Vision Circle

Now as far as black people are concerned, there isn't just left-right, but nationalist, feminist, conservatism, and radicalism to content with.

Agreed on this.

But for ed, it's this left-right thing.

For now, yep.

If Ed's right....then this should have absolutely NO predictive capability whatsoever.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this: if there is work to do, then the "right" vs "left" thing doesn't cut it in getting work done.

"Liberals" and "conservatives" may send their kids to private school, or home school, or charter schools or public schools.

I sent my kid to private then public school. But while she was in public school, I still fought for or against some public school issues. Meanwhile, I tutored. I've come across "liberal" and "conservative" people who tutored. At that point, what does the political label mean to the student being helped?

Or how about Earl Graves and his belief in Black business development? The man has been doing his capitalistic bit on that for years. On Black business development, he and Michael Steele could work together on some things.

See what I mean? Or is more detail needed?

How's that for knuckleheaded positions?

So...it isn't that the left-right thing doesn't work. It DOES WORK, as far as predicting positions on political policies. It does work in identifying friends and enemies. Conservatives KNOW who their enemy is--people like Bill Clinton. Liberals KNOW who their enemy is--people like Clarence Thomas.

For you, where it doesn't work is in generating...what? Positive outcomes for black communities?

At the grassroots, person-to-person level, it shouldn’t matter greatly the spin of your political stripe. Despite the hyping of black-on-black crime, we are perfectly capable and willing, even, to get along and make nice with one another in the realspace, despite wide political differences.

But if we’re talking about voting, where we are choosing a shepherd or ward to manage the political issues o de day, that’s when the stripe comes into full focus. Issues do arise that were not accounted for during the campaign stump and party affiliation can be a reliable predictor of how that elected rep is likely to respond. In these days and times, it could be “foolish” to totally discount a candidate’s political affiliation (i.e. a declared “independent” might be the only type that doesn’t matter).

You're talking about partisan identification, or what we call "party id"--whether you are a strong democrat, weak democrat, independent, weak republican, or a strong republican. That's another bag.

For you, where it doesn't work is in generating...what? Positive outcomes for black communities?

There you have it.

It doesn't foster an urge to get at the truth of problems or solutions. All it does is generate heat and phatten the pockets of the pundit ho's.

I broke this up because I think the first one is most important.

It DOES WORK, as far as predicting positions on political policies.

Lately it doesn't necessarily seem to be that way. What politics is at now is idolatry vs. ideology.

“Party id” …hmm…yes…soo…? What? As the philosopher Mase once said, “it’s like y’all be talkin’ funny.” I think we’re starting to circle the square tangential-like. Let me flip this pragmatic. Alright, by and large it goes like this in the meatspace: you meet someone new and the chattery turns gingerly to politics…most civil types (and I assume that’s the majority of us) tip toe thru that patch til we get a strong sense of where that person falls on the spectrum (and if s/he falls hard) for that particular subject. At least, that’s how it works for me (now, anyway. Ahem). These kinds of whoyou personal encounters are rareish anyway, as we tend to flock with similarly feathered friends.

So, really, I’m thinking now that this is really about the heated gas exchanged between self-appointed pundits. The vast majority of political pundits, almost by definition, choose sides and claim a position on the mount, weak, strong or whatever. The job description is short: pump our side and bitch slap the other one(s).

In Punditworld, crass is cash or your ass is ash. So, alright Darkstar, I hear you. It’s annoying and mebbe even worrisome for the very independent-minded to have to suffer thru the bickering. But it does serve a purpose in the free world.

At its best, that punditheat zipping back and forth way up in the troposphere is like a Kierkegaardian process of synthesis. With luck, the fuzzy stuff burns up and what falls like the proverbial manna are naked truths; something firm and penetrating, upon which we can at last rest a hat. We can only hope for useful, tractionable takeaways.

But pragmatically speaking, if you can’t get along well enough in fleshandbloodspace with someone of the opposite political persuasion, it’s probably not because that person has “picked a side,” but because one (or both) of you holds an abundant store of false pride.

and, after all of that, we are left with black pundits who espouse practices and philosophies for black folk which they could not sell to white folks...

i mean really...where would republicans be without subsidies, protectionism, and government contracts? gimme a break.

so, aside from the rhetorical conflict and the false pride (amen!-Ra), we are left with black folk who have good reason not to trust either "side" since both are longer on talk than solutions...and we have black pundits who clearly pseudo-intellectual mercs. and since crass is cash, they don't have to be too smart ala michael king and j mcwho.

Ideology does not work to provide "positive outcomes." It works to provide a worldview from which definitions of what is or is not a positive outcome.

I said: ideology works as far as predicting positions on political policies.

Lately it doesn't necessarily seem to be that way. What politics is at now is idolatry vs. ideology.

It doesn't seem that way to YOU because you aren't looking at data. You're looking at something else.

Memer, party ID and ideology are two different things. HERE....we're talking about IDEOLOGY.

You've been focusing on pundits and perhaps "blog thought leaders" (an oxymoron if ever I heard one). This dynamic isn't driven by ideology--it's driven by consumption and the political economy of the internet on the one hand, and of the mainstream media on the other. Again, related, but DISTINCT phenomenon.

As I've noted here before, black people are some of the most sophisticated voters in America. They are able to tell you what policies fit within their worldview, and what political candidates fit their policy preferences with a great deal of accuracy. This is particularly interesting given our relative poverty--we don't have the same time or resources to get the information we need to make these decisions.

So if you want to talk about folks who don't need the left-right stuff? the folks who are confused about it? talk about non-blacks...and move on.