Have radical ideologies made lasting contributions to society?

Question

Or does each cancel the other out with every power shift?

Sure, there was Roe v Wade for the Left and Welfare Reform for the Right, but isn't more time being spent changing wallpaper?

What ever happened to balance and compromise?

I am using "radical ideologies" instead of the usual bait words "liberal" or "neocon," etc., that have attracted so much useless acrimony in this forum.

Yes, each faction would consider the opposite to be "radical" if polled. Look up the term, and you will see that I am well within its definition.

It is telling that some respondents have been confused by this, which means my question attracted the intended audience.

My citation of two examples of legislation favored by one extreme or the other, but rarely by both, was provided to avoid rehashing them. It is also telling that no other examples have been cited so far, which is exactly my point.

What I am looking for are compromises made to placate a radical faction that have enriched the body politic and endured ideological shifts.

My stretch goal is to point out futility.

In the interest of conserving space and time, I avoid explanations such as this one and depend on the generosity and interpretive powers of the reader.

Thank you for your participation!

Answer 1

Turn thee, Benvolio, and look upon thy death

Answer 2

Hi James,

I'm not really sure what you're asking because you mix terminology. You ask if ideologies have made lasting changes, but then you describe individual policies. They're not the same thing at all.

An ideology is a broad overarching set of social and political principles that give unity, purpose and direction to all of the policy choices made by leaders. For example, "Communism" is a genuine ideology. It attempts to explain how societies and economies evolve. It specifies actions that need to be taken to achieve supposedly correct actions -- it is an overarching method for organizing everything. That's what ideologies do.

You're also talking about individual programs; and if I'm correct, you seem to be disappointed by the lackluster nature of the changes.

Guess what?? You're right -- and that's the way it's supposed to be. The German Sociologist, Max Weber once said, "Politics is the slow boring of hard boards; and anyone who attempts it must be willing to risk his soul."

What Weber was saying is that meaningful change in societies cannot be effected overnight. Progress comes in excruciatingly slow increments if it is to work at all. Sure, we can make radical and revolutionary ideological overhauls of government and society, but the verdict of history is clear on this -- they don't work, and they don't last. The movement of historical progress is like the movement of the hour hand on a clock. It seems to be standing still, but it is always moving. It just takes time to see it.

Hope this answer helps. Cheers, mate.

===============================================

EDIT FOR JAMES:

Per your additional comments...

I don't think Roe is a good example for your argument as it was handed down by a non-democratic institution (the Supreme Court).

If you're looking for enduring political compromises, then almost anything you care to mention would qualify. Consider your use of Welfare Reform. That was a Republican program co-opted by President Clinton during his race for a second term. Neither the Dems nor the Reps got what they wanted -- it was a classic compromise.

Are you looking for radical programs that endured? You'll have to search hard for them, because in liberal democracies, centrists rule. Radical policies go through the political washing machine and come out dirty on the other side. Everything gets watered down -- that's just the way the system works.

That's why I gave you that quote from Weber. All politics in free societies revolves around compromise and adjustments both to individual constitutency bases as well as powerful interest groups. It's a long, drawn out battle that rarely produces anything dramatic, and usually only serves to shift the goal lines of debate by a few inches. It really is, "The slow boring of hard boards." It isn't sexy, and it sure as hell isn't any fun. But I'd rather have boring compromise policies of the liberal democracies than the sweeping reforms of dictatorships.

Hope this is more what you were looking for.

Once again -- Cheers, mate.

Answer 3

Sorry, but this won't be a deep political answer! Just a simple concept.

The pendulum swings from side to side and sometimes closer to the middle. Who swings that pendulum? The gods, fate, mankind? Evolution and the rocking to and fro of Mother Earth and Father Time in the music of the Universe. It's a dance.

We are never without motion. We are part of the process. Seeking balance and compromise puts you somewhere in the middle of it?

What was radical today, may not be radical tomorrow. Our universe is expanding. And we are evolving.

Get your point though ... as Human beings: care takers of the planet & inhabitants and tops on the food chain, it's our challenge to make the music and the dance is as beneficial as possible.

Answer 4

Changing wallpapers is about the only thing humans can do. Degree of free-will given to the species is only that much! Hence opposites always cancel each other so as to retain "balance!" After all, when talking about Products (P) AND Production Capabilities (PC), didn't Dr. Stephen R. Covey explain the need to maintain the P/PC balance. One has to maintain the goose to keep getting the golden eggs! Dr. Covey further said that "balance" is another name for God.

I would say that by the word God, Dr. Covey probably meant Nature, with all its balancing forces of sinusoidal "destruction and construction" at all levels, from the microscopic to the macroscopic.

Answer 5

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "radical ideologies"... you seem a bit confused on that one yourself...

I think of "radical" as being "not the norm" and outside of what most in society think... yet the two examples you seem to cite have A LOT of public support on both sides... not really that radical... if almost 50 percent of the society agrees with it... I don't think it's that "radical"

but, the thing is... radical is sometimes crazy... and sometimes the wave of the future...

it was "radical" to free the slaves at one time... "radical" for women to vote... "radical" to say the earth was round and not the center of the universe....

but these things have become socially accpeted as either proper moral stances or scientifically proven to be correct... for the most part...

so... i guess my answer to your question would be... yes... not always... but sometimes...

Answer 6

The idea that we need to protect the environment, or that we can have a lasting negative effect on the oceans, was once considered to be a radical ideology, much as many people consider man-made global warming to be a radical ideology today. Most of Einstein's theories of the universe were considered radical at the time as well.

You have to have radical ideologies from some quarter, or scientific progress will come to a screeching halt.

Answer 7

Ideologies were ghostly and deadly words from the graveyards of failures and horrors of the past with living human kind living in misery in own backyards with the loss of peace on earth goodwill to men in planet of apes.
Our creator's universal gifts of life is the living words that create the peace on earth goodwill to men in planet of apes.
Ideologies is not the creator of heaven and earth but past dirty old men like you an me who made blunders and slip-ups with human errors back in the past in making a mess planet of apes.

Answer 8

All we can do is watch fox news and listen to hate radio until the war on terror is over.

Answer 9

Yes, although not the kind of "contributions" which are good

http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php