Lots of people have an interest in politics and their views on any particular issue usually fall upon one of two sides. One's views on a particular issue quite often will be a good indicator of one's stance on issues that do not seem directly related. This usually puts people in one of two competing sides, if not because of a uniform agreement across all issues, then because of an agreement in those viewed to be most signicant. This being the case, what each side strives for as a 'positive' outcome in the progress of society is to see their opponents defeated and in misery--within the limits of each nation's constitution--for as long as the victor retains the upper hand in government. Even if it is not strictly true that this is how everyone thinks--some certainly do--its functional equivalent is in place. Therefore, it is difficult to see that the preservation of democracy is a sufficient condition for acheiving real progress. Although it is a necessary one, as a defense against despotism.

But is each side all that different in their goals? We all want less crime, less war, less unwanted pregnancy, less drug addiction, less disease, less poverty, greater literacy and numeracy, greater access to medicine, etcetera, except in cases that people have a vested interest where, in order to improve their own circumstances, they permit themselves to compromise on one or more of these goals, or in other cases where people are so misanthropic that they do not desire these things. In the present system, therefore, it is more important to argue about methods of solution than it is to solve problems, with each side proclaiming that some contentious course of action is the best way to deal with a particular problem, according to their own political predilections or vested interests.

So then, it is perhaps better in many cases, no matter how minor, to discover some uncontentious means of solution to a problem rather than simply to go with the humdrum of one side being satisfied by some means of government action, or inaction, and the other being utterly dismayed. There is always an endless supply of people dedicating themselves to the status quo of putting their own side one up on the other, why would you be compelled to join them?

Andrew posts: This usually puts people in one of two competing sides…
This being the case, what each side strives for as a 'positive' outcome in the progress of society is to see their opponents defeated…
====================
That is assuming Politics is more interested in the Good of Society then it is in “profit”.
Which has been the bane of the Capitalistic Ideal…
Capitalism being the primary contributing economic and social force in building the Big & Powerful Western Nations…

“Capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned (and profit motivated)...

“Capitalism has been dominant in the Western world since the end of feudalism (a Medieval European political "system")"

With Capitalism being the prime motivator in Western Politics it is difficult to separate profit from motive…

If it is not profitable to subsidize the poor for example, what is the motive to do so?

To my knowledge, it’s only been recently that steps are being taken to incorporate Capitalism with a type of Socialism, as Great Britain et al have done.

Interestingly enough, “capitalist economic practices became institutionalized in England between the 16th and 19th centuries…”

“From England it gradually spread throughout Europe, across political and cultural frontiers.

"In the 19th and 20th centuries, capitalism provided the main, but not exclusive, means of industrialization throughout much of the world.” More @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

In the USA, steps have been taken to lessen the impact Corporate Lobbyists have on political decisions but, imho, much more work needs to be done.

The World is venturing into a concept probably not even dreamed of a few hundred years ago… A Real Global Community. Wherein the adage “Money isn’t everything” takes on ’real’ meaning… ~rore

This post has been edited by rorechof: Mar 22 2008, 11:11 AM

I did not mean for my thoughts to be summed up as "capitalism is the problem".

Andrew posts: I did not mean for my thoughts to be summed up as "capitalism is the problem".
====================
Andrew, I didn’t mean to imply capitalism is THE problem because I don’t think it is the sole problem.
Imho, the Modified Capitalism I am witnessing taking root now (as opposed to the Capitalism of the early 20th century USA) is what will help the World become a Global Community.

You hit on another part of the problem when you said “There is always an endless supply of people dedicating themselves to the status quo of putting their own side one up on the other,…”, and I am implying there is a ‘profit motivation’ for this type of behavior, whether the profit is monetary or otherwise.

As For “why would you be compelled to join them?”
Another part of the problem in the USA is the Two Party Political System, which pretty much forces people to ‘choose sides’.

For example: If I wanted to affect a major social change rapidly, I too would probably be forced to choose one of the two opposing Political Parties; the one whom would most likely champion my cause, provide necessary resources, influential contacts, needed votes etc.

I would probably be ‘compelled’ to join one of them (or show a preference for) in order to get my agenda through…
Although I suppose it is possible to find an influential ‘third party’ to use.

This post has been edited by rorechof: Mar 22 2008, 11:07 PM