Should a new type of political theory be developed?

[quintessentone]

First, thanks for the invite to explore political theory and today's political weirdness in a, hopefully, more thoughtful way.

The link below offers a first stepping stone, as it were, to get a handle on the allegedly three approaches to political theory. I think we can explore this in more depth and I hope you will join me in trying to predict the future of politics or if we are all just destined to repeat history because we allegedly as a species can't or won't see beyond a five year span.

https://politicalscienceblog.com/approac...0political

Plato claimed that the 'ideal state' would be governed by philospher-kings or individuals who were both just and wise. Plato was born into an affluent family so just how far does his reasoning and knowledge of the human condition go?

"Socrates claimed that he did not know the answers to questions beforehand, but that he was wiser than others in knowing that he didn’t know. [This is the essence of Socratic wisdom—he is wiser than others in knowing he doesn’t know, whereas the ignorant often claim to know with great certainty. Using the Socratic Method, he showed people that they didn’t know what they claimed to know. Needless to say, questioning people about their beliefs and implicitly asking them to defend them often arouses resentment and hostility. As Spinoza said “I cannot teach philosophy without being a disturber of the peace”]"

https://reasonandmeaning.com/2014/10/11/...to-part-1/

So just how far and/or effective can using reason and meaning be in today's varied societies with their varied religious/political leanings (with and without religious interference)?

[Maxmars]

I found myself confounded initially, because my obtuse brain went immediately to this: If political theory is a study of the nature of politics and the state... then what is "politics," and what is the "state?"...

It seems the definitions of those two key terms needs illumination... after all many people think "the state" is something defined by a "government"... and for many "politics" is largely a social game (or a team competition.)  I know that's not an accurate definition for either, but that it my first and most common hurdle in tackling this topic.

I am generally inclined to believe that our collective political "technique" is far from perfected, but there are so many cultural and otherwise traditional 'wrinkles' in people's ideas about governance that we could never achieve universal agreement on its form and function.

Our political system is overtaken by entrenched expediency for its 'players.'.  Those who are the caretakers of political thought are no longer interested in the science of politics, they are interested in governance continuity and their own positions. 

I can't remember any candidate (or talking head) talking about politics, but instead about politician gossip, theatricality, and marketing.  Every speaker on the subject can't overcome 1) the need to vilify a notional opponent, 2) the need to denigrate those who disagree with their obvious superior wisdom, 3) the call to virtue of only supporting their noble cause, and 4) the aggrandizement of any who support their own party position.

It never seemed to me that we were ever intended to be ruled by one of two parties.  And all has become similar to a street gang war of words (at least) between them... and those who amplify them by design or contrivance.

Whatever end history brings us, I hope it won't be more "duopoly" where players change teams at a whim, and the constituents voices are drowned by partisan songs and stagecraft.

Not throwing a gauntlet down, just reaching for a life preserver... where the dialog begins is as important as where it ends...

[Maxmars]

Let's begin with

The State, a distinctly human endeavor

We in the west have a particularly myopic view of the concept of "the state."  In most reference material you will find endless references to the Greeks of old, as if the rest of the world had no value as a historical reference to the idea.  This western bias often occludes the root of the question... which is

"What is the ideal which moved human groups from the happenstance of a "tribe," to the organized level of codified sovereignty known as a "state?"

Tribes happen, states are crafted.

I suggest that the idea of a state is an extension of personal sovereignty, the singular reality that encompasses all human life. 

Each individual is the source of both its own perceptions, and its own subsequent goals.  That creates a paradigm where each individual must not only recognize that reality in others, but also negotiate the ignorance of what can be expected of anyone else.

The circumstance of tribe, or specific human group, is never a choice. 

Internal collective management of tribes, however orchestrated, makes necessary a set of rules and instructions to maintain and support the group (or even tribe) as a whole.  This serves stable continuity and cohesion of conduct in individuals.  Whether manifested as tradition, or taboos, all rules serve something external to the individual.

But it seems to often engender a sense of imposition in members... to which some simply acquiesce willingly, and other chafed and resist, or even violently rebel.

No tribe has ever been truly hermetic; they splinter members, and even adopt outsiders into the body of the tribe.  Tribes have been "created" by those who have coalesced together after leaving their points of origin.  Tribes can change dramatically over time.  States are similar.

A state became the 'tribe' that was actually created by thought and reason, rather than circumstances of birth. 

It is ironic that across the globe and across history, states became useful for those embracing "traditional" roles of leadership and power, relying on hereditary tradition to maintain elevated importance to the group - only to have the group eventually balk against the very tradition that gave birth to the state and reject the idea of sovereign royals, family lineages, and special contrivances to isolate and protect such roles in society.

States were created in Greece centered around the "polis," the larger less coherent gathering of varied groups... the Greek propensity to rationalize and offer consensus of reason made it endure well, for a short time.  But the city-state was never the apex of human gathering.  Today's states make such constructs as a city-state seem tiny, quaint, and effectively unmanageable or workable at larger scales.

A state is a collection of individuals all in agreement over their collective civic identity.  Their personal sovereignty is extended to a larger conceptual state identity.  It is both a cooperative expression of free will, and a protection from 'non-state' eventualities.  It requires an organized effort to maintain, let alone expand, and its rationalization is ideally shared among most members towards that end.

In order to maintain a state it requires rules, a body of law... and the authority to use them to mitigate circumstances that threaten the state's existence.  Notice I said the "the state's existence" --- not the political body in charge, not the leader or king; not the 'controlling' cabal or it's minions... but instead the state itself... it's an important distinction... one often betrayed by individuals.

But the state is where the human complexities start... social order is connected to it inextricably... otherwise we are all just victims of circumstances imposed by others.

With this in mind, I can continue further, if there is interest...

[quintessentone]

Sure continue further as I am interested in this line of thought, as well as perhaps we can explore the reality how any political party of the day within a state can so easily manipulate any law on the books to align more to their political and/or religious desires, without calling for a referendum from it's citizens. This is where imposition of others' wills (those that wield the power) make us all victims of circumstance, hence people rising up in opposition to their perception that their rights and freedoms are being trampled upon. 

I believe that the people of any society need to be educated or to educate themselves as to how to navigate through the disinformation and how to identify leadership qualities and traits that will produce a more transformational and representative type of political/societal science/philosophy instead of the existing confrontational, tribal and dysfunctional types of governments we now have.