Ok, wow, lots to reflect on for this week. I guess the main thing is my stance on idealism because I feel like it was delivered some tough blows in class, particularly on Tuesday. Andrew brought up the example of guns and how when someone is pointing a gun to your head, god forbid, you will lose your idealistic beliefs. First and foremost, that is irrelevant. Idealism isn’t about the “now” if you know what I mean… it’s about the future or long-term. It acknowledges obvious human nature like protection from danger so, yes, I would probably fight back against an attacker because it is in my self-interest to do so. Rather, idealism is a belief that things can be better. According to Dictionary.com, idealism is “the cherishing or pursuit of high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc.” Everyone has their own set of beliefs and even though a person pointing a gun to your head would be traumatic, most people don’t lose your beliefs because of it. I’m sure no one would propose that cynics or religious people would lose their beliefs from an attack at gunpoint and idealists should be regarded the same way.
Sorry if I’m going into way too much depth about this, it just really bothered me that idealism got so much hate on Tuesday. It’s a way of life for me, but that is not to say I’m never realistic. I just think it’s wayyyyy more productive to think about positive change and constructively consider how to make the world a better place. There’s no point in dwelling on the past or accepting that nothing will change from its current state. I talked about this more in my other blog so you can go read more there. That’s my defense of idealism for the night though. By the way, I think it’s funny that liberalism and idealisism are nearly interchangeable terms in our class discussions ☺
The other thing that I never got to defend myself about is the fact that I said something seemingly “realist” on Friday and was caught red-handed by PTJ. Although I am open-minded and accepting of many aspects of realism, I think I was misunderstood. I believe the conversation was about interaction between the government and the people. I may have implied that the government knows what is best for us more than we do but I meant to say this in a way to show that the government is there to serve the people’s best interest. It is there to satisfy the needs of the people above any other duty. I didn’t intend to give the government the enormous power that realists believe it deserves. As long as the people are happy and content, the government is doing its job. It’s unrealistic that the people should know everything about its government because that is why we elect the officials, so that we don’t have to deal with all the nitty gritty stuff. On the surface, my comment on accepting governmental control on some matters may seem on par with realism, but that’s only because that best serves the people’s interest. In the end it is the people who are controlling the government and I think that brings my opinions back to the liberal side of the spectrum.
Hmm what else to reflect on? Oh yeah, we went to a National’s baseball game! I love sports, not so much because of the competition but because of the experience. It’s a social thing. I was impressed that the Nats recognized that the social aspect of attending the baseball game was their main selling point. And boy did they exploit it! The family atmosphere was overwhelming and somewhat artificial, but at the same time I would have loved to be a kid at the Nats stadium. It was bursting with national pride, which at the time really annoyed me, but what can I expect? I’m in DC and I am an Eagle attending American University that proudly wears the patriotic red, white, and blue. Coming from Vermont, this is a bit nauseating. Not to say that we’re not all about the USA, but you just don’t find the same vibe when you’re living in the Green Mountain State. I guess it bothered me most that patriotism was so commercial at the Nats game. It was something to be bought… Something to be shoved in your face. Maybe that satisfies some people’s need for patriotism, but it was too insincere for me. I want to be proud of what my country stands for, what it does for its people, and what it does internationally, not proud of the colors that appear on our flag. Anyways, I thought the anticipation before the game was the most exciting part of the experience but overall I had a fun time!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Wait, are we talking of idealism as a real political ideology? I'm going to have to disagree on this one...
For one, you'll have to excuse several of us for putting down idealism so harshly; like it or not, it has a track record of producing lofty goals and expectations without providing a means of accomplishing them. Secondly, idealism tends to preclude the possibility that there are directly opposing viewpoints that cannot be brought together by any overarching ideology. I was watching a documentary about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from both points of view. While an Israeli woman stated, like you, that she was mainly interested in peace and security, a Palestinian woman bluntly stated that "without victory, there can be no peace". How do you reconcile these two groups when any number of them are unwilling to compromise on their opposing views? "Peace" is not an end-all universal goal, and the direct opposition of many groups must be assumed when dealing in world politics. Wrongly placing the priorities of rival powers is no small matter on a global scale.
Post a Comment