Left / Right: Meaningless Today?
Whatagwaan?
You have the UK 'Socialist' party cosying up to the most 'right-wing' President the US has ever had and deprecating the new 'socialist' government in Spain. Zapatero's party finds good friends in the centre-right administration of France. The government of China is going hell-for-leather toward a market economy, and everyone's enemy is 'terrorism' which is a tactic, not an ideology (and makes the battle unwinnable incidentally).
In the US (of which everyone in the world apart from the UK and Israel is increasingly nervous) you have ever tighter control of IP and personal freedoms and ever more religion-centered initiatives of policy and law. I argue that to call this 'right-wing' is incorrect. It's something else. I believe only the most naive or implicated person would deny that the US is changing into something new, but what?
With the forthcoming effects of climate change (which all world governments, especially the UK's but not the Bush admin) acknowledge to be real, and the seismic economic effects oil's increased cost of exploitation coming together (also an inescapable fact although you can argue about timing), it seems to me that there's some new way of inter-relation between 'state,' 'person' and 'world' about to become much more easy to understand. Major, major changes are afoot.
If it's a dialectic thing, is it McWorld v Jihad? What is it?
You have the UK 'Socialist' party cosying up to the most 'right-wing' President the US has ever had and deprecating the new 'socialist' government in Spain. Zapatero's party finds good friends in the centre-right administration of France. The government of China is going hell-for-leather toward a market economy, and everyone's enemy is 'terrorism' which is a tactic, not an ideology (and makes the battle unwinnable incidentally).
In the US (of which everyone in the world apart from the UK and Israel is increasingly nervous) you have ever tighter control of IP and personal freedoms and ever more religion-centered initiatives of policy and law. I argue that to call this 'right-wing' is incorrect. It's something else. I believe only the most naive or implicated person would deny that the US is changing into something new, but what?
With the forthcoming effects of climate change (which all world governments, especially the UK's but not the Bush admin) acknowledge to be real, and the seismic economic effects oil's increased cost of exploitation coming together (also an inescapable fact although you can argue about timing), it seems to me that there's some new way of inter-relation between 'state,' 'person' and 'world' about to become much more easy to understand. Major, major changes are afoot.
If it's a dialectic thing, is it McWorld v Jihad? What is it?
Comments
Originally posted by segovius
It's scared people who are so insecure they can only maintain balance by convincing others they are right
So True! I would argue that just and secure people promote pluralism.
The fact is that we are indeed all different yet alike. We can co-exist with our differences and promote a society at large that provides for our differences without the need to have interfighting when we simply behave as adults.
Fellowship
Originally posted by segovius
Welcome back Fellowship - I was starting to think you'd taken an extended holiday
actually,, 8) A friend of mine flew in and visited. I was here off and on but I did not really post. He left last night so I will be back in full force
Fellows
Originally posted by shetline
The whole left/right thing needs to be turned ninety degrees. We can replace 'left' with 'forward' and 'right' with 'backward'. That'll fix things up nicely.
Of course, how do you reconcile the forward agenda of backwards conservatives? Or the forward agenda of progressives? Seems one of these "sides" has a consistency problem.
Originally posted by Harald
Whatagwaan?
You have the UK 'Socialist' party cosying up to the most 'right-wing' President the US has ever had and deprecating the new 'socialist' government in Spain. Zapatero's party finds good friends in the centre-right administration of France. The government of China is going hell-for-leather toward a market economy, and everyone's enemy is 'terrorism' which is a tactic, not an ideology (and makes the battle unwinnable incidentally).
In the US (of which everyone in the world apart from the UK and Israel is increasingly nervous) you have ever tighter control of IP and personal freedoms and ever more religion-centered initiatives of policy and law. I argue that to call this 'right-wing' is incorrect. It's something else. I believe only the most naive or implicated person would deny that the US is changing into something new, but what?
With the forthcoming effects of climate change (which all world governments, especially the UK's but not the Bush admin) acknowledge to be real, and the seismic economic effects oil's increased cost of exploitation coming together (also an inescapable fact although you can argue about timing), it seems to me that there's some new way of inter-relation between 'state,' 'person' and 'world' about to become much more easy to understand. Major, major changes are afoot.
If it's a dialectic thing, is it McWorld v Jihad? What is it?
Bush, most right wing ever???? WTF??? when did that happen??
Ever heard of Ragen? he was far more conservative than bush, he made bush look like a lefty!
And if you go line item by line item, JFK (Kennedy, NOT kerry) was slightly more conservative than bush, remember the cuba crisis, and what did Kennedy do to help the struggleing USA econ.? Thats right! TAX CUTS!!!!
dont beleive me, look it up
Originally posted by a_greer
Bush, most right wing ever???? WTF??? when did that happen??
Ever heard of Ragen? he was far more conservative than bush, he made bush look like a lefty!
And if you go line item by line item, JFK (Kennedy, NOT kerry) was slightly more conservative than bush, remember the cuba crisis, and what did Kennedy do to help the struggleing USA econ.? Thats right! TAX CUTS!!!!
dont beleive me, look it up
Great... so there has been a shift in what is defined as liberal. a conservative during kennedy's presidency would have probably believed that whites were superior to blacks and this necessitated separating the races. now we see the same thing except its in economic terms...
Originally posted by billybobsky
Great... so there has been a shift in what is defined as liberal. a conservative during kennedy's presidency would have probably believed that whites were superior to blacks and this necessitated separating the races. now we see the same thing except its in economic terms...
Look up some history. The Civil Rights Act was voted for by a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Democrats set up a very long filibuster of it that included among others Al Gore's Daddy, the Sr. Gore.
The Democrats were badly split on civil rights. They could not enact the bill alone even those they had a very large majority. The majority vote only occured because the Republicans disproportionately voted for the bill in larger percentages than the Democrats did.
Democrats have owned the south every since whites were given back the vote after the civil war. There are offices in the South that have still NEVER had a Republican in them during the entire time they have existed. The only reason the South has begun to trend Republican in national terms is because Democrats nationally have turned white men into basically the devil incarnate. Almost every Democrat from the South has won the presidency. (Carter, Clinton twice, Gore won popular vote)
Nick
Read my post and try again, again again...
I thought you were a school teacher... ah well. i guess people choose not to read...
here is a hint:
liberal versus conservative
versus
democrat versus republican
god i hate this...
Originally posted by trumptman
Look up some history. The Civil Rights Act was voted for by a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Democrats set up a very long filibuster of it that included among others Al Gore's Daddy, the Sr. Gore.
The Democrats were badly split on civil rights. They could not enact the bill alone even those they had a very large majority. The majority vote only occured because the Republicans disproportionately voted for the bill in larger percentages than the Democrats did.
Democrats have owned the south every since whites were given back the vote after the civil war. There are offices in the South that have still NEVER had a Republican in them during the entire time they have existed. The only reason the South has begun to trend Republican in national terms is because Democrats nationally have turned white men into basically the devil incarnate. Almost every Democrat from the South has won the presidency. (Carter, Clinton twice, Gore won popular vote)
Nick
Now that your condescension has been appropriately responded to; i can now address your retarded claims...
Democrats were the party of the south prior and up to civil rights. Yes, it was the party of the white supremicist that came to power after a back room deal killed the reconstruction of the south... It changed slowly after the nativist movements became unions and more open to foreigners. So what?
The south did not elect gore. The south wasn't necessary for clinton's win. The south did go to carter. but it still hadn't completely changed over (and carter was loyal to the southern democratic party not so much the liberal aspects of it).
what ever party the south supports invariably has backwards tendencies, historically. i am from the south, and this is the most obvious statement of american politics for the last 1.5 centuries. don't pretend to lecture me on something that 1) has no relevance to my comments and 2) you know nothing about...
Originally posted by billybobsky
Yay nick and party loyalty...
Read my post and try again, again again...
I thought you were a school teacher... ah well. i guess people choose not to read...
here is a hint:
liberal versus conservative
versus
democrat versus republican
god i hate this...
So let me guess. You are saying Al Gore Sr, in not supporting the Civil Rights Act was a conservative and that most Democrats were conservative as well. Also that the majority of Republicans were liberal.
Parse and backpedal all you want. Your stereotypes cannot be justified.
Nick
Otherwise the thread is closed.
Fellowship
Originally posted by billybobsky
Now that your condescension has been appropriately responded to; i can now address your retarded claims...
Democrats were the party of the south prior and up to civil rights. Yes, it was the party of the white supremicist that came to power after a back room deal killed the reconstruction of the south... It changed slowly after the nativist movements became unions and more open to foreigners. So what?
The south did not elect gore. The south wasn't necessary for clinton's win. The south did go to carter. but it still hadn't completely changed over (and carter was loyal to the southern democratic party not so much the liberal aspects of it).
what ever party the south supports invariably has backwards tendencies, historically. i am from the south, and this is the most obvious statement of american politics for the last 1.5 centuries. don't pretend to lecture me on something that 1) has no relevance to my comments and 2) you know nothing about...
Actually the South was still Democratic even after the Civil Rights Act. Remember that the Republicans didn't even have a majority in Congress until 1994. Call me crazy but that is a considerable amount of time after the Civil Rights Act. People only link the two because the want to call people racist instead of debating their ideas.
The South didn't elect Gore because Gore changed many of his views once he decided to become a national candidate. It may astonish you but Gore for example was pro-life until he decided to run for president the first time. His wife helped create the PMRC which puts all those nice puritanical warnings on all your cd's where you might hear a curse word from someone who flashed their breast at the Super Bowl.
Here's a hint. The South didn't change their positions. Gore changed his and race had nothing to do with that.
As for Clinton, he didn't carry every state in the South, but he did carry Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Georgia and his home state of Arkansas when elected in 1992. However consider again that Clinton was really a centrist candidate, creating the DLC, signing welfare reform, etc. He was the master of the targeted tax cut and masterfully created paradoxical positions that confounded the left and right. Anyone here remember something called "triangulation?"
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
So let me guess. You are saying Al Gore Sr, in not supporting the Civil Rights Act was a conservative and that most Democrats were conservative as well. Also that the majority of Republicans were liberal.
Parse and backpedal all you want. Your stereotypes cannot be justified.
Nick
Most Democrats-- about 63% or something-- voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Most Republicans--about 79%-- voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act. It's confusing to me, but I definitely think voting against the Act is a solid conservative position to take.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Most Democrats-- about 63% or something-- voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Most Republicans--about 79%-- voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act. It's confusing to me, but I definitely think voting against the Act is a solid conservative position to take.
I don't honestly see how I can even attempt to interact with such flawed reasoning. You assign as conservative that which only 21% of what is considered the conservative party supported and also that which the liberal party, the supposed party of change supported at a much lower rate.
Even when you look at it historically, the Republican party was formed from the Whig party collapsing and the Democratic Party splitting nationally over slavery. The only thing I could draw from the lack of historical understanding demonstrated is that you somehow think Democrats historically stood against slavery and for civil rights when in fact they didn't.
Now on to the topic at hand...
The reason these left right values are "changing" worldwide is because the reality is that socialism, or even half forms of socialism can't be afforded or funded. I posted another thread about the 10 deficits facing America. Many other countries are also facing even larger deficits when it comes to retirement and medical financing.
In short the government gets in, it gets expensive and soon deficits are found everywhere because the costs always exceed the rate of inflation. Since the areas they intervene in are considered fundimentals for life, they end up making life much harder for all involved. Worse yet, they have created a mentality of entitlement and ever rising expectations. Both Republicans and Democrats are fully guilty of this and have proven that the ideal is bad no matter who applies it. The new alignments are more like musical chairs on the Titanic as they all try to see who is going to get stuck without a chair and thus blaimed.
Social Security WILL go bankrupt. It will be revealed as the world's biggest scam. Other countries are already running deficits and reducing benefits in their retirement systems and are facing the same fate.
Medicare will go bankrupt. Doctors will simply stop accepting the patients. If need be they will simply revert back to a cash only brand of medicine when the insurance and governmental paper mountain becomes to large.
Lastly, the western Democracies will all likely attempt to inflate their way out of these messes with regard to money and it will DESTROY the poor and elderly financially when that is who they claimed they were helping all along.
Nick