So, what do you expect?

[Silent3]

If you have an idealistic view of how the world should be -- about health care, justice, the distribution of wealth, human rights, freedom of expression, freedom from discrimination, the environment, etc. -- how much of those ideals do you think can actually be achieved? How far do you think we are from the most you think we can reasonably expect?

When you think about where the US is now, do you tend to compare against your ideals, compare to other countries and other times in human history, or a bit of both?

Are you pessimistic about achieving a better world, and complain mostly because you feel the need to vent, or do you complain because you're optimistic and hope that your words can play a part in motivating positive change?

Do you think the imperfect democratic institutions we live with can be moved toward your ideals, or that only violent revolution would be enough to move the world to where you think it should be? A related, but not entirely identical question: Do you think only severe hardship will motivate people to move in the direction you think the country and the world should go -- things have to get much, much worse before they get better -- or that a better world can evolve a few less-traumatic steps at a time?

Do you appreciate the good things we (as a country, as a species) have achieved, enough so that you think the human condition is a lot better even now than it might otherwise be? Do you think "Anything is better than what we have now!" and would rather just see the shit hit the fan ("burn it all down!!!") because whatever results "has got to be better than this!"?

Could your ideal world, or something close to it, survive democratic challenge, or would it have to be imposed?

Do you temper your idealism with practical concerns, or does talk of practicality just make you angry, something you view as an excuse for apathy or a lack of will to "challenge the status quo"?

Do you view the ways in which the world falls short of your ideals as attributable mostly to human nature and expected social dynamics, or a result of an organized repressive system?

[Fumesucker]

1. History is chaotic in the mathematical sense..

Sometimes major turning points of history hinge on fairly small details, hang out on soc.history.what-if for a while and you'll realize just how complex trying to predict the future can be.

That being said, according to Mark Twain history does not repeat itself but it does rhyme.

Which seems to make good sense to me, situations change but people largely do not.

[Silent3]

7. In chaos theory small changes become magnified in unpredictable ways...

...which I think is quite applicable to real life, but knowledge of that fact doesn't give you a strategy you can use, it only helps you temper your expectations.

In the realm of what we can try to control with some reasonable expectation of success, going by historical precedents, I see a lot of lack of appreciation for how much humanity has improved its lot in many countries, including our own. That doesn't mean I don't think things can't be better -- a lot better -- but just saying that anything is currently good, worth holding onto, or something you should think twice before putting at risk, is all it takes to get some people foaming at the mouth about complacency with the status quo, lack of concern for people with real problems, naivete, complicity with oppression, etc., etc., often from people with highly unrealistic expectations and a terrible lack of perspective.

[Fumesucker]

10. One of the few benefits of getting older is gaining perspective.

But we really don't know what actions can lead to losing what we have that is good or possibly gaining even more that is good.

We can only make guesses at what our actions will bring forth, we have no way of knowing for sure.

Being able to look at things from more than one perspective is often a good thing that can allow you to see things that would otherwise have gone unnoticed.

[Silent3]

11. What I find amusing about many conspiratorial views of the world...

...is how the powerful elites are apparently capable of wreaking massive havoc like wars and financial collapse in order to create pre-determined results in their collective favor. No matter what happens, it's all part of The Plan, and They always win.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Thank you for a thoughtful post.

[rucky]

3. The source of my frustration is this practice of compromising...

before a process even starts.

In my line of work, you start a project by mapping out what you want, and then start the process. Somewhere along the way, you make compromises - that's expected. The end result is rarely what you originally planned. But if you don't even draw the ideal plans first, and start with the less-than-ideal, where can you really go from there?

[Silent3]

4. I understand what you're saying, and agree to an extent...

...but I'd counter that most planning doesn't start out as complete pie-in-the-sky, or if it does, that's a short-live "brain storming" part of a process, and certainly very few people get upset or angry because there aren't fierce advocates of pie-in-the-sky ideals who persevere in their ideals throughout process.

Let's take health care as an example. How idealized do you want to start out? I could advocate universal health care that even includes elective cosmetic surgery and treatment so good that average lifespans reach 200 years. Let's make it truly universal and include animals as well as people!

Of course we aren't going to start any serious planning there. There's no sense starting there and waiting through a long process for that ideal to pass. It's a no-go out of the gate, and it's not really a bad thing that we internally compromise with reality before even putting something like that on the table.

I think I'd need a real-world example from you about what kind of compromise is too much compromise done too soon.

[rucky]

5. Sure you have to start with some parameters.

You want a program that's sustainable - the most for your money. A program that will bankrupt us (even more), is not ideal. That plays into the first stage of planning.

There are several solid plans out there that would fit the profile of "ideal", but are not given serious consideration because of just that. We're so used to watering everything down, we don't even try anymore.

Medicare bill is a good example, where any collective bargaining for pharmaceuticals started out as summarily rejected. People had to fight for it backwards, and got a pretty weak drug-classification system that only really helped a small percentage of the population, and created the infamous "donut hole".

[Bandit]

6. I am an idealist and want a perfect world

I am also somewhat pragmatic and know perfection is not in the cards, but what I would like more than anything is for the USA to be a descent country. It can not be so unless people from all Parties decide as a country we do not Torture and we need to prosecute any and all that are responsible for the USA having done so. I had the allusion that at one time we actually were a descent country.. Boy am I a dummy.

[Silent3]

8. Or even a deCent country.

I don't think a deSCent country is a good idea, unless you like things going downhill. :)

Certainly getting rid of institutionally-accepted torture is well within the achievable, and a very worthwhile goal.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. I gave up on idealism after Kent State and the American people cheered the National Guard.

Now, I'm a realist who does what he can to make the world a little better for some people.

http://www.kiva.org/?gclid=CPb7_4GjwZoCFRk_awodWFIgsA