In our busy lives, we often seek categorical shortcuts. We want to know, for example, where a politician stands on domestic and international issues. With regard to the former, we want some exactitude from the candidate on matters like education, the First and Second Amendments, abortion, taxes, and energy. We expect definitive answers, but we often get only hints and sometimes evasive gibberish (such as the word salads of the VP Harris). In short, we desire an understandable system of thought that earns our votes, but we're often too impatient for detailed explanations. Maybe if we were more patient, we could expect more thoroughness.
Some politicians do make an effort to comply with our intellectual needs though they fall short of a full system of political philosophy. What they offer are partially defined shortcuts. Bernie Sanders comes to mind; so, also, do America’s Marxist/socialist politicians whom he has influenced. What, I’m still asking, is “Democratic Socialism,” Bernie? It’s a handy phrase, but does it stand for a clearly defined political philosophy? Is it a different "system" from socialism? From democracy? Or is it simply a mask that a socialist wears to make voters think one is “democratic” or "capitalistic"?
Maybe it’s unfair to ask anyone to fully systematize a philosophy. Don’t we all risk contradicting ourselves by our daily choices, lifestyles, and statements? Can’t each of us be accused of hypocrisy in some way, especially if we run our thinking to its logical self-contradiction? Because we generally answer in the affirmative to both questions, we are generally satisfied with shortcuts because long versions could run ad infinitum. Those shortcuts, however, are like looking at a book’s cover to judge the contents.
It’s probably also bordering on the unfair to ask anyone to systematize any thinking. In an open-ended world with time running on toward an indefinite future, any finalization of thinking is probably foolish. Want to reach an end? Then wait till the Sun turns into a Red Giant and fries Earth some five billion years hence. Otherwise, don’t expect any human endeavor (philosophy, politics, science, fashion) to be fully systematized.
Some politicians do make an effort to comply with our intellectual needs though they fall short of a full system of political philosophy. What they offer are partially defined shortcuts. Bernie Sanders comes to mind; so, also, do America’s Marxist/socialist politicians whom he has influenced. What, I’m still asking, is “Democratic Socialism,” Bernie? It’s a handy phrase, but does it stand for a clearly defined political philosophy? Is it a different "system" from socialism? From democracy? Or is it simply a mask that a socialist wears to make voters think one is “democratic” or "capitalistic"?
Maybe it’s unfair to ask anyone to fully systematize a philosophy. Don’t we all risk contradicting ourselves by our daily choices, lifestyles, and statements? Can’t each of us be accused of hypocrisy in some way, especially if we run our thinking to its logical self-contradiction? Because we generally answer in the affirmative to both questions, we are generally satisfied with shortcuts because long versions could run ad infinitum. Those shortcuts, however, are like looking at a book’s cover to judge the contents.
It’s probably also bordering on the unfair to ask anyone to systematize any thinking. In an open-ended world with time running on toward an indefinite future, any finalization of thinking is probably foolish. Want to reach an end? Then wait till the Sun turns into a Red Giant and fries Earth some five billion years hence. Otherwise, don’t expect any human endeavor (philosophy, politics, science, fashion) to be fully systematized.
RSS Feed