What is Worst: Ideologue, Reactionary, or Partisan

[Trotsky]

(1) Ideologue

1. an impractical idealist
2. an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

Examples: Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan


________________________________________________

​

(2) Reactionary

1. relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction
2. ideologically fluid, prioritizing expedience or short-term results over consistency or sustainability

Examples: Donald Trump, Benito Mussolini


__________________________________________________

​

(3) Partisan

1. firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
2. willing to subjugate personal belief to party line

Examples: Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Cory Booker


___________________________________________________​

 

[Trotsky]

I recently had a run-in with a beloved member here where I said I would prefer a person be an ideologue than a partisan, to which he responded that there is nothing worse than an ideologue, so I thought I would open it up to discussion.

To me, I'd say the worst is by far a reactionary, because it is based in little or no principle besides appeasing a problem or populist whim and can (and often does) create subsequent problems of greater magnitude due to lack of foresight.

After that, I would say a partisan is very bad, but not as bad as an reactionary, because it is grounded in some principle that maintains a logic or benefit throughout a group of even like-minded persons.

I think an ideologue is least harmful, simply because of how difficult it is to be one in a semi-democratic system of governance: even if you adhere strictly to a rigid set of codes (which really never seem to be particular enough to persist throughout time), the wavering of others in power will nullify any impracticable sticking points.

 

[Lead]

I don't mind if someone has a strong stance in one viewpoint so long as they are consistent with it. The people that annoy me are those who have a strong stance party X is always right, even when the party changes views on different issues. Those people are not genuine and are just a sports fan for a far less entertaining thing.

Thats a tough list to choose from.

Also, Rubio isn't a clear partisan. That guy was in the gang of eight and got tortured for it the entire election cycle that he would dare try to form passable legislation on immigration. The same kinda stuff we likely are going to see Trump pass cause he doesn't actually care about the stance he took in the election and realizes none of Washington or average America wants mass deportation.

 

[Trotsky]

I don't mind if someone has a strong stance in one viewpoint so long as they are consistent with it. The people that annoy me are those who have a strong stance party X is always right, even when the party changes views on different issues. Those people are not genuine and are just a sports fan for a far less entertaining thing.

Thats a tough list to choose from.

Also, Rubio isn't a clear partisan. That guy was in the gang of eight and got tortured for it the entire election cycle that he would dare try to form passable legislation on immigration. The same kinda stuff we likely are going to see Trump pass cause he doesn't actually care about the stance he took in the election and realizes none of Washington or average America wants mass deportation.

I actually paused on Rubio just because of immigration and then resettled due to his still-drastic backpeddling over the past couple years on the issue, and his complete shapelessness on pretty much anything else.

Do you have better examples (for any of them)?

 

[hillelslovak87]

I think ideologues are the most dangerous. Ideologies have a memetic way of breeding. So a bad ideology, like Islam, is spread through ideologues. Yes, it is spread by partisans and reactionaries, but I see ideologues being more capable of controlling the other two types.

 

[Trotsky]

I think ideologues are the most dangerous. Ideologies have a memetic way of breeding. So a bad ideology, like Islam, is spread through ideologues. Yes, it is spread by partisans and reactionaries, but I see ideologues being more capable of controlling the other two types.

Islam isn't really a political ideology, but I take your point. But I also think that fits in perfectly into the weak point of ideologues: Islam can be taken in countless policy directions. Just look at societies that espouse Islam as their governing rule, yet vary greatly in their social codes (Saudi Arabia being the most conservative, places like Libya, Morocco, and Iran being more progressive).

In that sense, ideologues can often just become more predictable reactionaries due to literal grounding.

 

[Lead]

I actually paused on Rubio just because of immigration and then resettled due to his still-drastic backpeddling over the past couple years on the issue, and his complete shapelessness on pretty much anything else.

Do you have better examples (for any of them)?

I was going to say other hawks but McCain and Graham aren't in line with the party always. Maybe Cotton?

I don't think he changed his tune much. He just realized how bad the wave in the primary was on immigration despite people not actually holding those views. It turned into who will say the most outrageous hardline immigration plan and guys like Cruz was even being called too soft over Trump. Rubio maintained he still wanted a plan but he understood the voters in his wing wanted security first before a plan which ultimately is what I think has held up this thing for the past decade now.

The GOP wants security in exchange for a deal and the dems say no, just give us what we want because they know dragging this out hurts the GOP if it can be seen they don't want to pass a plan. Both parties want something passed involving a path and Trump delayed it all but it won't matter anyway cause he will likely go with it too. I never understood how this is such a big deal when the majority of the country isn't all that divided on an issue by issue basis for this topic. Security and path. Fucking done. It shouldn't be this hard.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Short term: reaction

Long term: ideologue

 

[brothir]

Your definition of reactionary seems kind of... wrong? Going by the examples that category might as well be called "autocrat".

In my mind, reactionaries are a subset of ideologues whereas partisans are siblings to ideologues, where for the latter the unifying mechanism is a sense of meaning/belonging. Ideologues find a sense of belonging in devoting themselves to a political belief system, whereas partisans find a sense of belonging in devoting themselves to a political group.

So by the above thinking, it has to be either reactionaries or partisans that are the worst, because if ideologues were the worst then partisans would also be the worst, leading to a contradiction.

Now, you didn't qualify what "the worst" really means: is it the one most devoid of philosophy, the one most devoid of morality, or something else? I'd think if it's the former, partisans are the worst, and if it's the latter it'd probably be reactionaries, but partisans could qualify as well depending on whether or not it's though to be a moral value in having a well-formulated philosophy.

 

[MMAViewer]

it is hard to put a person into just one of these definition, these definition are broad and invite many different interpretations and Trump could fall under each of them the turd.

 

[AviatorShades]

It would help if the examples even vaguely resembled the definitions. Another idiotically transparent loaded question courtesy of the guy who implied that enforcing immigration laws was a form of genocide.

 

[weed]

what if you're all 3?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't mind if someone has a strong stance in one viewpoint so long as they are consistent with it. The people that annoy me are those who have a strong stance party X is always right, even when the party changes views on different issues. Those people are not genuine and are just a sports fan for a far less entertaining thing.

Thats a tough list to choose from.

Also, Rubio isn't a clear partisan. That guy was in the gang of eight and got tortured for it the entire election cycle that he would dare try to form passable legislation on immigration. The same kinda stuff we likely are going to see Trump pass cause he doesn't actually care about the stance he took in the election and realizes none of Washington or average America wants mass deportation.

The GOP as a whole was moving in that direction, and Rubio thought he was on the leading edge. Then they switched, and he got hung out to dry on it (and tried to switch back). H'es a partisan. Walker, on the other hand, appears to be pretty committed to his ideology. Booker has bucked the party on stuff, though you could argue that it's related to appealing to his local constituency rather than actually being conservative. But that gets to an issue with this whole thing: Most people are a mix of different things. Hell, even Rand was willing to turn her back on her stated ideology for personal benefit (though maybe that's just commitment to selfishness?).

There's also the issue is of what they're worse for. In a discussion, trying to get the right answer, they're all pretty bad. I look at ideologues as people who rigidly hold to a specific framework and will only disingenuously engage with reality. Look at @Greoric, for example. He can't honestly engage in a discussion about, say, the costs and benefits of a particular tax increase because he has a dogmatic belief that they're all bad, but that doesn't keep him on the sidelines. He'll just throw up some kind of rationalization for his pre-set position that actually has nothing to do with that rationalization. That's poison to genuine seekers of truth. A partisan, like @TheComebackKid, will constantly change rationales for a position because he's the opposite--totally flexible in his beliefs. That actually might lead to good positions at times (like his recent reversal on DACA). Someone with no values at all other than personal advantage (reactionary, as the OP defines it) is effectively similar.

 

[PorkPiePusher]

Partisan.

A person that can be counted on to strictly adhere to an ideology without the potential to change their minds is a dangerous thing. These are the sort of people that don't ever argue or discuss a topic as there is no point - they're never changing their mind, but prefer to resort to destructive means to put a point across. Ideologues can also be dangerous insofar that they can be advocates of dangerous ideas, but the adherents to those ideas (the partisan) are what really makes them dangerous,and being frank - we need idealists to keep an open flow of ideas in a given society.

Reactionaries are also less than ideal, but as long as someone can be ideologically fluid, there is always the potential for reason prevailing, and tbh - reaction is better than inaction.

 

[Jack V Savage]

BTW, TS, are you a big fan of Julius Caesar (the play)?

 

[Fawlty]

Damn, this is a good question. Have to give it a think.

 

[weed]

option 4 should be

"CONOR MCGREGOR"

 

[Gunny]

(1) Ideologue

1. an impractical idealist
2. an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

Examples: Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan


________________________________________________

​

(2) Reactionary

1. relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction
2. ideologically fluid, prioritizing expedience or short-term results over consistency or sustainability

Examples: Donald Trump, Benito Mussolini


__________________________________________________

​

(3) Partisan

1. firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
2. willing to subjugate personal belief to party line

Examples: Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Cory Booker


___________________________________________________​

I tend to think of this as more of a question between partisan and ideologue as reactionaries can fall into either camp. Personally, I find partisans a lot more annoying as they are innately dishonest and it's impossible to have a genuine conversation with them where as an ideologue will usually tell you exactly what they believe.

Also, I find it a bit unsatisfying to use elected pols from the major parties to illustrate the set since being partisan is sort of their job. I think it's better to use pundits/commentators who can be criticized for their shillary with more legitimacy. To that point Sean Hannity and Paul Krugman are perfect examples.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think it's better to use pundits/commentators who can be criticized for their shillary with more legitimacy. To that point Sean Hannity and Paul Krugman are perfect examples.

This is a crazy example of partisan nuttery right here. Comparing an elite academic and Nobel Prize winner who writes on his area of expertise (and has the best prognostication record of any major columnist) with a guy with no expertise on anything (worked as a contractor and not even a college graduate) who lies shamelessly on behalf of his party. Hard to even comprehend the level of bias necessary for you to even think that the comparison makes sense. It's beyond unconscious bias into knowing propaganda, IMO.

 

[sub_thug]

I'm not sure that these things are mutually exclusive. There are plenty of extremists that are both ideologues and partisan as a result of their commitment to their cause, and these exist on both sides of the aisle. There are actual fascists (people that wear Nazi armbands and believe in National Socialism) that are all three.