I'm making this post by Skinner into the basis for a thread

[Boojatta]

A party that has no ideological orientation will not attract any members.

It might attract a few people who want to run for office. But think about it. The purpose of political parties is for like-minded people to work together to elect people to office. If you take away the broadly similar ideological outlook of the members, then there is no reason for a political party to exist.

Let's say some guy creates a party and says "I want to run for office, please join my party to help me get elected."

The first question anyone is going to ask is, "Uh, why would I want to spend my time and money helping to get YOU elected?"

Which answer is going to get the desired response?

OPTION 1: "I just want to get elected. You should help me, because that's the nice thing to do. My political ideology shouldn't matter."

OPTION 2: "You should help me get elected because I am going to fight for the issues you care about."

The above is from the thread entitled:
"Non-Partisan Political Parties: Already Exist or Logically Impossible?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002441328

I disagree with Skinner, but I think that Skinner's point of view deserves serious consideration, and I am willing to listen to anybody who wants to convince me that I am wrong and Skinner is right.

If you want to understand what people are doing, then it's often helpful to know what goals they are pursuing. For example, can you describe a goal that Wilbur Wright and Orville Wright were pursuing? I think that they were trying to build a heavier-than-air flying machine. You can get into somewhat more detail, but I think that the vast majority of the details concern how, not what. I already described their goal well enough to help anybody who is confused about their behavior to understand what motivated them. Their methods, tactics, strategies, plans, and so on don't explain their goal. It's the other way around. Know their goal, and you would have been able to understand (but not predict) what they were doing.

Now, can't your goal be to solve political problems? Isn't it possible to have a goal that is basically that simple?

If political ideology provides techniques for solving political problems, then political ideology comes later, after the goal. However, it occurs to me that political ideology could in many cases be an obstacle to solving political problems. Aren't there plenty of examples of problems being solved by thinking outside the box?

As for the notion that people who simply want to solve political problems would be motivated to conceal their political ideologies, what if there's not much there for the question of concealment to arise? Some political candidates eat ice cream occasionally. What flavor? If it's vanilla, then there's no story. Nobody is shocked by vanilla. It carries with it no hint of scandal. It's like the Deism of some of the Founding Fathers.

[Ian David]

1. Let's start an after-school club to do stuff. We'll call it The After School Club.

Every day, we will meet after school, and argue whether we want to play chess, hold track meets, fight for gay rights or preach sexual abstinence.

You will never know what will happen when you show up, who will be there, or whether or not there will be any consensus on what we want to do.

Bring your running shoes.

And your SCUBA gear.

And your Dungeons and Dragons books.

And your bible.

It's all up for grabs.

[saras]

2. Political problems are not soluble. It's that simple. REAL politics is the art of compromise...

...and the art of compromise involves knowing what you value too much to trade away, and what you'd like but would be willing to trade for other things. You're right back in the realm of deeply held personal values.

And no, I don't think that someone who mostly values unity and consensus, someone who mostly values doing SOMETHING about it RIGHT NOW, and someone who values ensuring that every perspective gets voiced and examined before acting are EVER going to agree on large-scale action without some sort of political activity happening forst.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. "If political ideology provides techniques for solving political problems" - I don't think it does

Ideology is about choosing ideals - not the techniques. You talking about solving political problems, but there are large disagreements about what is a 'problem'. Some say that inequality in income is a problem, because it hurts people; others that it's desirable, because they think it's an incentive to work. There's a fundamental difference - one group wants to help those in the worst situations, others want to help those who are, or could be, in the best.

[Boojatta]

9. You asserted that there's a fundamental difference.

Can you demonstrate that there is a fundamental difference?

Some say that inequality in income is a problem, because it hurts people; others that it's desirable, because they think it's an incentive to work. There's a fundamental difference -

Isn't it possible to believe both that income inequality hurts some people and that income inequality is an incentive to work?

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. The difference is some see it as a problem, and some as desirable

And that's the point to do with your OP - you talk about solving 'problems', but the point is that what is a problem to one person is not to another. This is where ideology comes in - not in defining or implementing techniques.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. The fundamental difference is that any possible solutions are mutually exclusive.

No solution can satisfy both points of view.

[alferoutou]

4. The questions not being asked

Why do you want to run for public office as a member of Group_______?

Explain your rational for raising and spending $500+ million dollars for a temp job that only pay's a pittance of what you raised. In other words what is in it for you?

[Fumesucker]

5. One person's "political problem" is another person's greatly desired situation.

So many things are a matter of perspective, if you are in the water damage repair business a flood is a good thing.

Ideology is about letting other people know what your (claimed) perspective is in order to let them know whether they share some aspects of that perspective or not.

[Boojatta]

8. What if you are in the funeral business?

I guess that the assassination of JFK was a good occasion for some people in the funeral business to practice their poker faces.

[Happyhippychick]

6. How can you solve or even define a political problem if you don't have an ideology?

[Boojatta]

7. I am willing to assume, for the sake

of argument, that an individual person cannot make a positive contribution to solving or even defining a political problem unless the individual has a political ideology. I don't believe that, but I am willing to assume it for the sake of argument.

(I suspect that we may have different and conflicting ideas in mind associated with the words "political ideology" so that perhaps there is no substantive difference of opinion here. Perhaps an example would be helpful if you can think of one.)

However, I have described a kind of political organization that perhaps already exists or perhaps could exist, and the organization itself might consist of members who define and solve political problems even though the organization itself may have no stance on any topic of political ideology. This should be clear if you can imagine a government having no official doctrines on questions of theology even though many of its employees may be strong atheists or devout theists.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Our government has fairly strong separation of religion and state and still many laws

and 'goals' people hold are religious in nature. The President has offered no reasons for his opposition to marriage equality which are not religious in language and nature. Same for the other Party when they oppose equality. Gawd is in the mix, the President says, as if that was part of his gig, to speak of Gawd and what Gawd wants.
So no, I can not imagine any situation in which the ideology of the players is not part of the politics.
I mean, how fun to speak of ice cream in a world where half the nation thinks millions of people are not 'Sanctified' and thus should not hold equal standing under the law.

[Happyhippychick]

16. I think it would be impossible to find a population which is devoid of political leanings because

No person is devoid of ideological leanings. If it were something that had an objective truth, such as mathematics, you could get closer to finding people who could look at facts. And I say "closer" because even mathematicians can argue about facts. But I don't think it is possible to be devoid of subjectivity.

Interesting discussion!

[Ohio Joe]

11. The "How" of solving a political problem is very important

I don't vote for teabaggers just because they want to "fix" things, their concept of how to "fix" things is moronic. Not considering the "How" of things is simply voting for the sake of voting and not putting any attempt into getting someone in office who can do the job right.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. I'd say that the how is the only important thing.

Anyone who wants to solve global warming with faith healing should find a different support network.

[bemildred]

15. I disagree with Skinner too, most political parties exist to seize and hold power.

It's actually pretty rare for politicians to actually view the public with anything but contempt.

[Zalatix]

17. Non-partisan political parties is like a barbecue contest where flavor is banned.