10-13-2024, 12:05 PM
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...
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...
