RFK Jr. Says He Will Pardon Assange and Snowden If Elected President

submitted by [deleted] from triunetimes.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The other thing I will say here, is that while you are correct about winning, this particular paradigm is what has brought us such great candidates as Trump, Hillary and Biden, and in you guys case, Boris Johnson. I don't think this 'realpolitikking' is serving our interests. You cannot tell me those are the best people available out of 330 million Americans. I will leap at the chance to support a different type of candidate who is not psychopathic reptile for hire by the corporation with the most money. I am tired of electing the bestest liar

[–]cunt_esq 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Realpolitik I refer to is essentially political realism, dating back thousands of years. By contrast, political ideology is a relatively new and fundamental aspect of modern thought. It's essentially reactionary. Political support for reactionary movements is difficult to arrange in the US.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I see, I was less than familiar with this 'Realpolitik' concept, but yes, I imagine this dates back a ways.

Political support for reactionary movements is difficult to arrange in the US.

Seems strange doesn't it? The creation of the U.S. was itself a reactionary movement was it not? You'd think we would be more receptive to them, why do you think this is?

[–]cunt_esq 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The creation of the U.S. was itself a reactionary movement was it not?

US history books whitewash some of the motivations for those reactions. One of the whitewashed motivations was the interest of Washington and many others to expand their territories further West, which was prohibited by the crown. Wealthy groups wanted more opportunities for investment. The vast majority of those who lost their lives in the conflict - as often happens in war - were poor or lower middle-class. The politicla slogans used to recruit soldiers did not include the comment: we want wealthy landowners to expand Westward. Many knew that this was a motivation, but the key point was anger about taxation. Boston tea party: if you don't drink a lot of tea you shouldn't have been bothered by the tax, right? Yes, reactionary ideology is throughout our US history texts, but it's only part of the story, part of the rhetoric of revolution. Hannah Arendt's 'On Revolution' partially addresses this problem, particularly with regard to the French revolution, where the abuses of the crown were much more apparent. Anyhow: was there double-speak in the rallying cries for revolution in the US? Yes. Are we led to believe that the revolution was primarily ideological? Yes. Would we be wrong to assume that it was primarily idological? Yes. Documents for governance drafted after the revolution were themselves idoelogical, but confirmed in their own way that there would not be a 100% democracy. Upon the founding of the Electoral College around 1787, the wealthy politicians confirmed for themselves that they would continue to rule, while also expanding Westward. They ruled before 1776, and continued to rule thereafter. The - no taxation without representation - slogan they yelled before the revolution was a form of reactionary idology, but the result of that ideology was not 100% democracy. So, should we be receptive to this method of governance? Not necessarily. But if we'd want to improve the democratic representation (abolishing the Electoral college, for example), this could not happen as part of a campaign promise, because the wealthy still controll much of the political process and the associated information about campaigns.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You make good points about the double-speak and multiple motivations. I agree with some of what you're saying here, but I have a different impression of the ideology behind the French and US revolutions.

I don't see 'democracy' as the ideology that is representative of these movements. The U.S. in particular, I tend to associate with a liberal philosophical movement, of which democracy is a value, but the not the highest value. The philosophy of liberalism, historically, was more about rejecting arbitrary authority than democracy. I.E. they rejected the arbitrary authority of Kings and Church, for an impartial objective authority of the law (Most of the values remained intact in liberalism, equality before god became equality under the law for example), but not necessarily a direct democratic law. In direct democracy, people could theoretically vote for and enact decidedly unliberal policies. The founding fathers didnt want to ensure direct democracy, because what they really wanted to ensure was liberty, of which the right to vote is only part of, and didnt trust people not to vote for less liberty

Also, I think this ideology is dying, todays "liberalism" looks nothing like the liberalism of Locke and Hume.

The new 'liberalism' ideology is authoritarianism for the greater good of the group, a type of utilitarianism, which is adjacent to liberalism thanks to John Stuart Mill - but decidedly not the same thing as traditional liberalism which is defined by the principle of individual liberty. Even John Stuart Mill famously spoke out against against vaccine mandates (for smallpox, not covid obviously) despite being the co-creator of utilitarianism with Bentham. Because liberty.

RFK Jr. is part of this dying breed of 'individual liberty' liberal, and this is why I like him so much

[–]cunt_esq 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

what they really wanted to ensure was liberty

Thanks for thes points and arguments, and I think we can agree that there are major differences between types of liberty in the 18th century contrasted with today. There is however an obvious difference between liberal/centrist politics and right wing authoritarian politics. A good conservative author on this kind of problem is Lionel Trilling and his masterpieve, 'Sincerity and Authenticity', which differentiates between relatively sincere 18th & early 19th century political discourses vs. the focus on identity and authenticity in post-war politics. And regarding liberty in the 18th century, that was ensured only for the wealthy. Keep in mind that the majority of the pupulation in the South were slaves and in the rest of the former colonies, indentured labor continued on those farms. And New England took advantage of slavery by proxy, developing sugar plantations in the caribbean where the the only source of famed food for those slaves came from English farms in New England, intrade for the sugar, so that rum could be distilled with the sugar. Liberty was not assured for a large portion of the former colonies, nor was that the intention, IMO.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Liberty was not assured for a large portion of the former colonies, nor was that the intention, IMO.

Yes, you are quite right, the idea of liberty applied to very few people at first. As far an intention...yeah I see your point...I think I see where our differences in perspective are coming from. I am looking at this more from the perspective of idealist philosophical writings, and you from the real political perspective. I agree, the ruling class and politicians did not intend 'liberty for all', but I think philosophers tend to be genuinely idealistic people. I'd draw the same distinction between Marx's writings, and Communism as actually practiced. It took some time, but these ideals of liberty eventually did slowly expand to become more 'inclusive' shall we say, although things never did work out for communism. This also explains why you focused on democracy and I on liberalism, my perspective on this history is perhaps more biased than I realized towards emphasizing the philosophical movements, and kind of glossing over the political history. I admit I am guilty of being quite idealistic myself. Appreciate getting your perspective on this

[–]cunt_esq 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thank you very much for this and the informative discussion.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Likewise! This is the kind of discussion I wish Saidit had more of. Also I think this contrast between my political idealism and your realism explains many of our disagreements (me insisting on 3rd party voting to break the 2-party system, and you calling me a traitor for it comes to mind- lol! But honestly that comes down to the same fundamental perespective difference), I think I understand better where you are coming from now knowing these differences in our frame of reference.