I am stuck on finding a political term that communicates (to the everyday person)

24 posts / 0 new

Dear: The Thom Hartmann And The Thom Hartmann Community,

I am stuck on finding a political term that communicates (to the everyday person)-

How The European Democrate Socalists, The USA’s- Democrate Socialists, The Progressives, The Liberals, The Independents, The Capitalists, The Libertarians, The Conservatives and Etc. interact with to the political parties, in multiple ways. When The European Democratic Socalists, The USA’s- Democratic Socialists, The Progressives, The Liberals, The Independents, The Capitalists, The Libertarians, The Conservatives and Etc. can also be the political parties (even in names) that compete with The European parties, The Democrat Party, The Independent Party, The Tea Party, The Libertarian Party, The Republican Party and etc.

I understand they are people structured, grouped and act (whether it is voting, campaigning, influencing traditional candidates, taking control of political parties <like The Tea Party did for The Capitalist> or forming their own political parties or etc.) by their shared political beliefs/ideologies; there is the political term political parties, but that does not accurate term for them. They are not lobbyist, as those are the people who just use economic factors to control politicians and instead they use political influence to do the influencing, supporting and facilitating politicians. What is political term that communicates (to the everyday person) what they are?

There are political parties,

There are politicians,

There are lobbyist,

There are special interest groups,

What is the term for those structured, grouped and act (*whether it is voting, campaigning, influencing traditional candidates, taking control of political parties <like The Tea Party did for The Capitalist> or forming their own political parties or etc.) by their shared political beliefs/ideologies, thus create a structured (by what is required to be a member, which is very flexiable and driven by the majority of members, which in turn majority members can change when not finding what they need) group. Like when we call ourselves European Democratic Socalists, The USA’s- Democratic Socialists, Progressives, Liberals, Independents, Capitalists, Libertarians, Conservatives and we structure, group ourselves and act* that can influence all the above and is influenced by the people, also like all the above.

It is really hard for me to explain it; when I never hear or remember rare use of a way to describe them. If you believe some other source could better answer this question, then please, send me direct me to that sourse. I have been trying to google this; but I get is tons of biased websites and the political term ideology.

The Civic Game's picture
The Civic Game
Joined:
Jul. 30, 2012 12:33 pm

Comments

They are idiologists. What they really promote is not a real tangible thing. It's an idea, their own personal Shan gra la. In a virtual world any of these ideas can work but in the real world none of these ideas will work to create "the perfect world".

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

It is difficult for me to even understand what you are asking given that nothing in that post was close to a complete sentence and there are a lot of grammatical errors.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

ah2,

Sorry, it is extremely hard to explain it, almost as hard as it is to find the term.

The Civic Game's picture
The Civic Game
Joined:
Jul. 30, 2012 12:33 pm

Pundits?

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

We could call them "people" or "humans" since that's what we are.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 2:04 pm

I forget whether I read or heard this gem, but it goes as follows: There is no political brand that you can use to introduce yourself to anyone who has a reason to suspect or demonize your brand. In an ideological polemic, what has been sold in the IDEOLOGY of the Right paints a "threat" to the American Narrative of the American Century from those who failed the legacy passed to them and are corrupted by all sorts of "unAmerican" stuff. You cannot be a Progressive or a Liberal and talk to anyone who has been watching FAUX. But, beyond that, even when you go to the 'respectable' news or the opinion of the average Mainstream Protestant church goer, anything that questions the union of the flag and cross has been considered uncouth to the larger congregation.

There is next to no intellectual content to this reaction. It has more to do with "loyalty" and identity with a "moral community." The value constructs liberals and progressives have emphasized have not projected some other "gut" or "intuitive" moral integrity. Because we do care about breaking down prejudice and advancing culture toward inclusiveness, we do threaten the favorite narratives and flattering myths that use the power of religion to bind a partisan or cultic community against the evil outside.

What was advised was human sharing instead of political talk. Get to know the Tea Party person as a person rather than as a partisan. Let them get to know You instead of your own politics first. The more I think about this the better it strikes me for dealing with serious IDEOLOGICAL division.

I have capitalized IDEOLOGY for two reasons. First, I hope I was not missing the joke in "idiology" as though it was related to "idiocy." Poly has counseled us for a long time with his tag that "ideology is a disease," and his is right on. The problem is that ideology is misused to refer to philosophy or "opinion."

This is the second reason to appreciate what ideology means: Unlike philosophy, ideology makes what is true fit its narrative rather than changing its narrative to reflect experience and learning. This is what Poly means about it as disease. Philosophy is honest about its preconceptions and alert to its epistemological blinders, or to there being blinders we do not see. That's why they are "blinders."

People who are living in ideology are not open to cognitive dissonance or a challenge to their narrative. They have a huge emotional stake in it. The challenge for Liberals and Progressives is to have a similar stake in philosophy and questioning. The latter tends to come of as ambiguous, uncertain and even confused. It lacks moral coherence even if it is on a moral pilgrimage.

For example, if "abortion" and "gay marriage" is about the loss of the moral core of God's Covenant or whatever made White the definition of true humanity, nobody will care about a woman's choice. The same applies to the "obvious" humanity of gay and lesbian people. What has broken down the latter has been human images and relationships, with a lot of help from political activists. But, what changed was not the coherence or the evidence, it was the effect of "coming out" by people we knew and loved.

That all aside, if we are talking politics and looking for a soapbox rhetoric to match the framers and spinners, I suggest "democracy." Talk about the virtue of being a participant in power and why that ought to be universal rather than elitist. Value team spirit, not just individualism. And, you Rightwing Libertarians, how come you hang out with the cult instead of the Progressives? They may want to fire the cops and steal at will, but that ain't exactly your Libertarian Free World.

I would also advise us to link up with all the foes of empire and combine that with serious attention to the wounded in mind and body. MSNBC has been the voice for wounded vets, and it is an irony worth appreciating. It breaks the partisan imagery with real human acts. When dealing with the ideological Right, there really is no way to argue with words alone.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Idiotologism is pandemic when monkeys type.

Despite conventional idiotological whizdum, before creating all the works of Shakespeare, an incredible array of worthless literachure is monkeyed into existence, simianly mimicking true thought.

Still, a question whore cares not who answers, or what the answer is.

The point is to keep you guessing, and answering, while you are robbed blind.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Alas, I find our pathology more to do with the human mind than with the typing skills of our simian relatives. My point was simply that to communicate with the everyday person, that person needs to meet you as another human being rather than as an "evangelical" anything. Rather than advertize what divides, find what unites first. I think this is even more true with ideologues than with idiots who have simply dropped out.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

I find explaining politics to someone who has not followed it regularly over a period of time is like trying to explain Lost to someone three seasons in.

My wife is not in to politics. We were watching Rachel one night when she was going off about Republicans wanting to ban birth control, took me ten minutes to explain the background on how Rachel was misconstruing the truth and then another 10 minutes to explain why she was not stating the facts plainly.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

Everyone pointing out the idiology is spelled wrong or maybe meant to be insulting and wrong term to use.

Last night, while using a 1990s Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary to try to find a term that matches; I discovered that Microsoft Word indeed has the correct spelling it is Ideology, not idiology. The dictionary did not have idiology at all, maybe a new word; thus, referring to idiot root, maybe. I am assuming Bush_Wacker were not being insulting, just made a mistake. I have no other proof that he was anything else.

I understood that it was in a grey area, I do not like the idea of using it. If I do not use Ideology, then there is one huge problem, in that I still cannot find a term to use.

Since, I am creating the game to help facilitate people, who do not activity participate in politics, into being a lot more active in politics, I cannot just have the game without this term. If I did, then the parties would dominate the game. The only way I can see to maybe, do it is by making the parties what we are consider ourselves, IE. The European Democrate Socialists, The USA’s- Democrate Socialists, The Progressives, The Liberals, The Independents, The Capitalists, The Libertarians, The Conservatives and Etc.

The Civic Game's picture
The Civic Game
Joined:
Jul. 30, 2012 12:33 pm

WorkerBee,

Explaining politics (at least The USA's version) in my opinion is the wrong way, in all issues (I am also a Beings Rights Protester) I think shocking people never lasts and I agree with what you are saying. I am a former facilitator* (more than just teacher) of multiple high school Civics classes, of students with all different types of challenges- including thinking Civics is not important. That is where I witness the students would play such a game, if given a chance personalize it and play it. Thus, I do not believe explaining it is the right way of doing it**, they have to use it at the same time, in multiple roles and negotiate with other players in multiple roles, and it has to open ended to their customizing. Another words, they need to understand why what they believe works fails, when they really put into action.

*- Who earned 1-degree in education and 5-add on degrees while learning through my own learning challenges,

**- Not against what Thom Hartmann does (I am one of biggest fans of him); the listeners live it every day, not realizing it and really understanding it, Thom Hartmann exposes them to reality and lastly, the listeners see or even use it in their lives.

The Civic Game's picture
The Civic Game
Joined:
Jul. 30, 2012 12:33 pm

Bush_Wacker,

I was not posting that idiology or idiologist is bad. Idiology and idiologist just are not the term I am looking for. I already found idiology when googling; closed it, a while ago, because it was going nowhere close to the term, and forgot the correct spelling, trying to find a way to explain what I am asking. Actually, last night while using a 1990s Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary to try to find a term that matches; I discovered that Microsoft Word indeed has the correct spelling it is Ideology, not idiology. The dictionary did not have idiology at all, maybe a new word; thus, refering to idiot root, maybe. I am assuming you were not being insulting, just made a mistake.

There is the term for political parties; but everyone uses what I am talking about, bad or good. Are structured, grouped and act (whether it is voting, campaigning, influencing traditional candidates, taking control of political parties <like The Tea Party did for The Capitalist> or forming their own political parties) by their shared political beliefs/idiologies. Thank you for the spelling correction, Microsoft Word messed me up. Since they use their shared political beliefs/idiologies to come together a form what I am talking about, sometimes to go even to creating political parties.

There are political parties,

There are politicians,

There are lobbyist,

There are special interest groups,

What is the term for those structured, grouped and act (*whether it is voting, campaigning, influencing traditional candidates, taking control of political parties <like The Tea Party did for The Capitalist> or forming their own political parties or etc.) by their shared political beliefs/ideologies, thus create a structured (by what is required to be a member, which is very flexiable and driven by the majority of members) group. Like when we call ourselves European Democratic Socalists, The USA’s- Democratic Socialists, Progressives, Liberals, Independents, Capitalists, Libertarians, Conservatives and we structure, group ourselves and act* that can influence all the above and is influenced by the people, also like all the above.

The Civic Game's picture
The Civic Game
Joined:
Jul. 30, 2012 12:33 pm

drc2,

Democracy is what system we all live in; it needs to be more individualized to the reality that being active in politics starts not with just us living in a Democracy, but starts with our actual political beliefs.

Keep in mind, I have to explain the game, in as short as possible structions- already long for instructions, and label the fields where the players can personalize the tools they use.

The Civic Game's picture
The Civic Game
Joined:
Jul. 30, 2012 12:33 pm

JTaylor,

Deep down that is what they are; however, for the game that could never help the players; let alone obviously, the game would never work- as it does not for real world politics. Humans are different, if we were all robotic like at least great political people then that would work; but none wants to live in that world. There will be citizens role and power within the game- who are just people and human.

The Civic Game's picture
The Civic Game
Joined:
Jul. 30, 2012 12:33 pm
Quote drc2:

Alas, I find our pathology more to do with the human mind than with the typing skills of our simian relatives. My point was simply that to communicate with the everyday person, that person needs to meet you as another human being rather than as an "evangelical" anything. Rather than advertize what divides, find what unites first. I think this is even more true with ideologues than with idiots who have simply dropped out.

Thank you; what the game will do, along with understanding that there are a ton of variety and extremes all voters, politics, politicians and parties are the same and many do not have our interests in mind when participating in politics.

The Civic Game's picture
The Civic Game
Joined:
Jul. 30, 2012 12:33 pm
Quote The Civic Game:What is the term for those structured, grouped and act (*whether it is voting, campaigning, influencing traditional candidates, taking control of political parties <like The Tea Party did for The Capitalist> or forming their own political parties or etc.) by their shared political beliefs/ideologies, thus create a structured (by what is required to be a member, which is very flexiable and driven by the majority of members) group. Like when we call ourselves European Democratic Socalists, The USA’s- Democratic Socialists, Progressives, Liberals, Independents, Capitalists, Libertarians, Conservatives and we structure, group ourselves and act* that can influence all the above and is influenced by the people, also like all the above.

Civic Game, rereading this after I have slept some helped. I am going to guess you are not a native English speaker which is fine. But to let you know, the reason people are having problems understanding what you are saying is because your grammar is horrible.

Example from the above quote. If I remove all the garbage out of the clause, this:

"What is the term for those structured, grouped and act by their shared political beliefs/ideologies"

Is not a coherent clause or sentence. I believe what you are trying to say is, "What is the term for those who are structured, grouped, and act together according to their shared political beliefs and ideologies?"

Two of the terms you have already given would fit under this definition - political parties and special interest groups. Thus, you need to have some other delimiting criteria to separate these. For example, the differentiating characteristic between a political party and a special interest group is that special interests tend to have a very very narrow focus - one to three highly specific political goals - which they are pursing. In many cases, special interest groups can actually be comprised of individuals from different political parties. Political parties, on the other hand, tend to have a robust and complex matrix of political beliefs which we call a political platform.

Many of the groups you described fit into one of these two categories. For example, the Tea Party, despite its namesake, is nothing more than a special interest group - they want less taxes and less governmental regulation on virtually everything. Done. That is there singular defining characteristic. Beyond that, they draw upon a diverse group of members which include Bible bangers like Michelle Bachmann to Godless Libertarians like Grover Norquist who has been implicated in having ties Islam.

This is complicated by the fact that in most other European countries what you describe is most likely a political party because they have parlimentary systems with several political parties. The US has a specific context in which there are typically only 3-4 significant parties in activity at a given time - Democrats, Republicans, Greens, etc. This phenomenon leaves a void in the political dialogue in the US because most issues get boiled down to two perspectives that seem black and white. A very unhealthy arrangement when dealing with complex issues.

This is where I believe your commentary comes into play and I have some ideas about the types of groups you may be talking about. I would further say that I don't think all of them could be captured under one term or definition. All have different characteristics, methods of organization and action, and legal standings.

1. Caucus - groups within the dominant political parties in elected bodies that have more highly defined points of cooperation and agreement than the parties themselves do. These tend to be more focused than a politcal party and less focused than a special interest and also have a legitimized legal standing in government.

2. Movement - sometimes referred to as "grass roots movement" which I think is an antiquated term but w/e. This would cover groups like OWS. These often develop into special interest groups but tend to be more organic, less formalized, and responsive to issues in the immediate sense. Whereas, special interests tend to take a position on particular interests and hold them over long periods of time (something like Greenpeace), movements hold to a generalized ideology or ethic and conform to immediate situations. Example would be how the protests of NATO in Chicago moved from location to location and even changed messages throughout the protest - the started with the NATO summit but then moved to Banks and morphed into an OWS=esque protest and back and forth, etc.

3. Political Coalition - I have this as a separate category because often times the various groups we mention above will cross polinate. Groups with divergent beliefs might come together on particular issues and work together for short periods of time. Sometimes this leads to one dominant group swallowing the other or, depending on your perception, one group "inflitrating" the other - as with the Tea Party and the Republicans.

Hope that helps. Best of luck.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

Call them people with opinions. Stop labeling.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote DynoDon:

Call them people with opinions. Stop labeling.

Labels are part of making sense of the world we live in. It is no less sensical to say stop labeling types of political groups than it is to say "stop categorizing types of chairs." People organize themselves in all sorts of ways. Labels give us a shorthand to characterize those types of relationships. There is nothing wrong with that.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

I had to go back and read some of drc's stuff too. I like his discussion of ideology and its effects. If you want a more formal foray into the topic, Goran Therborn is a political philospher out of the Marxist tradition that has dealt with this topic at length in "The Power of Ideology and the Ideology of Power." He discusses ideological formation and change and also power dynamics between different ideologies. I have read portions and agreed partially with what he had to say. It may at least be an entry point into a more in depth discussion.

Personally, I think ideology can be both useful and harmful. In part, ideologies, such as Progressivism or Conservativism, start by trying to shore up a set of core values, beliefs, or philosophical positions which serve as a basis for political action. I don't find anything wrong with that. What I believe drc is descibing is not just ideology but what I would call dogma. This is where ideology transforms into a loosely mutually agreed upon CONTINGENT beliefs or values that are always subject to reevaluation and change to a set of beliefs that is considered to be ABSOLUTE and true despite what the world around you might be revealing to you. While this doesn't let ideology off the hook (as it can still be dangerous), I think it better describes what drc was addressing.

One of the other complicating factors in all of this with drc's post is when dogma or ideology fetters almost completely any possibility of real human comunication or recognition to happen. For example, one of the reasons the Civil War transpired wasn't simply because white slave owners had no "human" interaction with blacks. It was because their dogma refused to allow the slave owners to even recognize their slaves' humanity to begin with. The same could be said with certain factions of the conservative ideology and homosexuals. For example, Marcus Bachmann's comments about equating gays to "barbarians," or even if you believe his claim that he was referring to children as "barbarians" (which isn't much better and comes from a VERY old school in psychology associated with eugenics, racism, and slavery called recapitulation theory), was an act of denying these people humanity in the first place - to make them subhuman. It is very difficult to simply break this down with repeated "human" contact. This is why racism still exists in vast quantity today. This is why homophobics will continue to persist even in the current politically transformative environment. This is why Bush, Cheney, and Rove could convince almost the entire country that the "War on Terror" was just. It wasn't just that the "those people" hurt us; let's get revenge. It was "those people aren't really people to begin with" and thus we are justified in doing whatever we want to them - indefinite detention, torture, etc.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

ftr workerbee, Rachel was not lying, she was stating the law as it was written.

If you want a label 'truth seeker' is innocuous, and lets others know you're not a fox cult member.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, I am just using political beliefs and political parties. Make it easy; but longer instructions.

Thanks, for everyone's help.

No, English is my only language; as I said I have learning challenges

The Civic Game's picture
The Civic Game
Joined:
Jul. 30, 2012 12:33 pm
Quote douglaslee:

ftr workerbee, Rachel was not lying, she was stating the law as it was written.

She worded it along the lines of Republicans where trying to restrict access to birth control, or something like that(this was awhile ago). The law in question was about requiring employers to pay for birth control for their female employees, this is quite different then the way she was portraying it.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

Everyone,

I was not taking a political side in my posts; just want to make sure that is clear.

The Civic Game's picture
The Civic Game
Joined:
Jul. 30, 2012 12:33 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system