When does it become 'politics'? by chrisisall

Quote:
No, the fact that it is makes it so.

No, it is not so. Bush is in no way a conservative. He just plays one on TV.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:40 AM

I'm not basing the idea that Imperialism is not a partisan issue on Bush, I'm basing it on Human history, most of which has nothing to do with GWB, or America.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm not basing the idea that Imperialism is not a partisan issue on Bush, I'm basing it on Human history, most of which has nothing to do with GWB, or America.

I'll have to agree with you there, Citizen. A list could easily be made...

Chrisisall the Conquerer

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Bush is in no way a conservative. He just plays one on TV.

I agree Bush is not a true conservative, but he had himself snuck in, and the GOP didn't kick him out, so I think Citizen is saying, for all intents and purposes, Bush is a defacto Republican (if I'm saying that right, virus still making me loopy...).

Chrisisall the Conquered by common cold

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:43 AM

Open fire.

Imperialist conservatives. And no fair retroactively applying the term to people who predate this ideological split. I can tell you right now you are in for a beating.

Nazi Germany. A socialist left wing institution. The Nazis, as we concluded earlier, seized power after losing the election to the conservative "Junkers."

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Need I say more? Or anything at all?

Communist China. Again.

This record speaks for itself, guys.

The EU.

The Democratic Party of the United States, pick any leader at all.

The ANC/African Union. Or anywhere in Africa.

Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, or any of the self proclaimed socialist leaders of the last, oh, forever.

I got some big empires over here, and a lot of little aspiring dictatorships. I don't know what you've got, but in short: I think the claim is patently absurd. I can't think of a single one, and I'm really trying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Open fire.

Imperialist conservatives. And no fair retroactively applying the term to people who predate this ideological split.

Oh, well, if you're gonna put that limitation to it, well then of course I have nothing for ya....

You win

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 7:34 AM

I know you might at time regret having said it was job to shoot down the clay pigeons of rhetoric, but I just had to shoot this one down.

For some reason, the academic left has managed to spin anything they don't like, or that is militarily aggressive, historically, as "right wing." The absolute low point of rhetoric that I ran into recently was a special on HBO about the rise of Neo-Naziism in europe. The Nazis, which they constantly referred to as "Right wing groups" outside of their genocidal platform, which is not a partisan issue, are pretty decidedly left wing on everything else. Big govt-run social support structures, collectivism, anti-individualism, anti-independent free market, pro-corporate-govt. merger, ie. nationalization of industry. Even on the small issues, they tend to lean left. The point isn't here that the left wants them, in any way, of course not, but they're not our nightmare stalker, they are the left's. The right's nightmare stalker is the Christian fundamentalists.

But back to history, the fact is that academia has labelled empires as right wing, based on nothing other than the desire to use that as rhetorric. For example, take the peloponnesian wars. On the one hand, Pericles was the democratically elected leader of a free-market society, which could be construed as right wing. But a closer examination reveals that even before the war, Pericles was known as "the big spender" very up on the idea of massive social contracts and public works projects, top-down govt. He was a pretty left-wing politician, objectively. Sparta, on the other hand, was essentially a communist state. The Soviet constitution makes reference to Sparta at some point as the ideal state, and goes into some detail about why it was the proto-communist entity. This makes the overall conflict, like many in history, a left-left conflict.

The key underlying thing about the left's connection to imperialism is two-fold:

1. The left has a moral imperative to 'help' the world. Usually this involves changing other people's social structures to fit their (who ever is in charge of the empire) idea of justice.

2. Empire building is very expensive, and takes a big spending regime willing to invest a lot of money in potential social change, with very little real benefit locally.

The end result becomes a kind of 'white man's burder' only sometimes the empires are Asian or African.

A closer examination of a lot of the historical empires will reveal the same thing; Rome, for example, was led by big spenders, it had large social programs, govt. control and very high taxes. As the social regulations grew, so did the empire. The Roman empire, objectively, again, had far more in common with the Soviet Union than it did with the United States. For example, your profession was generally registered at birth, and it was very difficult and sometimes impossible to change that registration. Picture an America in which in order to apply for a job at a computer company, you had to be a registered programmer, and in order for that to be the case, you had to be registered with a programmers guild, and in order for that to be the case, you most like had to be born into a techno-guild member family. This is one of the reasons I oppose labor unions, because they are a move in this direction.

But more specifically, before trying to get into an argument about whether Rome was left or right wing, it's a very complicated issue overall. Rome had a democratic process, so obviously, and individual Senators would push particular platforms, and that would effect the policies of Empire. Some of these people were more left wing or right wing, but if an academic labels one as right wing because of a military policy they proposed, that's really putting the cart before the horse. One would have to look at each Senator's take on domestic issues, and then how those lead them to their foreign policy decision. What I recall from my history studies was that this showed a very similar pattern to what we see in America, and my hunch is that a more detailed and thorough study would continue to bear this out.

Somewhat random assertions of "right wing Ghengis Khan" or "right wing Attila the Hun" probably are closer to reality, OTOH, neither Ghengis Khan nor Attila the Hun were particularly bad on a global scale. I think that overall, it would be hard to pin them as classic conservatives, but also as being really anywhere near as evil as they are painted.

The closest you probably can get to a "Right wing empire" is Imperial Japan. While I'm not about to attempt to justify the actions of Japan in WWII, and I don't want to get sidetracked with analyzing the politics of Tojo, who was an ally of European socialists and the principle instigator of the expansionist policy, but taken in a greater perspective, everyone screws up. The Japanese were not on a level with Nazi Germany by a long shot, and were not as bad as the Chinese communists that followed them, but that's not the point. Japan was a conservative empire for a very long time. In 1855 they became a western style capitalist economy, and a republic in 1868. Since then, there has really been very little agression from Japan, relative to, say, China or Russia.

The base here I think comes from the basis of the political axis. The core right principle "Preservation of a Way of Life" does not require as much active agression in order to maintain itself as does the core left wing principle of "Universal Equality."

Right wing societies, for the most part, seek to be an island unto themselves, which is probably most plausible when they are, as in the case of Japan or Australia, an island.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
Nazi Germany. A socialist left wing institution. The Nazis, as we concluded earlier, seized power after losing the election to the conservative "Junkers."

They also openly attacked Communists. The Nazis were neither left nor right, showing aspects of both. The Nazis wanted power, if that meant appealing to the left one minute and the right the next that's what they did. Hitler got the Christians on side by talking about a Christian empire et al, a fact that many choose to use to prove Hitler was Christian. However Hitler was quite vocally anti Christian in private.

Quote:
Imperialist conservatives. And no fair retroactively applying the term to people who predate this ideological split.

No including people who would be blatantly called right wing conservatives before the term was coined huh

Okay off the top of my head:
British Conservative governments of the 18th/19th centuries (and these really were big ones, quarter of the world and all that). In fact the entire British Imperial expansion was a right wing thing. Winston Churchill was trying to remove the Imperialist slant to the British Conservatives (unsuccessfully) as late as 1906.

Imperial Japan.

Napoleon and the French empire.

Mussolini and the Italian fascists.

Since the left is traditionally the split from the Monarchy, any Monarchy, ever. But more specifically the slew of Monarchies that are still around.

Since I've seen you using the fact that A Democrat was in office during the Second World War to prove your point before now:
Winston Churchill.

Margate Thatcher and the Falklands war. An unnecessary war that could have easily been stopped before it started, if Thatcher had wanted too.

The American Christian far right.

Quote:
The EU.

The EU is an economic union of European nations, it doesn't even have an army, nor currently any real say how members deploy their own Militaries, so what it's doing on your list I have no idea.

Edit:
Dreamtrove, if you bar me from retroactivly fitting right wing then please extend that to yourself also.

Further more many of the points you raised as to how to judge what is right, i.e. Individualism, anti-centralised government et al, were originally left wing, they were the stances of those who apposed the right wing monarchists.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:45 AM

I respectfully submit we drop the whole Right/Left thing in favour of People for the People/People for the Eliteist Rich Warmongering Scumbags removed from the realities of daily Real-Life.

Okay, shorten that second one, I guess. People for the Elite.

Simplifies things a bit, don't you think? Now you don't have to decide whether Bush is conservative or radical, he's simply 'for the Elite'.

*feels the detailed response why he's wrong coming, decides to fly*
FLAME ON!

Humantorchisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 10:01 AM

Quote:
They also openly attacked Communists.

Who didn't? Left-left conflicts abound.

Quote:
The Nazis were neither left nor right, showing aspects of both.

No. I mean, I can understand your not wanting them, and no offense, by all means, go ahead, disown them. But they do not show aspects of conservatism. Okay, yes, they were christian fundamentalists, I see you're point. But politically, they were a derivation of left and looney. But yes, I concede they were also Christian looney. I guess I think the Xtians as my nightmare follower, not an intrinsic part of conservatism. If the political left catered to their madness, they would desert the right. As, I grant, if the political right catered to Nazis, they would probably come to our side. That's why it's the lunatic fringe I guess.

Quote:
Britain

I was thinking of this one, but I wasn't sure. I need to go and check the debate on this. I remember in colonial times it was the Whigs, who we consider conservatives, and the orignal basis for the GOP, who supported an independent America, but you may be right about colonialism.

Quote:
Japan

I concede this point already.

Quote:
Napoleon

I'll have to think about this one. The french revolution was a left-wing madness. Napoleon was a monarch, outside the political debate if I recall, but I'll check it.

Quote:
Mussolini and the Italian fascists.

Not a chance. Mussolini was a mega-nationalizer.

Okay, the left-right we are talking about is liberal vs. conservative. This is not a discussion on monarchy. Left, right in the modern political sense.

Quote:
Winston Churchill.

Not arguing the point. Winston was a loser, but he was the british right's loser, and theirs to answer for :)

I have to confess that not mentioning Churchill is a logical choice for me. But in my defense, it's not as if the lefties constantly bring up Harry Truman to illustrate their points.

Quote:
Margate Thatcher and the Falklands war.

Oh, come on, this is absurd. Argentina, on a blind imperialist aggression, invaded the Fauklands, and Thatcher was nothing short of 100% correct in defending it. Defending your own country against aggression does not constitute imperialism, in any way shape or form.

Quote:
EU

Did you miss something? I doubt you did, you just want a left wing empire.

Quote:
Dreamtrove, if you bar me from retroactivly fitting right wing then please extend that to yourself also.

I wasn't. I was just illustrating that it's a complicated issue, and you can't just call everyone right wing because you oppose them.

Quote:
Further more many of the points you raised as to how to judge what is right, i.e. Individualism, anti-centralised government et al, were originally left wing, they were the stances of those who apposed the right wing monarchists.

Again, this is not about the issue of monarchism

Allow me to deconstruct this argument, and then put it permanently to bed:

What Citizen is refering to is that during the time of the French Revolution, (1789-1794) the Monarchists sat on the right, and the various sorts of Democratic-Republican sat on the left, which is where the terms originally came from.

By this logic, everyone, Democrat or Republican, or their european equivalents, is left wing.

But within a few short years, the political axis was redefined along means which had nothing to do with the concept of Monarchy. by 1824, when the two party system was first set up in the US, the left-right continuum had become what it is today. Then, for 200 years, the meaning didn't really change at all, something which I think I've demonstrated a number of times here.

No one, through the centuries of political discourse since then has used right wing to mean Monarchy, aside from possibly within the monarchical resurgence of Napoleon.

Now I see what you meant by Napoleon as right wing, you mean old right, monarchist, and so I'm ex-ing him from the list. If you were living in this century, or the last century, or the last three quarters of the century before, right would mean republican, in the sense of Jefferson, Adams, etc. as opposed to Liberal left, Jackson et al., or in Europe, Marx et al., which I grant aren't the same thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 10:09 AM

I hate to oblige, but Chris, I think that this is usually used as spin.

The fact is that most "govt's for the people" are actually "for the govt." and since they are the govt., they are the elite. IOW, I think this is another leftie pigeon.

Also, left and right are differing philosophies. Bush and Clinton are not those philosophies. Clinton, as much as it pains me to say it, is no more left than Bush is right. They're both People for the Eliteist Rich Warmongering Scumbags removed from the realities of daily Real-Life.

But if we allow it to be shortened, it becomes a weighted pro-left propaganda tool. The truth is that a fair free and open society is not an equal one, but one that favors people who do something. These people will ultimately become the Elite.

For instance. I want to not have crack peddling gay prostitute rings in my society. I have them now. In the college town, not far from here. But if I became rich and powerful, I would want to live somewhere where they weren't. This is to some extent elitist. I think everyone has their own thing that they would want to not have in their society, whether it's chrisitan fundamentalist creationists or terrorist jihadists. I guess what I'm saying is everyone is an elitist. The only difference between the Elite and everyone else is they don't have to put up with it so they don't.

I think the debate has to remain what the debate is about.

Have some soup and get better.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
I was thinking of this one, but I wasn't sure. I need to go and check the debate on this. I remember in colonial times it was the Whigs, who we consider conservatives, and the orignal basis for the GOP, who supported an independent America, but you may be right about colonialism.

The British crown was right wing and was anti-American independence. I’m not even sure if there was a credible left wing force in British politics of the time.

Quote:
Oh, come on, this is absurd. Argentina, on a blind imperialist aggression, invaded the Fauklands, and Thatcher was nothing short of 100% correct in defending it. Defending your own country against aggression does not constitute imperialism, in any way shape or form.

I felt I had to clarify my point here, as you missed it. In 1976 (I think) the exact same circumstances that led to the Falklands war occurred under a labour government. The reaction was to bolster forces in the area, sending a clear message that Britain was prepared to defend the Islands.

When this happened under Thatcher she removed existing forces, sending a clear message that Britain WASN'T going to fight for the Islands.

Net result, no war in 1976, but there is a war in 1982. I also draw attention to the fact that Thatcher’s majority was dropping like a stone, but oh look successful war and she's running the country for another decade...

Point is yeah, once Argentina invade there was no option, but we could have stopped Argentina invading without firing a shot.

Yep she did do some good things (the British EU rebate is the only thing that comes to mind off hand) but she and her mate Major also left the country in a shit state, economically, socially, defensively...

The ‘ruling’ class did alright though…

Quote:
Did you miss something? I doubt you did, you just want a left wing empire.

Well, yes, I did, the part where the EU was involved in any militarism what so ever. The part where the EU had a military. The part where the EU had invaded anyone. This is fantasy land, by the same token I could say that the nation of the moon is a right wing imperial dictatorship.

I’m afraid I’m going to need you to explain this one too me.

Quote:
I wasn't. I was just illustrating that it's a complicated issue, and you can't just call everyone right wing because you oppose them.

That’s just the point DT, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m saying the Imperialism and militarism is an aspect of the extreme left AND extreme right. It was your assertion that it was one or the other.

The thing is the Right often attacks the left with the assertion that they’re all pacifist who are on the side of the ‘enemy’ while also saying the left is responsible for all the wars and Imperialism through the ages, so seriously, which is it? It really can’t be both; the left is either a bunch of wishy washy cowardly pacifists that can’t defend themselves or a bunch of war mongering psychopaths.

Quote:
Again, this is not about the issue of monarchism

Allow me to deconstruct this argument, and then put it permanently to bed:

What Citizen is refering to is that during the time of the French Revolution, (1789-1794) the Monarchists sat on the right, and the various sorts of Democratic-Republican sat on the left, which is where the terms originally came from.

By this logic, everyone, Democrat or Republican, or their european equivalents, is left wing.

This is, indeed, where the left historically originates. Frankly yes, Democrats, Republicans, and their European equivalents are LEFT of this extreme. This does not prove that monarchists aren’t right, ergo we can prescribe the militarism of Monarchists too the right, right? But anyway, the point is these were originally left wing ideals, the fact that we can’t agree what left and right is just gives credence to what I’ve said a million times before that Left and Right is inadequate and needs to be replaced.

Quote:
by 1824, when the two party system was first set up in the US, the left-right continuum had become what it is today.

There was a two party system operating in Britain prior to this I think. Unless that's not what you meant, I'm not sure.

Quote:
Now I see what you meant by Napoleon as right wing, you mean old right, monarchist, and so I'm ex-ing him from the list. If you were living in this century, or the last century, or the last three quarters of the century before, right would mean republican, in the sense of Jefferson, Adams, etc. as opposed to Liberal left, Jackson et al., or in Europe, Marx et al., which I grant aren't the same thing.

So what was he DT? He was extreme right under our current idea, not nothing. Yes I put monarchy on the right, albeit very far right.

My end point is that extreme right and extreme left are almost indistinguishable in most circumstances, they look and feel the same, the only difference is how they get there.

It’s not the left or the right that’s the ‘enemy’, it’s the extreme.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 11:25 AM

Or put another way

Political space is curved such that the distance between the extreme ends is less than the distance between the extremes and the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Political space is curved such that the distance between the extreme ends is less than the distance between the extremes and the middle.

Maybe it's the fever, but that make sense to me...

In and out Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:05 PM

Something like this:

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 2:54 PM

STARSONG

Quote:
When does it become 'politics'?

When it ceases to be about doing something productive, or even talking about doing something productive, and becomes just being mean to people.

:(

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 4:22 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm sorry, the constitution is not a decree of divine dictatorship. The CiC does not decide where and when we go to war. It's not his position to decide who Americas enemies are and why we fight. The president is top General, not legislator.

What you give here is the line that ArchDictator Cheney and the monkey puppet Bush want you to believe, as told by the ArchTraitor Stanley H. Gonzalez.

What I gave you was the Constitution:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”
U.S. Constitution: Article II. Section 2. Paragraph 1.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nothing irrational about hating these international terrorists who are trying to destroy everything we have worked for, and turning America into a four letter word internationally.

Finn, as a rhetorrical style alone, this isn't working, perhaps you should think about you're overall position before you lose my vote to Pirate News.

If you want to throw your ‘vote to Pirate News,’ you go right ahead. Anyone who advocates burning the government to the ground would probably fit far better in PirateNews’ world then in mine.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 4:45 PM

Quote:
The British crown was right wing and was anti-American independence. I’m not even sure if there was a credible left wing force in British politics of the time.

Citizen,

This is just the sort of thing I was complaining about. The concept that the British crown was right wing is pure postumous left wing spin. Being a monarchy, it doesn't fall into our left-right continuum. It is no-wing. It's not left, It's not right, It's not center, it's not anywhere

near the left right continuum we know. To say that it's right wing would be to imply that it was a pro-business limited-govt. with an interest in private sector and a focus of preservation of a way of life for the citizenry. To say that it was left wing would be to say it was pro

social-safety-net, pro-universal equality, and pro-large govt. labor projects. None of this is true, so it's no-wing.

Quote:
I felt I had to clarify my point here, as you missed it. In 1976 (I think) the exact same circumstances that led to the Falklands war occurred under a labour government. The reaction was to bolster forces in the area, sending a clear message that Britain was

prepared to defend the Islands.

I think the later threat was more severe, Argentina was actually in the process of invading. The president of Argentina had just put himself into a perilous political position which made him appear extremely weak to his own people. He invaded the Fauklands for

essentially one reason: to save his political career. He wasn't about to be easily deterred.
But anyway, I didn't know she had facilitated the invasion by reducing troop levels, which wasn't very imperialist of her, either way. Thatcher was, like Reagan, less than ideal. But nowhere near as bad as what we have now.

Quote:
Well, yes, I did, the part where the EU was involved in any militarism what so ever. The part where the EU had a military. The part where the EU had invaded anyone.

It's still an empire. Did you even read the socialist nightmare constitution? Good God, is all I can say. At the moment, I feel lucky to have Bush by comparison, and that's saying a lot. Anyway, it's not fantasy, it's imaginiation, something which you need in order to

see what is clearly coming. The EU military, once up and running, will allow the EU to do what it really wants, which is to destroy freedom in Europe. The first step is to take control of the currency and the economy, and once done, no one will be economically able

to leave. Once the military is started, and this is not made up, the proposal has already been put forth for an independent military supported by EU-wide taxation, that military will then be able to call British forces to war even if Britain votes against the war in the same

way that New York must send forces to Iraq, even though it's people overwhelmingly oppose the action. You are making all of the mistakes we made, and many of the ones the USSR did.

BTW, If I were in England Labor wouldn't have a chance of getting my vote. At the moment, the democrats do, they could put up Russ Feingold. But if I were a Brit it would be a choice between Tory (probably) and LibDem (Possibly) for me.

Quote:
That’s just the point DT, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m saying the Imperialism and militarism is an aspect of the extreme left AND extreme right. It was your assertion that it was one or the other.

I was saying on balance empire building has been a leftwing activity, esp. lately.

Quote:
The thing is the Right often attacks the left with the assertion that they’re all pacifist who are on the side of the ‘enemy’ while also saying the left is responsible for all the wars and Imperialism through the ages, so seriously, which is it? It really can’t be both; the

left is either a bunch of wishy washy cowardly pacifists that can’t defend themselves or a bunch of war mongering psychopaths.

The left being pacifists is almost an absurd position. When were the left pacifists? I agree that this is how the hawks always try to paint the doves, but I don't follow the connection that somehow the left ever took this position. Certainly the Democrats in the US have

not once, in 200 years, not even one single time, opposed military action. And I do mean completely without exception. Over 90% of the time it was a Democrat idea. Even the current condemnation of Iran and threat of military force was put forth by HR Clinton. If the

left was somehow a pacifist, I missed it.

Quote:
This is, indeed, where the left historically originates. Frankly yes, Democrats, Republicans, and their European equivalents are LEFT of this extreme. This does not prove that monarchists aren’t right, ergo we can prescribe the militarism of Monarchists too the

right, right? But anyway, the point is these were originally left wing ideals, the fact that we can’t agree what left and right is just gives credence to what I’ve said a million times before that Left and Right is inadequate and needs to be replaced.

But we can argue all day which way this goes. I mean, Monarchists, I would argue are more big govt., less laissez faire, less pro-business then are democrats, so by that token I could say that monarchs were off the left end. But logically, I thought I made a good

point, monarchs are none of the things which define either political perspective, ergo, they are nowhere on the political spectrum.

I'm with you on left and right being inadequate, but I thought I defined the positions well with my Preservation of a Way of Life v.s Universal Equality.

Quote:
There was a two party system operating in Britain prior to this I think. Unless that's not what you meant, I'm not sure.

I just know America. British politics has taken some wacky twists and turns. There was a liberal party which is now lib-dem, which i guess is the center party. They merged with somehting, soc. dems maybe, but not our soc. dems who are neocon democrats.

Quote:
So what was he DT? He was extreme right under our current idea, not nothing. Yes I put monarchy on the right, albeit very far right.

I'm haggling for taking monarchy out of the picture, if you don't take the offer, I'm liable to call them left for being big govt.

Quote:
My end point is that extreme right and extreme left are almost indistinguishable in most circumstances, they look and feel the same, the only difference is how they get there.

I said somehting very similar in my own post with the circle pic.

Quote:
It’s not the left or the right that’s the ‘enemy’, it’s the extreme.

I really agree.

The extreme here is called Bush/Blair. It's Right Left center exteme and awful.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:04 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I respectfully submit we drop the whole Right/Left thing in favour of People for the People/People for the Eliteist Rich Warmongering Scumbags removed from the realities of daily Real-Life.

Okay, shorten that second one, I guess. People for the Elite.

Simplifies things a bit, don't you think? Now you don't have to decide whether Bush is conservative or radical, he's simply 'for the Elite'.

*feels the detailed response why he's wrong coming, decides to fly*
FLAME ON!

I agree.

Strictly speaking, the Left and Right are just political dichotomies, one – the Right – representing the proposition (established thought) and the other – the Left – representing the antiproposition (the opposition to the established thought). The specific meaning is relative to the current politics, or established thought. So the further you get away from today the less relevant the current definitions of Left and Right become. This is why it is meaningless to define post-classical Rome as “right-wing.” There certainly were similarities in thought, but the actual polices advocated by the Roman government following, say, Tiberius, swayed widely from emperor to emperor between what we might consider the two extremes, although very rarely in my opinion falling into cadence with any current political doctrine. Politics in Rome before and perhaps during Augustus was defined more by competing schools of thought, much as politics is today, and it is generally acknowledged that the two dialectic schools of thought were defined by the ideals expressed by the, so called “conservatives,” like Cato, and philhellenes, like Cicero. And once again there are similarities to today’s politics, but neither of them falls easily into any current defined category.

I’m not as intimately familiar with other ancient and classical civilizations as I am the Romans, but I would imagine that a similar difficulty exists in trying to cast any of them into the current idea of Left and Right.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:04 PM

Citizen,

Thanks for the circle. I posted something very similar twice before:

only I put big runaway govt. on the top., I believe you have it on the bottom, if you mean to say that Blair/Bush is extreme, which I would agree with.

Also, curiously, the right in the US is identified by red, and the left by blue. Is it the reverse in the UK? It used to be the other way here.

I posted the names of Senators, I guess the Brits wouldn't get the references, but I'm sure you have prominant people to fill in.

Feingold and Boxer are democrats who are esentially libertarian, capitalist and pro-peace.

Larry Craig, Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chafee, John Sununu are republicans who support these same positions.

This is not to say that Feingold=Craig, they have points they disagree on, related to standard left right issues, pro-business vs. govt. social programs or whathaveyou, but the import part is that Both Russ Feingold and Larry Craig have opposed Bush and opposed Clinton close to 100% of the time.

Curiously, I was reading a review of the Senate which ranked everyone left to right, and this is when it occured to me that the left-right line was not correct.

Joe Leiberman and Russ Feingold were right next to each other. Both were right towards the middle. I think Russ might have voted with the GOP only a couple more times than Joementum (Lieberman's nickname). Anyway, as a political guide, that was horridly deceptive. The fact is that Lieberman and Feingold (both jewish of course, PN) have voted on opposite sides from one another on just about every major policy for the last 15 years (no conspiracy here.) Lieberman and Fiengold, being in the identical spot on a left-right continuum, were clearly polar opposites. That's when I thought of the circle. Two types of moderate, both opposites of each other. The fact is Lieberman supported Clinton and then Bush all of the time, and Feingold opposed them.

I've been trying to sus out who the left and right are. I think Kennedy, Biden, Rockafeller are probably in the center of that democratic arc, and probably McCain, Warner, Lugar are in the middle of the republican arc.

I'm curious to know how brits would classify the libdems in a way that an American could understand. To me, they seem like moderates. Torys are like Republicans, Labor are like Democrats, and the LibDems are somewhere in the middle?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:10 PM

Finn,

I agree. To clarify, we should say 'right' and 'left', since people are going to continue using them, are used to mean 'modern right' and 'modern left.' I still call neoconservatism something other than 'modern right' because it is a represntation of radical change, and therefore not 'right.'

Maybe someday it will be the accept standard, but I hope not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:34 PM

Even "conservative" and "liberal" are relative to the prevailing norm. In Russia a conservative is a hardline communist and a liberal a guy that believes in free market economics.

A few clarifications as to the UK parties.

In general Conservatives are pro defence, pro law and order, and favour lower taxes. They like to be seen as the fiscally responsable party, the one that is safe with the economy. Consequently they categorise Labour as "tax and spend" and a high taxation party. The core of Conservative support is in the countryside and some urban areas in the south. In general Conservatives are a Unionist party, which means that they seek to protect the Union between the different countries within the UK. A knock on effect of this is that they tend to prefer centralisation to devolved government and believe that central government in London is superior to local government. In US terms they are not into "States Rights." The party sees itself as being the advocate of British busness and free enterprise.

Labour was a creation of the trade union movement and only started holding political office in the early part of the 20th Century. The absorbed over time most of the more ardent left wing groups who had once been part of the Liberal party. In the process they became for a time an avowed socialist party believing in public ownership of key industries. In the late 1940's they nationalised the railways, iron and steel production, electricity generation, mining and a number of other industries. They also created the welfare state, the cornerstone of which is the National Health Service (NHS.) Labour's support traditionally comes from the urban working class, especially in the North. Until the 1980's the influence of the unions was such that they could decide the leadership and the party platform. Labour's focus is on the public welfare especially health. As they tend to be stronger in the regions than in the capital they favour devolved government and the moving of power from London to the regions and bellow. They are traditionally anti imperialist, pacifist and non interventionist. They had a reputation of taxing and spending and for not being prudent with the economy.

In the 19th century the Liberals were the alternate party to the Conservatives. The original "big tent" party they contained almost all factions from the new industrial middle class to working class socialist groups. Their main thrust was electorial reform, specifically trying to break various electorial rules that gave the Conservatives a lock on power. They won gradual advances but as the franchise was broadened the reasons that kept these different groups in one party started to weaken. The Liberals split repeatedly until by the 1930's they nearly became extinct. The modern Libdems are an amalumation of the rump Liberals and the Social Democratic Party, a Labour splinter group that formed after Labour's defeat in the 1979 election.

Libdems tend to be middle class and have their core constituencies in the west. They control or have the deciding vote on a large number of local councils and so favour regional government and devolution. They tend to be seen as soft on defence, broadly pro free market and pro education (a surprising number of teachers are in the LibDems.) Other than that it's really hard to say where they stand. Generally they are seen to occupy the middle ground between the two big parties and tend to benefit from protest votes as a result.

The UK doesn't have a big economy, so consequently a lot of the party differences come down to how they prioritise spending. In addition public finances are regularly presented in the Chancellors budget and in reports to Parliament. This means that government has to justify its spending at least once a year. In addition since the party in power decides the budget there tends to be very little horse trading of the kind seen in American Omnibus spending bills.

So when Labour is in power the focus is on public services especially health. Usually if spending in this area goes up the money is found from running down the defence budget. However, some defence programs are expensive to cut and it looks bad politically to have a weak military, so military spending tends to wither rather than be cut to the bone. The Labour government will signal it's success in health spending by showing improvements in various statistics. Conservatives, hardly able to claim to be willing to spend more if they were in power, tend to question the management and cost effectiveness of the Labour government's programs.

Conservatives in power favour tax cuts and increased defence spending usually at the cost of public services. The NHS doesn't tend to get as badly hit as other services. Britons in general are more willing to pay taxes than pay an HMO and the Conservatives feel vulnerable to charges of "dismantling the NHS" in the same way as Labour does on the management of the economy. So when Conservatives are in power they tend to let the NHS wither, spend what is needed to maintain it but not what it needs. Conservatives campaign on the economy and taxation. Defence is a lot like insurance, it looks like a waste unless you have to use it. Where as Labour can point at lives saved in the NHS Conservatives usually cant show direct benefits to military spending. However, Conservatives pride themselves that under their governments the UK military, while not the largest in the world, is the best trained and equiped. That means that if a chance to flex military muscle does come along they will take it. Argentina started the Falklands war, Lady Thatcher still likes to say she ended it. Historically Conservative governments have been far more willing to use military force than Labour.

Which brings us to the strange case of Tony Blair. When he first came to power I canvassed my Conservative friends. The general feeling was that he was "Tory lite" that he'd appropriated huge chunks of Conservative party policies in order to appeal to the middle class. In the 1980's the middle class grew, consequently neither Labour or Conservatives could win just by appealing to their own loyal core supporters. "Tony" made a land grab for the middle class and was successfull. Generally Conservative opinion was that he couldn't hold it and that like the Labour party of old the economy would finish him.

But it didn't. In addition Tory policy threatened to move us out of Europe while the business community in England wanted the country to stay in. Europe was a huge market full of relatively uncompetative businesses and British business leaders could see the advantages to shaping that market. Hence "New Labour" is considerably more business friendly than it's predecessors again infringing on traditional Tory teritory.

Recently I heard the new Conservative leader is going to the left. I have no idea why.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2006 5:18 PM

Fletch,

Thanks for the rundown on British politics. Fascinating stuff. I remember when I was in Japan, someone explained to me that the japanese have one letter which is in between "r" and "l" so westerners here "r" when their ear is expecting "l" and "l" when expecting "r". This gives the illusion that the japanese pronunciation is always wrong.

I think that something similar is happening here. Bush is not a lefty or a democrat, and Blair is not a Tory, they are clearly the same as one another, so they are something new. That things is in some ways centrist on the left-right continuum, but extremist on some other axis. So when it is in the middle of the left, it looks right, when it is in the middle of the right, it looks left. In reality, it's neither. That's my current theory anyway.

If the Tories have failed to embrace states rights that would explain their weak position. Conservative support relies on preservation of a way of life folks like me, which is based in states rights. If the rural welsh and scots aren't voting Tory, then clearly the tories have done something wrong, since this would be a natural demographic for them, a people with an extant stable way of life that they wouldn't want to particularly change. It's also occurred to me that the lib dems and tories would be stronger if merged into one pro-free market party. But I'm not in the situation, so I don't know, just an outsider's eyeball perspective.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2006 8:42 PM

Noooo

Scotland, Wales and the west are called the Celtic finge. Used to be solidly Labour or nationalist these days I think the LibDems have some good support there. Conservatives have always been the party of big central power, they built the big government to run an Empire. They do best in the areas around London and worse the further away you get, so consequently there is no real love of the idea of creating competing power bases in the regions especially ones you know you would never control. Labour and the LibDems can think of devolving power down because that's where their support is.

As for a Libdem/Tory matchup. I suspect that won't happen anytime soon. By their nature Conservatives are centralist and somewhat authoritarian, Libdems are regionalist and well, liberal. They don't play well together. The LibDems pro market leanings make them a natural "refuge" party for disaffected Tories. Their Liberal leanings make them a natural refuge for desenting Labour types.

Their problem is that Labour has headed right, hard. Labour is probably the most free market orientated ruling party in Europe (which probably doesn't say much.) They are far more agressively free market than the current conservative French government (yes Chirac is conservative bizzare as that seems.) Like I said the aim of this was probably to steal the Tories clothes but it deprives the LibDems of one of their principle distinctions -- being nominally left wing and free market.

I have no idea what the Conservatives are doing. The fixation on Europe is a mistake that just keeps on costing. If they aim to move the focus away from a Federal state back towards a free trade zone that can only be done from inside. Hinting they would pull out (with the economic chaos that would bring) weakens their support in the British business community and hands it to Labour. There used to be a time when the party had more than one topic and could at least do it's job as loyal opposition, not sure what's happening now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:43 AM

DT:
Yeah Red is for Labour, blue for the Tories. Liberal Democrates are a yellow/orange sort of colour.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:10 AM

Fletch,

I understand from how the terms are applied liberal, conservative, etc., how come we have so many fights.

I know that Chriac is a conservative. Also a crook. In a way the Tory, anti-EU position is anti-federalist, and pro-states rights, when you consider britain to be the state, and Europe to be the nation, which is a closer parallel to American politics. At any rate, it's hardly a centralize power position. Anti-EU is the only logical political position, I really can't comprehend another one. The pro-Iraq war position seems totally irrational to me but it is easier to understand than the pro-EU. Pro-EU is like pro-Soviet or pro-Chinese expansion.

All of this is making me think I should share with the Tories some of the things which make the Republicans so successful here. It's a case of the GOP has spoken to us in a way that, it's not a religion, by any means, but it's a clear pragmatic position: Even if you totally despise Bush, and just about everything about him, and I really really do, the Republican Party is the logical choice for me. There are some people here who are republicans, and vote republican, that if they lived in a city might be democrats, I mean folks far to the left of me. The curious thing is the break down of votes changes dramatically when you leave the presidential race. New York, even in the city is really more likely to go republican that some places in the South, in non-presidential races. At the moment we have two democratic senators, but a nyc mayor and governors are republican, as well as our congressman, and the one in the neighboring district, and probably a great many more. We could get another GOP senator is Bush would stop blocking an opposition to Hillary. The thing is that our concept of Republican is very different from what it is in Texas. Particularly, NE Republicans are very different from Texas and deep south. A lot of the east coast republicans are fairly similar to us, in VA, NC, SC, but when you move into the more heavily Chrisitan TN, KY, KS, AL, MS, TX, OK, that's where we're likely to see inter-republican sparks flying. A lot of pacific and midwest republicans are more similar to what we have here.

It's a strategic positioning issue, and it sounds like the Tories have positioned themselves poorly. A pro-Britain stances is consistant with anti-EU, but logically, pro-Welsh would follow. Where does the Irish question fall on political lines?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:12 AM

Well it has to be understood that the Conservatives joined the EU (then the Common Market) in the first place a move that at the time was opposed by Labour who when they came to power held a referendum to see if the British people wanted to stay in (they did.)

Both parties are split on Europe. Withdrawl was officially Labour policy for a while when they were in opposition in the 1980's. Initially the left distrusted Europe, they dislike concentrations of power and the Unions were not sure that an open market wouldn't just export jobs. The right liked it because it was a larger free market and so good for business. It didn't hurt that back in the 70's the then Common market had a principly right wing power base. What happened was that the EU went left during the mid to late 80's. It went far beyond the point a lot of Tories were comfortable with and they started to pull back much to the frustration of their pro-business side. At the same time Labour saw some cracks appearing in the Franco-German alliance that effectively runs the EU and decided they could best effect change from within. They could placate their own Euro-sceptic left wing by pointing out the labour protections and workers rights legislation in the EU (even though they didnt actually ratify any of them) and their right wing, like the Tories could see the business advantages.

Right now in the UK, Labour is pro Europe (they have a split but it's not visable), the LibDems are definately pro Europe and the Tories are split. Right now the Tories hold a line where they can still keep the pro's and anti's in the same party. My guess is that if they move too Anti folks will leave, if they go too pro folks will leave. We've already had MP's defect from Conservative to Labour on this issue, which honestly is amazing.

I wouldn't draw too many parrallels between the US and the EU. The EU is essentially a political project which has varying degrees of support in the member nations. The French see it as a counter ballence to American power, the UK, Swedes, Danes and Poles view it as a free trade zone with some garanteed social standards. Germany's opinion probably just changed with the government. If you do have to draw parallels then the UK's position is probably the same as that of the State of New York in the 1780's, it hasn't heard anything that completely convinces it that anything more than a loose confederation is really needed.

Of course nobody as gifted as "Federalist" has entered the debate to convince them. I think right now there are too many "ideal Europes" in various people's heads. I'm sure Chirac wants a single superstate in which France has a substancial if not dominant role, a "great Republic" that can face down the Americans. In that he IS being a French conservative because the "traditional" possition in France is that it's a great international power. If conservatives are supposed to be overly fond of tradition then he's doing his job.

The Tory Europe would essentially be just a free trade zone, though again there are those that want more from it than that. I think the problem is one of authority. If the Tories believed they could run Europe, that the centralised power was their centralised power, then I think they would probably go for it. What they dislike is the idea of power being taken away from London, and that is the same no mater where it goes to. So power for Welsh affairs going to Cardiff is just as bad as power going to Brussels. If you are the centralised power party, you dont want that power going anyplace else.

Blair wants to dominate Europe and shape it along the lines of the United States. He wants a decentralised Federal structure with more state autonomy than the French vision. He sees such a Europe as a partner to the US rather than a competitor.

From what I've seen of the LibDem position I think they are more into the model of a confederation of states, probably very similar to the pre Federal US. Like I said it's kind of hard to be sure.

On Ireland there really isnt that many party differences. The Conservatives are Unionist, which mean they have natural allies in the Protestant (Unionist) parties. Labour is regionalist so tend to be at least sympathetic to the mainstream Catholic parties. Both want the North to have more autonomy, both oppose a united Irish state. Labour is probably more willing to be lax with Sin Fein than the Tories would be. Labour hopes that getting the emphasis from violence to politics will help the situation even if in the process they piss off Unionists. The Conservatives are more receptive to to the Unionist arguments.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:35 AM