or not. An Islamic ideologue will say that Islam can't be improved upon.

Similarly communists thought that communism was the end goal of politics. Some people in the US will think that certain economic systems are the way and the results are the same. Or Libertarian ideologues think that deregulation is good for everything, and craft their reasons around tha pre concieved assumption without having to look into it.

So I think all ideologues are dangerous to one degree or another, cause they have to flexibility to their beliefs, even when you are dealing with very complex things.

When it comes to individual issues, I think it's fairly common, maybe because it's just so much easier. You decide you are pro-immigrant (or vice versa), so on every issue related to immigration you make the pro immigrant argument, rather than put thought into it or even decide if it's true or not.

I.e. Pro-immigrant says "immigrants only take the jobs that Americans don't want to do."

Anti immigrant says "they took our jobs and our welfare"

The reality on an issue that involves millions and millions of people is going to be way too complex to boil down to a catchy phrase, and requires thought, and brain power and actual research. If you are an ideologue you don't have to worry about any of that, you just take the pro or anti stance and make that argument.

If you are a green party ideologue, you just look at what they have to say and take that stance. So all ideologues are really anti-intellectual as well.

All that being said, all ideologues are not equally dangerous at all. I'd take a green party ideologue over a pragmatic Nazi. So I'm not sure I'd say that all ideologues are the biggest danger to society, since some ideogies aren't that bad.

But I would say there is a problem with the way of thinking of all ideologues that is dangerous.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wasn't actually trying to make it about the green party, I get where you're coming from on that....I meant it more in the sense of a green ideology, to divorce it from the politics we all hate ( I think we can all agree that partisan hacks suck) and ask what would be wrong or dangerous about an ideologue for an ideology that isn't immediately obvious.

[CapnAwesome]

I wasn't actually trying to make it about the green party, I get where you're coming from on that....I meant it more in the sense of a green ideology, to divorce it from the politics we all hate ( I think we can all agree that partisan hacks suck) and ask what would be wrong or dangerous about an ideologue for an ideology that isn't immediately obvious.

Yeah, I got your point. I was just going off on a bit of a tangent. I think the green party is good example for what you are trying to say. Hope I explained in there why I'd find a green party (or some imaginary ideology that I agreed with 90%) ideologue to still be dangerous.

[Fireball]

What's all this rational discourse about!? Well said, both of you!

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL>  We'll get around to some shenanigans sooner or later.

I'm still having difficulty seeing why an idealogue is necessarrily dangerous, or anti-intellectual for that matter.

It seems like it would at least be possible for a person to be an ideologue with regards to a very well thought out, if impractical, idea.  That's why I picked sustainability.  We could say that we might not be able to do x y and z today..but I'm not sure why that would make it dangerous for them to advocate for it, specifically in that their advocacy is an effort to push towards some future where it is practical (or where practicality is trumped by necessity)..and sustainability is one of those things that really doesn't seem to have any downside.  The polar opposite of dangerous.  

I suspect that our impressions of ideologues of the past (or present), advocating for poor ideas and ideologies, leads us to make a much more general pronouncement than their example can support. I agree that they're only as good as their ideology, ofc. That if it's say, 10% shit...then they'll be 10% shit..but even that doesn't sound like a particularly dangerous situation for society. Practically speaking, I wish -I- could knock 9 out of 10 out of the park.