On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, SA wrote:
>> Is it possible that escalation dominance as you sketch is simply the
>> consequence, stretched on in time and in detail, of the original
>> problem with the Dems: that they don't boil down their programme into a
>> few strong resonant principles? But rather prefer a laundry list of
>> details?
>>
>> That is to say, perhaps the side with clearer principles is more willing to
>> make a stand for them because it is clearer what they are making a stand
>> for? And vice versa?
>
> The problem runs deeper than that. A clear set of principles certainly
> represents an addition to your side's arsenal. The problem is, how do you
> propagate the principles? Propagating deep principles is risky, which is why
> the stereotypical calculating politician doesn't use principled arguments.
> The more principled -- the more "philosophical" -- the level of argument, the
> more deeply the argument resonates *when it succeeds*. But at the same time,
> it utterly repels people when it fails. As a result, it becomes very
> important *who*, precisely, is supposed to be doing the propagating. An
> elected politician facing the next election can't be the one to start
> introducing a set of novel-sounding philosophical principles into a national
> debate, or he will lose *badly*.
I see what you're saying now. The right has clearer principles because there is an organized right that has clarified and propagated them for decade (which is as much or more a matter of organization as of thinking). Which is why Republican politicians have an advantage in confrontation. They and their voters both talk and think in terms of a small set of clear principles because *activists* successfully set about the work of paring them down and hammering them in. Which is a huge resource when push comes to shove.
Whereas "organized left" is largely an oymoron. And to the extent it's not, it's never really had the goal of ideological simplication, never mind accomplished it.
Michael