Posts
Arguably, this is the way of the world. The Right is wrong and the Left gets to clean up.
That is indeed arguable.
The ubiquity of massive over-generalisations like this (if you've ever thought to yourself 'the Right just want to look after their rich cronies' or 'the left are economically illiterate' then you too are guilty) lend a lot of support to the idea that political ideologies are (partly) signalling devices, and built around evidence-resistant commitment. This is something I will perhaps develop into a more in-depth post at some point.
Arguably, your assertion that generalisations lend a lot of support to the idea that ideologies are partly signalling devices has merit.
ReplyDeleteIn bald-faced political-speak, we call it dog whistling.
If policy and political partisanship were based on evidence, we would have far fewer parties and a much improved political consensus with what was left.
Ironically, when we speak directly from the science, we are ridiculed for being naive or utopian. When we speak (or signal) in the same way as other parties, we are said to be manipulative.
As for ambitious use of the term, hardly.
I had in mind ideological belief in individuals, rather than political decision procedures. But it is an interesting thought.
ReplyDelete