posted
One problem with this left-right business is that we have at least three definitions going right now, and one can be left on one while being right (or moderate or who-cares) on the other, or one can consider one set of issues important and the others not. There's the culture war definition, the economic definition, and the foreign affairs definition.
By the culture war definition, to be liberal means you want abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control, and separation of church and state. By the economic definition, it means you want living wages, fair (not "free") trade, environmental protection, and regulation of business for these purposes. By the foreign affairs definition, it means you are skeptical about calls for war, and want international cooperation whenever possible as a way to solve problems.
The problem w/r/t American politics is that there are powerful corporate interests who are "conservative" by the economic definition and usually, although not always, by the foreign affairs definition, but couldn't care less one way or the other by the culture war definition. Those interests set the parameters of our politics through campaign contributions. As a result, the two main parties are both conservative by the economic definition and both mostly conservative by the foreign affairs definition. The only difference they're allowed to have is in terms of the culture war definition. So the Democrats are a corporatist party that pushes for abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, and separation of church and state, while the Republicans are a corporatist party that pushes for abortion restrictions, amendments defining marriage, gun rights, and public religion. Thus the illusion of meaningful political discourse is created.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the Falconist Party would be liberal in the economic sense and conservative in the culture war sense.
I don't think there is a conservative or liberal sense in foriegn policy. Liberals would call for internationalist foriegn policy where we are working with the world system. Conservatives seem divided between either a unilateral foriegn policy or an isolationist foriegn policy such as what the Constitution Party would advocate.
The Falconist Party advocates a unilateral foriegn policy so I guess you might be able to call us Conservative on foriegn policy.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, if you combine unilateral foreign policy, interventionist public-welfare economics, and strict controls on public morality, what you have is a leaning towards fascism. It can't really be fascism properly so called without suppressing free speech and democracy, but in all of its economic, foreign-policy, and law-and-order positions, the Falconist platform is virtually indistinguishable from Mussolini's.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I never learned my left from my right. I can only remember it with some kind of mnemonic, like visualizing a dashboard or holding up my hands and seeing which one makes an L."
I'm like that . I have to lift up my left hand to remember its the left. I think I had brain trauma as a baby, so I have excellent comprehension, but can't remember things like words. It's weird
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, somebody asked way back why we think professors tend to be liberal. Generally somebody from the right would say it's a vast conspiracy. Someone on the left would say it is because they are right . I doubt both. I think it has more to do with the nature of it. Once you dissect something enough, virtually casting off your predispositions (certain levels of ethics and morality) you tend to come up with interesting conclusions.
It's what happened to me to make me think abortion was okay. Same with socialized medical care. "Why is it bad?" "It makes people lazy, why should I have to pay for you?" "I'll be paying for you too. That was we hold eachother up through the good and the bad, improving quality of life."
(alright Ornery, you've got me this liberalized, now just explain how bad my wallets gonna be hurting!)
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more I think about it, the more I don't wish to vote at all. I have to either support people who want to limit my humanity and look down upon me, or support people who advocate scientific stances I don't agree with.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brian, Free trade is a pillar of Liberalism. Most Liberal Democrats these days, want some degree of a safty-net. The Libertarians are generaly Liberals who split off over this issue.
Liberal economics are complex and often contradictory, since most Liberals have a love-hate relationship with Keynesianism.
As a general rule, most, but by no means all, Liberals believe in Keynesian economics during crises and looser regulation during good times.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Left and Right is an outdated distinction. First of all, there is actually Left, Right and Liberal (Liberals are neither Left nor Right). But neither U.S. Party is any of those. Both are roughly Populist.
I know I have pointed this out before and been ignored or ridiculed, but it is an important point.
Leftist and Liberal were synonyms before Marx but diverged in meaning afterwards.
And Libertarian which is a whole new kettle of fish!
Posts: 95 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
left is better because if you're left behind at least you're in the right place where you left yourself right?
Posts: 38 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TommySama: It's what happened to me to make me think abortion was okay. Same with socialized medical care. "Why is it bad?" "It makes people lazy, why should I have to pay for you?" "I'll be paying for you too. That was we hold eachother up through the good and the bad, improving quality of life."
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. What you said can be paraphrased as "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities." History has shown us that this system quickly falls apart. Unless forced to work to earn their needs, people generally want more than what they generate through their work.
As far as abortion goes, the biggest hurdle is that the loudest people on both sides of the issue have vested interests in never reaching a common ground.
That's what no one ever looks at or talks about - is it better for the people in charge (whether left/right, conservative/liberal, pro-'Christmas Story'/anti-'Christmas Story') to solve problems or keep them to maintain their power while making "fixes" that do nothing to alleviate the crisis.
Looking at it that way, it becomes obvious why the Democrats and Republicans always have the same base agenda when the regain power. The Democrats always want to push those stuggling financially back to the bottom of the economic ladder and the Republicans always want to give tax breaks to the wealthy (whether to be greedy or for trickle down reasons is irrelevent). Both moves solidify their base.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd prefer moderate republicans democratize their fedaralists opinions of a capitilist community utilizing social programs.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Republican base isn't the wealthy, it's the middle class. (Based on the average contribution size, that is.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. What you said can be paraphrased as "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities." History has shown us that this system quickly falls apart. Unless forced to work to earn their needs, people generally want more than what they generate through their work.
That's silly. Tommy was talking about a specific social program that is, in different incarnations, active and successful in other parts of the world. There is a huge difference between public funding of important social programs and sucking up everyone's money and putting it in a big pot for everyone to take.
Do public roads make people lazy? Do people try to get more out of the roads than they put in? We fund certain things because they are important parts of our infrastructure and/or resource pool all the time and it doesn't seem to have the effects that you are describing.
In addition, while it's far less explicit than socialized medicine, the current American health care has people bearing the costs for others in myriad ways, from the more direct insurance costs and medicial service pricing to the incalculable costs of people not being able to afford adequate health care and a lack of focus on primary prevention.
There is a complex debate to be had about socialized health care, with many arguments pro and con. It doesn't serve us well to dismiss it with a tired piece of simplistic rhetoric.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's silly. Tommy was talking about a specific social program that is, in different incarnations, active and successful in other parts of the world. There is a huge difference between public funding of important social programs and sucking up everyone's money and putting it in a big pot for everyone to take.
I agree there's a difference. Unfortunately, what he's talking about is nothing more than sucking up everyone's money and putting it in a big pot for everyone to take.
Socialized medicine doesn't work. There's a reason why people who live in countries with socialized medicine try to come to the US for treatment - they don't want to die.
My wife had an employee from Canada. She (the employee) was from Canada and had some sort of rapidly growing growth on her neck under her skin. Because she was still insured in Canada she wanted/needed to return home for treatment (I don't know all the specifics. She was told it would be six months before a specialist could see her. When she asked, "What if it's cancerous?" she was told that they could move the appointment up by a month if absolutely necessary.
Should the system be improved? Absolutely. But the solution shouldn't involved lowering the ceiling of coverage it should involve raising the floor.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Do public roads make people lazy? Do people try to get more out of the roads than they put in? We fund certain things because they are important parts of our infrastructure and/or resource pool all the time and it doesn't seem to have the effects that you are describing.
Absolutely. I don't disagree with that. But any system that involves making care worse for anyone in order to make it better for others is a nonstarter.
Everyone says they would support improved healthcare for the poor at the expense of the wealthy, but the true test of fairness is to reverse the scenario and see if you still like it.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
See Ranked Voting Methods - for the ones which I think will represent what really the middle wants. Unfortunately - American electorat is considered too stupid by our government, to alow such changes to our voting system.
But Americans in general like to have clear sides it's either Black, or it's White, it's the badguys - or the good guys. Our team is a winner - or theirs.
No way for a truely democratic voting system to be chosen by the government, as both Democrat and Republican representatives and senators like the system they have been chosen by.
Why kill what already worked for them? No matter that the society has evolved for the last 100 years, and most of the people can sign their own names, and not just place an X sign on the doted line.
Think about this scenario: If some sort of ranked voting system was in use and you have 10 candidates for a representative from different parties (more than the current majority of 2) - You give your REAL favorite #1 (even if it is to the far-right or far left or far up or down, and you know that there is no way that they can win the election in the old style of voting system so you never bothered voting for them before) - You give your second favorite #3 (oh well - he is at least better than the OTHER guys) - You give their oponent #6 (lets give them some points - because they have the same name I do, or they just looked nice in the picture, or on the last TV debate) - You give your worst choice(s) nothing - leave it blank or choose # 10
There are many variations of this using points, percents, etc - ways to make it more simple and understandable, but keep the type.
You can see a lot of #3 choices, etc. winning the elections this way - representing what Americans really desire as a whole nation of individuals - rather than as separate, communities, blue states, red states, etc.
There are some very minor experiments with this, at community level in some states...
Adopting such system as a nation - in my dreams only...
Posts: 1 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Socialized medicine doesn't work. There's a reason why people who live in countries with socialized medicine try to come to the US for treatment
People from the US also rountinaly go to countries with socialized medicine. And I am far from sure that being Canadian or European lowers your life expextancy.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
. I have to lift up my left hand to remember its the left. I think I had brain trauma as a baby, so I have excellent comprehension, but can't remember things like words. It's weird
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
. I doubt both. I think it has more to do with the nature of it. Once you dissect something enough, virtually casting off your predispositions (certain levels of ethics and morality) you tend to come up with interesting conclusions.
