So first it was COMMUNIST. (actually it was probably something else before that, but I don't know it.) And Communist got a bad meaning attached to it so they switched to...
SOCIALIST. Much the same with subtle differences that don't ammount to much and you'd be hard pressed to find someone to come up with anything significant. But that eventually got a stigma attached to it to so then we had...
LIBERAL. This used to have a fine and noble meaning, but once again it got corrupted by what people MEANT by it, so now we have...
PROGRESSIVE. This sounds nice, I mean, they're for Progress right? No, it really means Incrementalist. Move the country toward what they want one step at a time. But fear not. Sooner or later, as people always do, they'll figure out that Progressive is just all the previous names they've given it and the progressives will move on to another term.
Pix
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I don't see any bias here at all.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I think socialist came before communist, right?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Could be right, Book. Point is, they're always changing what they call themselves as soon as the word takes on the stigma of what they mean by it.
[ June 19, 2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I never really understood what progressive meant. It seems like quite the buzzword. To me, it seems to mean, "I am in favor of progress," which would probably border on retarded.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why doe people have such contempt for the so-called left? Some of their philosophies make sense...
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Yeah, everyone who defines him or herself as a progressive is only doing it because it's a fad. Uh huh.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
yeah, damn those pinkie progressives.
oh how i look foreward to the days of unregulated corporate monopolies; bring back the 20's!!!
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
unregulated corporate monopolies or unregulated government monopolies... one side or the other. can't we find something in between.
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
Actually, progressives came before liberals. Pixiest, I think you're spouting a bit too much venom.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Todays liberals are yesterday's communists?
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:unregulated corporate monopolies or unregulated government monopolies
i don't really see any difference between the two.
so this country was created based on some pretty lofty ideals; equality and liberty and the rule of law and all that. only problem is that it has yet to live up to those ideals (perhaps never will). so we have two choices: abandon those ideals or work towards achieving them. i don't think anyone will honestly argue that we should attempt to undo the civil rights movement, or women's suffrage, or the new deal (although some people might argue this one), or the emancipation proclamation, or the extension of voting rights to non-landholding white males. we look back now on these steps towards what we consider "america" and take them for granted as something intrinsic to the nature of our country, but at the time, the people advocating these changes were considered radicals, liberals, progressives, socialists, whatever. There were no "good old days" which we need to get back to, the history of this country is one of slow evolution towards something better, the majority of the population usually kicking and screaming against any changes. Nothing's really changed, just the particular issues.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
The progressive label was in vogue at the turn of the 20th century and I don't see it going out of vogue anytime soon.
quote: "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." - GKC, 4/19/24
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Point is, they're always changing what they call themselves as soon as the word takes on the stigma of what they mean by it."
Pixiest, this is more than a little disingenuous of you, as you're perfectly well aware of the fact that conservatives have been working hard to associate liberalism with communism -- and nazism, generic evil, etc. -- for years, and have begun to do the same to the word "progressive."
It has nothing to do with how liberals -- or progressives -- actually ACT; it has everything to do with conservative propaganda designed to turn the label into a curse word.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I AM.
I am King.
The King of Kings is my King.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
So Teddy Roosevelt was a Communist? Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
If you do not like what they are doing with the language, then do unto them as they have done unto us. (By us I mean anyone who does not support theft by taxation.) Call yourself a Progressive, emphasizing the personal freedom aspects of libertarianism/anarchism. Soften up the economic liberation aspects of the platform until the word has taken on a newer meaning. Remember, everything is progress to someone.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
For what it's worth, I've been a "lefty" for at least 35 years - so much for fads.
Never cared much for the "liberal" label, but for reasons better laid out by Phil Ochs in "Love Me, I'm a Liberal."
quote:I vote for the democtratic party They want the U.N. to be strong I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts He sure gets me singing those songs I'll send all the money you ask for But don't ask me to come on along So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
Communism was never something I could identify with - socialism, either, for that matter. Aside from the dismal way communism generally worked out in the real world, ideological recipes don't seem to be real useful in that same real world.
"Progressive" is an older term than you might think - and it's pretty meaningless. It's a label that has encompassed, among other things, the eugenics movement in the early 1900s. It's encompassed some other things too - like universal suffrage. But there's no real consistency in just what the heck it ends up meaning.
So I'm a lefty - identifying with the self-interests of those not doing so well in this society. I figure that those of us on that end of the spectrum have every bit as much right to advocate for policy in our perceived self-interest as insurance companies, multinational corporations and other deep pockets. Because you all know, I hope, that corporate dollars spent on policy advocacy aren't formulated on what's good for the country - but what's good for the stockholder.
Anyway, Pixiest, not sure where you're aiming here. Lots of people drift with the political tides - to both sides of the spectrum. Some of us have been pretty stable politically for decades.
Posted by Jalapenoman (Member # 6575) on :
It seems that there was this political party in about 1900 that was running on a platform of social change. They wanted a five day work week, public schools with a free education, national parks, and several other currently recognized civil rights. The party that advocated these radical, unheard of ideas was the American Socialist Party. Isn't it funny that everything they stood for 100 years ago is now considered a traditional American value?
Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
I never did like their car insurance commercials.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
On behalf of all the Norse Christian Jedi Kings and Family, I am for grace! God and Harmony!
GO TEAM!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Norse Christian Jedi Kings and Family"
How large is this demographic?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon England's mountain green? And was the holy Lamb of God On England's pleasant pastures seen? And did the countenance divine Shine forth upon our clouded hills? And was Jerusalem builded here Among those dark satanic mills?
Bring me my bow of burning gold! Bring me my arrows of desire! Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold! Bring me my chariot of fire! I will not cease from mental fight, Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, Till we have built Jerusalem In England's green and pleasant land.
Words by William Blake (1757-1827)
The Red Flag [1889]
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold Their hearts' blood dyed to every fold
Chorus: Then raise the scarlet standard high Beneath its folds we'll live and die Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
It waved above our infant might When all ahead seemed dark as night It witnessed many a deed and vow We must not change its colour now
Chorus
It well recalls the triumphs past It gives the hope of peace at last The banner bright, the symbol plain Of human right and human gain
Chorus
It suits today the meek and base Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place To cringe beneath the rich man's frown And haul that sacred emblem down
Chorus
With heads uncovered swear we all To bare it onward till we fall Come dungeons dark or gallows grim This song shall be our parting hymn
Then raise the scarlet standard high Beneath its folds we'll live and die Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
Words: Jim Connell Music: "The White Cockade"
I Dreamed I Saw Phil Ochs Last Night
[1989]
I dreamed I saw Phil Ochs last night Alive as you and me Says I to Phil "You're ten years dead" "I never died" says he "I never died" says he
The music business killed you Phil They ignored the things you said And cast you out when fashions changed Says Phil "But I ain't dead" Says Phil "But I ain't dead"
The FBI harassed you Phil They smeared you with their lies Says he "But they could never kill What they could not compromise I never compromised"
"Though fashion's changed and critics sneered The songs that I have sung Are just as true tonight as then The struggle carries on The struggle carries on"
When the song of freedom rings out loud From valleys and from hills Where people stand up for their rights Phil Ochs is with us still Phil Ochs inspires us still
Words: Billy Bragg
[ June 22, 2004, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
The trouble is, it isn't really accurate. Ochs died by his own hand - or rope, more accurately. And while his life did have a tendency to dump on him, his friends and family all agreed that it was his inability to deal successfully with alcholism and accompanying depression that really did him in.
There are martyrs in this world. Ochs wasn't one of them.
Which doesn't have anything to do with the quality of his music or the causes he tended to front for - mostly, they were my causes too.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
IF we want to go by "classic" definitions -- America's "conservatives" are actually "liberal." And the "liberals" are actually the classic "radical."
Labels, labels, labels -- whose got the labels?
I don't really care about the labels anymore. I am labeled a "conservative" though my leanings are actually far more "libertarian." I don't really care for either of the 2 "big parties" but the Republicans mesh with my views more often than the Democrats, so I am a registered Republican. This seems to have automatically earned me the "conservative" label.
Oh well. Talk to me on an individual basis -- then tell me what you think. Don't paint with a broad brush.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Unlike Magson, I love to be painted with a broad brush. The bristles tickle deliciously. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
On the contrary, America's liberals are conservative.
American conservatives are retrogressive: working for a return of poisonous rivers&lakes, nylon-melting smog, species extinction, clear-cutting of public forests, sales of public lands and resourses to the favored few for pennies on the dollar, sales of monopolies on government-funded research for pennies on the dollar, bacteria-laden meat and produce, government-backed breakups of cooperatives and unions, the 100hour workweek, sick&starving elderly and children, forced childbearing, indentured servitude and slavery, JimCrow under "states rights", illiteracy in the general citizenry, return of a permanent aristocracy, limiting of the right to travel freely and voting rights to only those deemed to be socially/politically correct, etc ad nauseum.
[ June 22, 2004, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
Ook ook ook!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:American conservatives are retrogressive: working for a return of poisonous rivers&lakes, nylon-melting smog, species extinction, clear-cutting of public forests, sales of public lands and resourses to the favored few for pennies on the dollar, sales of monopolies on government-funded research for pennies on the dollar, bacteria-laden meat and produce, breakup of cooperatives and unions, the 100hour workweek, sick&starving elderly and children, forced childbearing, indentured servitude and slavery, JimCrow under "states rights", illiteracy in the general citizenry, return of a permanent aristocracy, limiting of the right to travel freely and voting rights to only those deemed to be socially/politically correct, etc ad nauseum.
You know what - you are utterly full of bulls*&^.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Truth hurts, don't it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No - deliberate mischaracterizations by a paranoid delusional hate-monger do. I've overlooked your "conservatives are incompetents" tripe before. But this one is too much.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
aspectre,
Just want to say that Dag's not the only one who finds the content of your message more than a little manure-laden. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can't imagine he thought he would be taken seriously.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
He's posted before that conservatives are incompetents seeking to game the system to keep their children from having to work. He's also posted numerous posts with the same sentiment as the one in question here, just not quite as blatantly odious.
In short, his history shows no particular reason why he wasn't intending to be taken seriously.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I missed the part of this thread where you defended liberals from the Pixiest, Dag. Where was that, again?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I missed the part where you defended conservatives from aspectre. Ever.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Erm... you do try and paint yourself as impartial, Dags. Tom, on the other hand, is very in-your-face about his bias.
*backs away slowly*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, I know he's posted like that before. I just didn't imagine he thought it was credible. This is Hatrack. He does read. He couldn't be serious?
[ June 22, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BtL, there were numerous people opposing pixiest in a fairly even-handed discussion, including Tom. Frankly, I found the discussion fairly ludicrous from the get-go, but had nothing new to add to it. From experience, I know aspectre's asinine comments usually go unrefuted. Plus, no one had responded to it when I read the thread.
I've spent entire threads chastizing the people on my side of an issue. I've never painted myself as impartial - I've been very partisan (as in choosing sides, not politcal parties) on almost every issue of significance on this board. I have tried to be fair, and call people on it when they're not.
Dagonee Kat: Lot's of people have made generalized comments in a joking manner, including Tom and myself. We usually use a smiley. If we don't, and it's misinterpreted, we usually clear up the misinterpretation. He did neither, nor has he ever, even when I've called him on inaccuracies before.
[ June 22, 2004, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He = aspectre
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, he = aspectre in my last post, too.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, exactly.
In other words, he's either goofing off or else nothing you could say would go through anyway. But if it makes you happy, don't let me stop the tilting. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
aspectre's posts go mostly ignored because they tend to be so extremist. Sometimes he's like the background noise that sort of gives this place some of its charm. And he's hardly alone on that count.
I'm pretty confident when I say that you're much more likely to defend the conservative point of view than the liberal. Though, as you say, that may well be because many of the more outspoken members of the board are currently liberal. As for your impartiality, you do (I believe) tend to present your opinions as being "above the fray", so to speak. I say that because I can count on you to correct someone's language and get into issues word choice, but frequently I don't know where you stand by the end of the conversation. That might just be me reading too much into things. But hey, you're more than welcome to E-mail me about it.
Anyway, my real reason for replying before Tom was that I don't feel like reading that particular argument and so tried to head it off at the pass Selfish and arrogant of me? Guilty as charged.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Damnit! Pix is on to us!
HEIL STALIN!
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Well, I guess that evens things out.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd be the first to admit that on many issues I'm much more likely to take the more typically conservative position - abortion, taxes, gun control, crime, affirmative action, smaller government, the list goes on. Issues where I take the "liberal" position are usually based on a more typically "conservative" principle. Gay marriage is the perfect example, where I come from a weird states rights/civil marriage is already removed from any traditional concept of marriage.
Also, I certainly have nothing against people taking sides in an issue. What I HATE is people demonizing others. In the infamous Good...OSC thread, almost all the demonizing was going one way (of course, the article that started it demonized in the other direction). It's why I don't post at Ornery - what's the point?
I guess I hold an ideal of Hatrack that discussions can actually change the participant's minds sometimes. And that can't happen if each side doesn't understand the other. So I do spend a lot of time explaining the underlying principles behind a lot of people's views, especially in cases where the difference of opinion is really about differing views of a worldview principle that is 4 steps removed form the discussion and that most people don't realize is even in play.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Frankly, jebus's post is a pretty conclusive answer to the opening post of the thread.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You were around for the infamous Good OSC thread? Was it that recently? Nifty.
Don't worry, Dags, we're still cool.
And, erm. I really don't have anything else to say. I hope you weren't expecting more.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Heck, I've been here 9 months now.
And yes, we're cool. Very cool. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
sndrake,
yes. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow. Storm Saxon comes back and this is the first thread he jumps into? How you been? What you been up to?
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Not to be coy, but not much. Basically trying to dig myself out of a hole I put myself in. :/
And now for some blather.
Speaking of being coy, did the relevant parties get what I was trying to say with my link? Let me add to that that it might be enlightening for some people to read up on the turn of the century Progressive party. I think 90% of [edit:liberals or conservatives on this board] you would probably have no problem with them.
The traditional expressions of progressivism/communism/liberalism are all, to me, expressions of some kind of yearning to be free, and to help others be as free as possible. To remove the bonds that others have put on you because of your class, or race, or sex, or sexual orientation, whatever. Whether or not you agree with their necessity or the outcome of the *ideal*, these attitudes have been around for as long as there have been people, and should be worthy of respect.
I agree with Magson that, sometimes, conservatives are fighting against entrentched liberal attitudes such that they are the 'liberals'. I hardly think that they are today's 'liberals', though.
I happen to like the label of liberal and conservative. Currently, I think conservativism and liberalism can best be viewed in terms of order.
To me, most people who can be called conservatives that I've met do believe that the 'old-fashioned' standards of God/Some kind of old-fashioned absolutism; reverence of country; economic competition such that it reinforces God, family, and country; and family are the cornerstones of what is good. Are there any people who consider themselves conservatives that do not agree that these are the best goals of a country?
In this sense, as you see on this board, many people who call themselves conservative are perfectly happy with government taking a hand to pull people up, to educate them and feed them, to take a hand in how business is run, to facilitate strong families and in keeping with biblical-ish principles of helping your fellow man. When Orson goes on about what the Democratic party used to be, he is pretty much talking about progressives.
So, liberalism and conservativism are very intermixed.
After thinking about this, I think that what seperates out the real liberals from the conservatives are how much pain and death you are willing to put up with in your fellow man. I'm not talking about anarchy, but freedom equals the freedom to fall, to fail, and to hurt yourself. The more you go towards the ideal of freedom, the more you go towards greater individually induced suffering and death. For various reasons, real liberals are o.k. with others hurting themselves, while conservatives are not.
Yes, I know. None of these opinions are really new outside of this board. But I'm not sure that I've seen them expressed on this board, and so am offering them up for your delight, or revulsion, Whichever is your choice.
[ June 22, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For various reasons, real liberals are o.k. with others hurting themselves, while conservatives are not.
I lack time to fully discuss your post, but this sentence puzzled me. A lot of conservative economic policies are based on people accepting the consequences of their actions (i.e., hurting themselves sometimes). In fact, I'd bet a particular social program will score higher approval among most conservatives the more the events that lead to the need for help are outside the person's control (or perceived to be outside the person's control, to be more accurate).
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I lack time to fully discuss your post, but this sentence puzzled me. A lot of conservative economic policies are based on people accepting the consequences of their actions (i.e., hurting themselves sometimes).
It's already been observed that sometimes conservatives are really liberals. In any case, many 'conservative' economic positions I've seen taken are *economically* liberal(free)...to a certain point. Conservatives are o.k. with risk inasmuch as it doesn't interfere with the healthy functioning of God (aka the religious life/the church), the country, the family, or the person. They believe that by 'accepting the consequences of their actions', they will behave morally, which benefits God, country, etc.
I'm not arguing that conservatives want the world to be free of *struggle*. As in exercise, resistance and pain create strength.
Liberal economic and social positions whose goal is freedom, and *not* an ordered ideal, don't care whether someone accepts the consequences of their actions or not, as conservatives want. They accept the fact that people are going to crash and burn and possibly destroy themselves and that this may have short-term dire consequences with many families and people suffering.
What I'm proposing is that the more someone supports individual choice (I know you hate that phrase in the context of abortion. Sorry.), regardless of consequences to themselves or others, the more liberal they are.
I'm not making a value judgement. I'm not really sure how much I believe what I wrote before. I'm really just throwing it out for discussion as a response to the extremely simple views Pixiest expressed in her initial post htat assumed a simple reality for what it means to be liberal or progressive.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the personal choice thing can be floated in support of both. Affirmative action restricts personal choice as to who gets hired, just as minimum wage and maximum hours laws restrict the right of someone to freely contract for sale of their labor. The latter two were struck down by the Supreme Court consistently in the first part of last century on the basis of interfering with the right to contract. Yet all 3 of these are more typical of the conservative than liberal position.
And that's ignoring gun ownership altogether.
So I think you're missing a factor in your definition.
Dagonee P.S., now THIS is a fun conversation.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think the personal choice thing can be floated in support of both. Affirmative action restricts personal choice as to who gets hired, just as minimum wage and maximum hours laws restrict the right of someone to freely contract for sale of their labor. The latter two were struck down by the Supreme Court consistently in the first part of last century on the basis of interfering with the right to contract. Yet all 3 of these are more typical of the conservative than liberal position.
And that's ignoring gun ownership altogether.
So I think you're missing a factor in your definition.
Your point is well taken.
I think what your post brings out is that there are some things that are liberal for the short term, but not for the long term, and vice versa. When we look at the long-term effects of where your specific issues lead to, I think many people would argue that, at least in the case, of AA and minimum wage, there is a net loss of freedom. Now, the funny thing here is that I think that when a 'liberal' works for something like AA or minimum wage, which deny individual choice, in order to force some order on a group of people that would result in greater freedom (choices/power) for others, he is in fact being a short-term conservative.
On the other hand, I think many conservatives (whether they admit it or not ) support the liberal short-term choice because they think that it maintains a certain order in the long term.
This is why I think that what is normally called liberalism and conservativism, to me, are intertwined, whether people want to admit it or not. Conservatives are liberals when it suits them. Liberals are conservatives when they want to establish a certain order. Or, as has long been noted, a liberal is just a conservative who has been pulled over by the police. A conservative is someone who just got mugged. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Storm,
I don't think your characterizations hold up all that well.
In the early 1900s, one of the agendas the progressives pushed was forced sterilization, something that denies personal freedom. To be fair, they were also pushing for access to birth control (and for awhile there was overlap between the two - some would say the rhetoric of eugenics was never completely purged from the language of reproductive rights advocates).
The union movement was also a complex situation. As a response to horrendous conditions in sweatshops, mines and other industries, individual workers gave up some of their freedom in order to band together to force industries to deal with them collectively.
There are interesting contradictions between the right and left today, too. I wish I could find it, but a little over a year ago, some columnist published a great analysis of the right and left - very fair. The right and the left just choose different areas in which they think central government should play a role or in which personal liberties should be curtailed.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
One of the main themes of what I've been writing in this thread is that there is often a broad overlap between the ideals of people who currently identify themselves as liberals or conservatives. I held up the progressive party as symbolic of that overlap, not of liberals in particular. This was in response to Pixiest's belief that progressive=liberal, when it's obvious at this point in the thread that that is not historically or semantically accurate. Pardon for the confusion.
In regards to your specific points, I have never seen forced sterilization given as a major plank of the party, or the movement, though I know it *was* a fairly large movement at the time. You would know better than I, however within the context of that era, I would argue that they felt they were doing 'good'.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Storm, I like everything in your posts on this topic except how the labels apply (which isn't central to your argument). I think the problem is that the way you talk about the temporary liberal conservative splits depend on the definitions you're using these statments to justify, which is a little circular. You're thesis is consistent, but I'm not sure how much buy-in you'd get from either side.
Especially when you get to the second and third layers of the arguments. For example, while restricting the right of a worker to work for less than minimum wage hinders liberty in the short term to create more long-term personal freedom, some conservatives would argue that in the longer run it lowers personal freedom by limiting economic growth and access to job training that would let that worker move "up" the job chain. And I'm sure there's another layer that can be talked about to show the minimum wage in the even longer term can increase personal freedom in some other way.
Without getting into the specifics of that argument (mainly because I find it dull ), I think it's clear that a colorable argument can be made on both sides that their position is best for long-term personal freedom.
And, just to be clear to some other person who posted on this thread and to close that loop, there are a lot of conservatives who think that their economic policies are a better way to end poverty and the suffering it causes. Their motives are not just selfish attempts to line their pockets. I'm sure selfish (or self-interested, to be a little nicer) conservatives exist, just as I'm sure their counterparts on the liberal side of things exist.
Dagonee Edit: And your main post from the immediately preceeding post is dead on - there's definitely overlap, and it can be used by either side to show why policies on the "other side" are really examples of their own side's principles.
[ June 23, 2004, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
One of my goals in bringing up this topic is to determine whether there really is such a thing as a clear political divide in this country such that anyone should even bother with labels like liberal or conservative or left and right. If, as we seem to be saying, the outlooks and methods of liberals and conservatives, left and right, are really intertwined in how they view things and do things, then it seems to me that liberalism, conservativism, left, and right are meaningless labels with zero practical value.
I think a lack of clearly defined definitions is important because it calls into question what is really being said when people talk about the 'liberal press' or 'liberal faculties' at universities, on the one hand, and conservative talk show hosts on the other. And let's not even get into left and right!
I think these lack of clear definitions are important because if the labels don't fit, or are so vague and broad that they are meaningless, then I think we shouldn't use them, and those that do use them are really clueless about the political landscape.
So, I made a stab at what liberal and conservative meant and it seems that it fell flat. That's fine.
I then hereby call on Hatrack in general, specifically Pixiest and Michael8 and OSC, to give up the use of the terms left, right, liberal, and conservative until such a time as people know what the hell those terms mean.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sounds good to me. And I think your definition was as good as possible. I could come up with one almost exactly opposite that would be just as good, which pretty much proves your point.
Dagonee P.S., so Storm was the missing ingrediant all along. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
See, this is closer to where I live:
quote:This raises the question: what, if any, is my ideology? What kind of ideology, if any, can an organizer have who is working in and for a free society? The prerequisite for an ideology is possession of a basic truth. For example, a Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order or the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage - the political paradise of communism. The Christians also begin with their prime truth: the devinity of Christ and the tripartite nature of God. Out of these "prime truths" flow a step-by-step ideology.
An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma. To begin with, he does not have a fixed truth - truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist. He accepts the late Justice Learned Hand's statement that "the mark of a free man is that ever-gnawing inner uncertainty as to whether or not he is right." The consequence is that he is ever on a hunt for the causes of man's plight and the general propositions that help to make some sense out of man's irrational world. He must constantly examine life, including his own, to get some idea of what it is all about, and he must challenge and test his own findings. Irreverence, essential to questioning, is a requisite. Curiosity becomes compulsive. His most frequent word is "why?"
Does this mean that the organizer is rudderless in a free society or a free society is rudderless? No, I believe that he has a far better sense of direction and compass than the closed-society organizer with his rigid political ideology. First, the free-society organizer is loose, resilient, fluid, and on the move in a society which is itself in a state of constant change. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of of the widely different situations our society represents.
--Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
Organizing is one component of my political work - the demands vary across time. But Alinsky describes the scenery as I see it very well. Specific ideologies aren't especially helpful. Pragmatism almost demands eclecticism and improvisation.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thanks for reminding me to read that book.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
That's part of my point, Storm. The people currently calling themselves Progressive change what they're calling themselves frequently.
Now, just because there used to be a Progressive party doesn't mean that that progressive is today's progresssive.
Heck, the Democratic party doesn't even mean what it meant in the 60s. Back in JFKs day they were for lower taxes and standing up to the Soviets if you can believe that!
Pix
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You're opening post suggested to me that the turn-of-the century communists are the ideological equivalent of today's progressives. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one to interpret it that way. If that's not what you meant, you may want to clarify more.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Heck, the Democratic party doesn't even mean what it meant in the 60s."
Whereas the Republican Party does? Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm really pleased to see you still posting in the thread, Pixiest.
Kind of along the same lines of what Dagonee was saying, you seemed to be saying in your initial post that progressive/liberal/communist/socialist were all the same thing except for the name. My belief at this point is that this is not so, and that the labels themselves are not historically and semantically equivalent: communal living, the ideal of sharing all things in common, has been practiced by many, many, many cultures throughout history, for both reasons of practicality and idealism, but many of htese cultures weren't what you would probably call social liberals. People who would probably agree with many progressive ideals--FDA, anti-child labor laws, public schooling, some degree of publicly funded medicine, anti-monopoly-- abound on this board in the guise of Mormons and Catholics.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Selfish and arrogant of me? Guilty as charged.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)