GMG Classical Music Forum

I started out in 1990 as Political but gradually evolved toward Pragmatic, a position I've been holding for two decades now.

How about you?

Other.

I tend to be pragmatic.

Sometimes a conservative solution is the best, sometimes a liberal solution is best.

Wishy-washy Liberal in my political views.

I checked 2 but "other" might be closer. I am usually contrarian and vote for some opposition because I am so utterly disgusted by the parties in power.

I honestly don't really remember how I voted in detail in the 1990s but this was when it felt like Kohl had been chancellor forever (although I remembered his predecessor from by primary school days, unlike people born in the late 1970s) and this only because he lucked out with the fall of the iron curtain and German unification (which they messed up but not as badly as others might have...) as otherwise he would almost certainly have lost in 1990, so I probably voted halfheartedly for some opposition to Kohl in my first few votings.

Then a center-left government followed and threw both workers under the bus (by "welfare reforms" that hurt them, basically making one equal to lumpenproletariat when becoming unemployed) and followed the Orwellian "War is Peace" in former Yugoslavia (and later Afghanistan).
So I think in the 2000s I voted "far left"(despite justified misgivings about their personnel that was partly former GDR socialists) because they were the only real opposition to the "TINA" pseudocentrists of the large parties (actually globalist lickspittles).

The old West German system then got broken since 2005. This was not obvious at the beginning but the old "blocs" of center-left (reds and greens) and center-right (blacks and yellows) of which one was usually in power, the other one in opposition, so one could vote for a change were dissolved in favor of the so-called "grand coalition" of the two largest parties ("christian democrats" = "blacks" and "social democrats" = "reds") who governed 2005-09 and 2013-21, thus it was de facto impossible to vote for a change, unless lots of people had switched to smaller/newer parties but some of them were excluded for coalition, first the "far left" then the "far right" (that is not far right at all, in most regards it's like center right was until around 2000).

Since the complete desasters of the last 3 governments who ruined one of the safest and economically strongest countries in the world within a decade, mostly by 2 idiotic and fatal policy decisions (both extreme "green"/leftist" in content but enacted by "centrist" Merkel since 2011), namely "green energy" (which might work in Norway with their hydropower but not here where it kills the industry and the middle class) and letting in 3-5 millions of at best useless, but very costly in welfare and often highly dangerous (mentally unstable, gang rapists, islamist leanings, up to open antisemitism and terrorism) oriental (+ african and balkan) immigrants, the only real opposition is the "far right" Alternative for Germany (but see above, they have a few dubious characters but most of their program would have been center right in 2000 and barely right in 1988).

I have become more socially conservative but not more than what would have been centrist common sense in my youth in the late 1980s (traditional families, differentiated schools, some "tough love" for lumpenproletariat or criminals are good, and so is a generally positive stance towards one's own history, culture and traditions, i.e. what is still lauded for all of nonwestern extraction but "rightwing" for e.g. ethnic Germans or French), and I am still somewhat "social democrat" in economics but I have been forced to vote between "far left" & "far right" in the last 20 years because the "centre does not hold" but has become completely mad.

I chose I support no specific political ideology and vote for whichever party comes closer to my views / is the least bad in my opinion. (Pragmatic) as it is closest to what I do. In Finland we have about 10 parties to choose from and even more if parties too small to have representation are added. For me there are three parties that agree with me politically to the extent I can consider voting them: The Green Party, The Social Democratic Party and The Left Party.

Most of the time I vote for The Green Party. In countries where there are only a few parties to choose from and a lot of corruption, voting for the least bad option is an important strategy, but fortunately in Finland I don't need to do that. I have always had good options to vote for. The parties I mentioned have been close to my own views consistently. I haven't had much reason to change my support in favour of other parties.

The Social Democratic Party is the least compatible option of the three for me (they are a bit more conservative and old-fashioned living in the past), but they have the largest national support of the three and offer the strongest opposition to the right wing parties I loathe of which The True Finns are the worst, the polar opposite of The Green Party.

I vote in every election. Voting is very important in my opinion. Thousands and thousands of people died in the past to make/keep Finland a free democratic country, one of the most democratic in the World in fact. Voting in elections is the least I can do to show my respect and  appreciation for their sacrifice. It typically takes me only a couple of minutes to vote, because elections are arranged well in Finland. No voter suppressing BS such as waiting for hours in line or voting on a workday when it is the least convenient.

I have stopped arguing about politics online. I did it for about 20 years and all I got from it was anger and frustration. Nobody changed their opinion because of me and nobody has changed my mind. Nowadays I concentrate on things that make me feel better. That's why I am less active online. I also follow politics much much less. The only reason I follow US politics at all anymore is because the lunatic clown show has unfortunately SERIOUS consequences to the whole World.

Political. A vote for the party is not a party-line vote on every issue. Nor does it mean that I wouldn't try to understand and empathize at times with the ideals of the other party. But I will not vote for a party that refuses to hold my core ideals and might even make a mockery of them.

Blatant lies, extreme cruelty, unscrupulousness and a stunning lack of historical insight dictate a lot of the political chaos. It is for me deeply disheartening and suffocating that populist parties (Afd, PVV, Vlaams Belang, Rassemblement National.... Orban, Fico, Georgescu...) manage to convince large groups of followers.
Even more shocking, for me,  is the lack of understanding and accepting of climate change and the speed of its impact.
So, I'm very pessimistic and find it hard to remain "pragmatic".

Quote from: pjme on March 11, 2025, 06:29:37 AMBlatant lies, extreme cruelty, unscrupulousness and a stunning lack of historical insight dictate a lot of the political chaos. It is for me deeply disheartening and suffocating that populist parties (Afd, PVV, Vlaams Belang, Rassemblement National.... Orban, Fico, Georgescu...) manage to convince large groups of followers.

The established parties are most to be blamed for that.
By decades of corruption and double dealing, by fattening the most disgusting corruptocracy Europe has ever seen (the EU) and blatantly ignoring the wants and needs of ordinary people (who experienced overall decline in income, wealth and well being for over 30 years now) in favor of ever more bizarre client classes from illegal migrants to the mentally ill, and of course their buddies in quasi-governmental organisations ("NGOs" with a silent N) they brought the rise of "populist" parties.

If in Germany the 2 largest parties had recognized the sheer madness of oriental mass immigration after the first horrible islamist attack (truck on christmas market in december 2016) and had changed course only in this regard by closing borders and deporting oriental illegals, the AfD would hover around 5% and be irrelevant.
The disgusting mainstream corruptocrats could have continued most of their corruption and nonsense if they had only changed course on immigration. But they didn't.

Instead they doubled down, and of course, there was also this little thing where they gave billions to pharma and other shysters and acted totalitarian in a way making a mockery of all human rights and legal practice not seen since 1945 because of an f*ing flu!

If people over 60 were not mostly voting for established parties because they voted that way for 40 years and if the media were not mostly playing along with the corrupt mainstream, the "populists" would already have clear majorities. And they will get them, unless the mainstream reform their ways.
 

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on March 11, 2025, 06:34:27 AMI would be classed as far-left, anti-establishment.

For instance, if I lived in Romania, I would be fighting for the rights of the Romani.

You'd be fighting a fictitious battle. The Roma citizens enjoy full rights and are represented at every level, politically, economically, culturally and socially. You might want to help raising the educational and economic status of some of their communities --- and good luck with that, as your first enemies will be the conservatives among them, bent on preserving and enforcing traditions and customs utterly incompatible with modernity.  ;D

My answer is "pragmatic" but none of the labels fit.
American, voted when I turned 18 but then didn't vote for over 2 decades.
Just after the turn of the millennium, I decided that one of the (in effect) 2 meaningful alternatives in the US (guess which?) was an overwhelmingly worse evil. So now I vote to oppose that alternative wherever possible.

Looks like the Pragmatic option is far more available to, and made use of by, Europeans than Americans. The US system seems to generate Political almost by default. :laugh:

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on March 11, 2025, 07:28:09 AMGiven your prior postings, I think I'd be ill-advised to take your assessment as one reflective of the concrete, material conditions of reality - the news, in general, also seems to disagree with you, and journalists are about as pragmatic as they come.

With all due respect, you remind me of JD Vance's remark that he knows exactly what's going in Ukraine because he watches the news.

If the issue really interests you, I suggest you come to Romania and see/hear/study the reality with your own eyes/ears/reason. AFAIC, you're more than welcome.

I kindly ask all participants* to refrain (1) from making remarks which can be interpreted by other people as inflammatory or provocative, and (2) from starting, or joining, debates which are ultimately useless and can easily degenerate. Please note that the way I formulated the questions do not imply you have to disclose your concrete political options, although of course you may do it if so inclined. Thank you.

*including myself  :laugh: 

I'm absolutely shocked that this thread would turn political.

     Very

Quote from: pjme on March 11, 2025, 06:29:37 AMGeorgescu

You'll probably be relieved to learn that the Constitutional Court of Romania definitively and irrevocably prohibited him from running for Presidency, to the ire of such liberal-democracy luminaries as Peskov, Medvedev and Elon Musk.

I have two comments.

1. We will not take lessons in democracy from a regime where the last free elections have taken place 20 years ago and where all the opposition leaders/candidates have been assassinated, imprisoned or run abroad for their life, nor from an administration whose boss is a markedly authoritarian person who did not accept the result of the last but one elections and tried to instigate a coup against them.

2. To prohibit a person from running for Presidency who made no secret about his anti-democratic, authoritarian plans* is not to trample democracy under foot, as Peskov, Medvedev and Musk falsely claim, but on the contrary to vigorously defend it. The Constitutional Court proclaimed and applied a sound and healthy principle: no person can be President who does not uphold the very values and principles on which the Republic was founded and its very Constitution. The Republic was founded precisely for the institution, promotion and advancement of liberal democracy, rule of law and social market economy, and it's her right and duty to defend them against any attempt at overthrowing them.

* he plainly and publicly stated his intention to abolish the political parties, nationalize banks and industrial enterprises, take Romania out of EU and NATO and realign her with Russia, eliminate ideologically undesirable persons from media and academia --- and a host of other such things which, besides being unconstitutional, if ever applied would send us back to dictatorship, poverty and Russian hegemony. He also stated that, should Ukraine be partitioned in the future, Romania would claim parts of it.

I wish I were apolitical, but I can't afford to be.

I chose pragmatic.

The major political parties espouse policies that support their left wing or right wing tendencies. As I'm a centrist (and deeply distrustful of ALL politicians) finding someone that I can vote for becomes a nightmare. Currently in Australia we have a ruling party that seems hell bent on bankrupting the country and all I can do about it is to vote for their major opponents despite my dislike of much of what they stand for. I'd rather vote for someone whose views I agree with but the current government has to go. It's also worth noting that voting at all levels of government in Australia is compulsory and you can be fined if you don't vote.

Quote from: vandermolen on March 11, 2025, 02:17:26 AMWishy-washy Liberal in my political views.

Is Trump driving you nuts?

Quote from: Holden on March 13, 2025, 01:46:24 AMIs Trump driving you nuts?

I thought that this was a taboo topic here  ;D
I don't want another 'Sorry vandermolen you are banned' message.
In short the answer is yes to your question. However, my anger is more towards Putin.
I think that Starmer - the British PM - has done as well as he can.

I had to go "other" because all of the other options have things in them that I take issue with for one reason or another. There is a big problem with assuming that a political ideology and a party are going to correlate consistently. In some countries parties have radically shifted their policies over time. Which is one reason I find it problematic that some people essentially treat allegiance to a political party like allegiance to a sporting team.

In addition, living in Canberra and being a public servant makes taking a certain level of interest in politics more or less inevitable. The thing is, "politics" is, or should be, something rather more than party politics. And indeed, most of my preferred politicians are the ones that seem to me to spend more of their time actually talking about policies.

I revel in the fact that 2 of the 3 kinds of elections I get to participate in (the Australian Senate, and the local legislative assembly) are multi-member systems where I get to wander across party lines and pick the best people from each party. Undoubtedly I have some political leanings that tend to mean more of my vote goes to certain parties, but I'm equally thinking about which are my preferred candidates within a party. My electorate for the legislative assembly gets 5 members, and I think that in last year's election my top 5 picks came from 4 different sources.

"Never voting" isn't an option here. Voting in Australia has been compulsory for a century - although technically what's compulsory is turning up, because if you are so minded you can scribble nonsense on your ballot or put nothing at all (hmm, electronic systems might put a stop to that!)

Quote from: Holden on March 13, 2025, 01:45:03 AMI'd rather vote for someone whose views I agree with but the current government has to go.

It's well established that a lot of people treat an election as if it's a referendum on the current government. And I'm sorry, but it drives me completely nuts. The question on the ballot paper is never actually about how you think the last government went and therefore whether to retain it or change it, it's about who's going to be the NEXT government. Out of the available options.

Past performance is certainly something to consider in that question, but people will actively vote a government out without having regard to whether the government they're voting in will be better. And this is stupid. You should be voting for your best option - whether you think it's a fantastic option or a mediocre option. Picking something even less satisfying than what you currently have, just because you're dissatisfied and want change, makes no sense.

I don't know anyone who would dispose of a meal that isn't very tasty and decide that they'll eat something rotting on the floor instead just because it's different. But when it comes to politics people seem to espouse that idea all the time.

Quote from: Jo498 on March 11, 2025, 02:57:19 AMI am usually contrarian and vote for some opposition because I am so utterly disgusted by the parties in power.

And here's another example of the problem I'm talking about. The ballot paper isn't asking you whether you like the parties in power, with "Yes" and "No" boxes. It's asking you which parties you like best.

Quote from: Madiel on March 13, 2025, 03:24:07 AMThe ballot paper isn't asking you whether you like the parties in power, with "Yes" and "No" boxes. It's asking you which parties you like best.

Agreed and here's where the Pragmatic approach comes in. Which party I like best is not invariant but dependent on many factors which always change from one election to another. If I voted for party X in the last elections it does not automatically follow that in the next elections I will vote for them again. One thing I will never do, though: vote for the far right (the far left is virtually nonexistent in Romania) because I am disappointed by the center (and actually I am) and want to teach them a lesson. This is a very risky thing to do and can put the country on a very dangerous slope.

Quote from: Florestan on March 11, 2025, 07:09:55 AMLooks like the Pragmatic option is far more available to, and made use of by, Europeans than Americans. The US system seems to generate Political almost by default. :laugh:

It's the two party vs multiparty systems. In the United States, I would like to think of myself as pragmatic, but really, for almost my entire voting lifetime, one of the two options has always moved against my interests to advance the interests of others. The other party only sometimes works for my interests, but I am basically required by pragmatism to vote for them every single time.

The other reason I had a hard time answering this question, besides pragmatism leaving me only one option, is that I am rapidly developing into an ideological person, but like hopefullytrusting, it is an ideology that does not really exist in the USA, so there is no way to express it except wistfully reading David Graeber books.

Quote from: Brian on March 13, 2025, 06:09:41 AMI am rapidly developing into an ideological person

My development has been the reverse: I started out as an ideological person and gradually turned into a non-ideological one, to the point where now I have a deep mistrust of all ideologies. And when it comes to their incarnation in real political parties my skepticism and distrust is even greater. I accept that parties are indispensable in a liberal democracy, but then again an evil does not become good by being necessary.  ;D

Quote from: Brian on March 13, 2025, 06:09:41 AMIt's the two party vs multiparty systems. In the United States, I would like to think of myself as pragmatic, but really, for almost my entire voting lifetime, one of the two options has always moved against my interests to advance the interests of others. The other party only sometimes works for my interests, but I am basically required by pragmatism to vote for them every single time.

Pretty much +1 here.

I would welcome viable 3d, 4th, ... parties in the USA, but until one gains sufficient following, pragmatism forces my voting to follow the quoted pattern.

I vote for a party in the name of fairness and balance of powers, although I might tend towards (progressive) socialism (could be a response to neoliberalism, I don't know exactly). But when this party annoys me I might vote differently. Anyways I will not subscribe to a membership (did that in the past), I like to be independent to some degree.

Quote from: Florestan on March 13, 2025, 07:48:57 AMMy development has been the reverse: I started out as an ideological person and gradually turned into a non-ideological one, to the point where now I have a deep mistrust of all ideologies. And when it comes to their incarnation in real political parties my skepticism and distrust is even greater. I accept that parties are indispensable in a liberal democracy, but then again an evil does not become good by being necessary.  ;D

Well, I think there is a definitional difference here, where you are using the word "ideology" to mean a set of beliefs that a pre-existing group hands down on tablets for its followers to become warriors for the cause, and when I used it, what I meant was more like, "an individual belief that there is definitely a right way to build a society," little more than that. (Since, as mentioned, in the USA there is no major organization that aligns with the ideas I have.)

I remember from the past that you certainly do have beliefs about how society should work! They may just, like mine but with pretty close to exact opposite actual views, not align with a certain ideological "camp."

Quote from: Brian on March 13, 2025, 06:09:41 AMIt's the two party vs multiparty systems. In the United States, I would like to think of myself as pragmatic, but really, for almost my entire voting lifetime, one of the two options has always moved against my interests to advance the interests of others. The other party only sometimes works for my interests, but I am basically required by pragmatism to vote for them every single time.

The other reason I had a hard time answering this question, besides pragmatism leaving me only one option, is that I am rapidly developing into an ideological person, but like hopefullytrusting, it is an ideology that does not really exist in the USA, so there is no way to express it except wistfully reading David Graeber books.

It's also worth being aware of the factors that help entrench the 2-party system, like voting methods. As a person very used to preferential voting, it seems obvious to me that first-past-the-post systems (where the highest vote wins even if they have a lot less than 50% of votes) actively discourage the creation of additional options lest the vote on either the left or the right get splintered.

People in the USA seem to complain about the electoral college, but while the college is admittedly quirky it seems to me that there are SEVERAL things far more problematic. And first past the post voting is well behind the top two in my mind: gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Quote from: Henk on March 13, 2025, 12:30:48 PMI vote for a party in the name of fairness and balance of powers, although I might tend towards (progressive) socialism (could be a response to neoliberalism, I don't know exactly). But when this party annoys me I might vote differently. Anyways I will not subscribe to a membership (did that in the past), I like to be independent to some degree.

Good to see you back!

Quote from: DavidW on March 13, 2025, 01:50:30 PMGood to see you back!

Thank you, David.  :)

Quote from: Brian on March 13, 2025, 12:31:47 PMWell, I think there is a definitional difference here, where you are using the word "ideology" to mean a set of beliefs that a pre-existing group hands down on tablets for its followers to become warriors for the cause, and when I used it, what I meant was more like, "an individual belief that there is definitely a right way to build a society," little more than that.

Indeed, when thinking about political ideology I have in mind party doctrines rather than individual beliefs.

QuoteI remember from the past that you certainly do have beliefs about how society should work! They may just, like mine but with pretty close to exact opposite actual views, not align with a certain ideological "camp."

Well, I am a centrist who believes in negotiation and compromise, utterly opposed to the extremism and fanaticism of both the far left and the far right; I also believe that politics is not the be-all-and-end-all of life and that some problems may be better solved by mutual agreement and voluntary cooperation within society than by the State's legislative fiat. Are our views really such exact opposites?

One might also vote for a person instead of a party. That's certainly a trigger for me.
Politics today has no ideas that inspire. It's all business as usual. It's all going forth in a numb way. That's not to say I don't appreciate politicians, politics is hard work which requires persistence, but ethically and aesthetically it's more like a disgrace.
But we have books, like Brian wrote.
And indeed I agree with Florestan, solutions can come from society itself. And fortunately this is happening.
Humanity is all moving forward towards a wise humanity. That's what I believe. It takes a long time, but we'll get there.

Quote from: Florestan on March 13, 2025, 03:54:26 PMutterly opposed to the extremism and fanaticism of both the far left and the far right

What does that have to do with following a particular political party? Do you honestly think that political parties are only for fanatics?

Quote from: DavidW on March 13, 2025, 05:37:53 PMWhat does that have to do with following a particular political party? Do you honestly think that political parties are only for fanatics?

You might have missed the "far left and far right" part.

In my country, all far right politicians save insignificant exceptions are extremist in ideas, language and not infrequently, behavior. As for their followers and sympathizers, many if not most of them are zealots, completely impervious to reason, logic and fact-checking. If those parties ever get into power --- God forbid! --- and have their way --- perish the thought! --- the result would be authoritarianism, poverty and Russian hegemony. The far left is nonexistent politically but the few far left individuals I've met displayed the same level of dogmatism.

I'm a pragmatic social democrat.

Quote from: Madiel on March 13, 2025, 03:14:41 AMIt's well established that a lot of people treat an election as if it's a referendum on the current government. And I'm sorry, but it drives me completely nuts. The question on the ballot paper is never actually about how you think the last government went and therefore whether to retain it or change it, it's about who's going to be the NEXT government. Out of the available options.

Past performance is certainly something to consider in that question, but people will actively vote a government out without having regard to whether the government they're voting in will be better. And this is stupid. You should be voting for your best option - whether you think it's a fantastic option or a mediocre option. Picking something even less satisfying than what you currently have, just because you're dissatisfied and want change, makes no sense.

I don't know anyone who would dispose of a meal that isn't very tasty and decide that they'll eat something rotting on the floor instead just because it's different. But when it comes to politics people seem to espouse that idea all the time.

In this particular case I see Australia going to the dogs because of the current government's "throw the baby out with the bath water' emphasis on energy. While I've never been a fan of voting against a ruling party, this time around I feel that I have no choice and that only way to stop what I see as being a calamity that will seriously impact my lifestyle. It also means that I will be voting for the 'right' for the first time in a long time. Not a good situation for me or my conscience.

Quote from: Holden on March 15, 2025, 03:03:34 PMIn this particular case I see Australia going to the dogs because of the current government's "throw the baby out with the bath water' emphasis on energy. While I've never been a fan of voting against a ruling party, this time around I feel that I have no choice and that only way to stop what I see as being a calamity that will seriously impact my lifestyle. It also means that I will be voting for the 'right' for the first time in a long time. Not a good situation for me or my conscience.

Well, here isn't the place to discuss Australian energy policy with you (not least because I can't quite figure out what you have in mind here, in part because a large amount of what's going on with energy is either due to State governments or to private operators so it's all very complex). But as long as you're voting on actual policies.

Quote from: Madiel on March 15, 2025, 08:05:30 PMWell, here isn't the place to discuss Australian energy policy with you (not least because I can't quite figure out what you have in mind here, in part because a large amount of what's going on with energy is either due to State governments or to private operators so it's all very complex). But as long as you're voting on actual policies.

Yes, I will be voting on energy policies.

From reviewing the entries from members from other countries, it appears that every country has unhappy people who have to blame somebody for their situation from government, emigrants or whatever  :(

What I believe in is the freedom to express yourself and live the life you wish to live. I've become a supporter of the arts and have made donations to several institutions. I support anyone who wishes to do some good in this world.

Lately, I've remained apolitical and I choose to keep it this way because politics, like religion, is a powder keg that has no positive outcome other than to agree to disagree. I do not wish to alienate myself from those people I value and want to keep in my life.