Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

    So I understand what you are against. What do you replace it with?

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

      Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
      There's an assumption here that FIRE is not ideological, least of all in the anti-egalitarian terms outlined in the posted article. I could not disagree more and I find it incredible that there is controversy about this. The ideological frame employed to champion the original FIRE enabling acts was rooted in the laissez faire free market language of the right. The Rosemary's Baby we call FIRE was birthed by the GOP, with a right leaning New Democrat managing the delivery. That's a fact of history.

      Recall that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was a GOP creation from the start and that it was a center left Democrat who warned it would result in banks becoming "too big to fail" necessitating a bailout by the Federal Government (John Dingell). And it was a center-right New Democrat president flanked by a center-right Democrat treasury secretary that made it the law of the land. And since 2008 it is the right that is resisting efforts to reinstate the law.

      I fail to see how forcing ourselves to forget the facts of history improves our understanding.

      Why should we avoid the terms left and right? They're not possessed of some black magic or evil spirit. When used correctly, the terms convey a great deal of information about the subject. And when used incorrectly, the terms convey even more information about the assumptions of the person misusing them.

      We are humans. We label and classify. It's what we do. Why should we abandon that most basic of human practices when it comes to discussion of politics? We are not bound by a left/right frame, but rather bound by an inability to use the terms accurately and without emotional appeals. Rather than describe a describe a particular point of view or the details of a specific approach or event, we use them as rhetorical clubs or political swear words. But sending the terms down a memory hole does not seem to be the best way to go about setting ourselves straight.

      The piece I posted I believe is helpful toward that end inasmuch as it is a self-critical analysis of the left by someone of center left orientation. I though that if we examined the criticism from their own perspective we could come to a better understanding, but that does not seem to be the case. Our loss, I think.

      You all are free to do what you wish, but no, I won't stop using the terms and applying them as accurately as I can. And neither will I stop pointing out when I think they are used to distort and conceal. Sorry if that upsets anyone.
      Who determines if people are using the terms correctly or incorrectly? FWIW, I'm in total agreement with you that these terms are used as rhetorical clubs and political swear words. For the time being at least, I think they are doing more to polarize people than create understanding.

      If I'm reading you correctly, you think if Bill Clinton signed a bill pushed by the so-called right, it was because he was a right-leaning leftist. If a Republican backs a bill pushed by the so-called left, it must be because he's a left-leaning rightist.

      I respectfully disagree. I don't think Clinton overturned Glass-Steagall because he was a right-leaning-leftist. No, Wall Street banks in collusion with the Fed had been working for decades to weaken Glass-Steagall, then Citigroup finally managed to buy off Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Clinton.

      Is a politician left, right or center? I don't care! I just want to know two things:

      1. Will his proposed solutions will make things better or worse?

      2. What corporations and special interests is he beholden to?

      People on the left who believe the right is heartless, cruel and greedy will automatically demonize any solutions put forward by the right. And people on the right who believe the left lacks morality and maturity will automatically demonize any solutions proposed by the left. IMO, all this polarizing moral pigeonholing based on left/right shorthand is wildly inaccurate, and people who blindly follow the left/right memes are not using the brains God gave them.

      I frequent another forum where the majority of members are liberal Democrats. One time I posted a link to an editorial that I thought was interesting. People didn't even read it because they saw that the site also published "right-wingers" like Pat Buchanan. Instead of reading and discussing the article on its merits, they cast aspersions on my supposed morals and called me names.

      So I waited for memories to fade, took one of Pat Buchanan's articles, stripped his name from it and posted it on the forum without a link to the source. They loved it! Thought it was brilliant! If I had said, "Here's a good article by Pat Buchanan," they wouldn't have read it. They would have instead poured virtual gasoline on me and set me on virtual fire.

      It wasn't until symphony auditions were conducted from behind a screen that female musicians were finally accepted into symphonies. As long as the judges could see the auditioners, women weren't even allowed to audition because "everyone knew" that women couldn't play as well as men.

      So I much prefer to read an article and discuss the merits of an idea without knowing if the author is on the right or left, a communist, socialist, capitalist, marxist, etc...

      Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

        Originally posted by vt View Post
        So I understand what you are against. What do you replace it with?
        Don't misunderstand me, I don't think we are going to replace anything until this mania runs its course. It took 60 years of concerted effort to overturn the financial regulation part of the New Deal. The other parts of the economic consensus took more or less time to dislodge. More than likely any significant changes will occur only after the next financial crisis/collapse. And because of the unknowable nature of the nation's mood at that point it is impossible to predict which direction it will go.

        But if I had a choice? If I were emperor? An economic outlook similar to what we had before we discarded it. You don't have to reinvent the wheel we already had a good system before we sabotaged it. A mostly self sufficient nation with balanced trade and budgets would be a great place to start. Then bring back the regulatory structure of the New Deal. The first of those would more than likely mean an end to King Dollar but there will be no tears shed by me if it does. The reserve currency cost us our industrial base and needs to be rethought.

        But I don't kid myself, all of this and more will not bring back the days of yore. Mostly because I think energy costs will never be low enough again to fuel that kind of economic expansion. But just because we will have to tone down our profile a bit does not mean that things have to be this bad this quickly. Our foolish economic policies have made things much worse than they needed to be.

        Will

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

          If I haven't told you before, Will, I really get a lot out of your very thoughtful posts.

          Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

            Thank you shiny! That means a lot coming from you.

            I am zonked from staying up catching all of the madness that transpired at Iditarod last night. Afraid I was rambling lol.

            Will

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

              Originally posted by Penguin View Post
              Thank you shiny! That means a lot coming from you.

              I am zonked from staying up catching all of the madness that transpired at Iditarod last night. Afraid I was rambling lol.

              Will
              You're very kind.

              Now looking up Iditarod...

              Edit: 2014 Iditarod. Wow!
              Last edited by shiny!; March 11, 2014, 06:25 PM.

              Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

                Originally posted by vinoveri View Post
                yeah, a few decades of "enlightened" yuppies (now aging boomers) promulgating the "I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative" mantra may explain a lot of what we see today:

                Leftist social/cultural values (e.g., gender/sexuality/abortion militarized political correctness, destruction of the family - closing of the intellect - egalitarianisms "of outcome" - think education, nanny state

                Right winger fiscal policies - bankers, crony capitalism, corporate welfare, big brother, etc.

                The "me generation" has sure given us a lot.

                Ironically, the answer may lie in the inverse: Social Conservatism (family, community, honesty, loyalty, industriousness, generosity) and Fiscal Liberalism (robust safety net, efficient health care, and higher education - subsidies, etc)

                Live and let live attitudes, enlightened dialog directed toward a better society of freedom/equal opportunity, true freedom on speech and assembly, use of the common "wealth" of the country for the good of all including robust social safety net, subsidiarity and solidarity generally are a better approach
                Aye. I think at least it needs a place at the table. The "I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative" meme may have gone too far. Nobody is representing the opposite pole. And it has been a long, long time since the social gospel has been preached loudly from sea to shining sea...

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

                  Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
                  Aye. I think at least it needs a place at the table. The "I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative" meme may have gone too far. Nobody is representing the opposite pole. And it has been a long, long time since the social gospel has been preached loudly from sea to shining sea...

                  I wouldn't mind our country being called Socially Conservative if it meant the laws we have now got enforced. They are reasonably liberal...aren't they?


                  Being Fiscally Liberal is what we have now. Most of the money being spent by the government helps only half the people that are in need of help. The rest is squandered.

                  We would just have to prevent all the blatant thievery, bribes, scamming, and fraud...right?



                  Hmm. That would mean enforcing the law.



                  I would like to see the bad guys in jail, but I don't think that is likely.

                  It would mean enforcing the law.



                  I am in favor of this.

                  How about a Liberality & Justice Party?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

                    Originally posted by Forrest View Post
                    I wouldn't mind our country being called Socially Conservative if it meant the laws we have now got enforced. They are reasonably liberal...aren't they?


                    Being Fiscally Liberal is what we have now. Most of the money being spent by the government helps only half the people that are in need of help. The rest is squandered.

                    We would just have to prevent all the blatant thievery, bribes, scamming, and fraud...right?



                    Hmm. That would mean enforcing the law.



                    I would like to see the bad guys in jail, but I don't think that is likely.

                    It would mean enforcing the law.



                    I am in favor of this.

                    How about a Liberality & Justice Party?
                    It's funny, from this angle it seems like Themis has been beaten and abused, forced to her knees to pleasure Atlas, all in a vain attempt to keep him from shrugging. Themis wept.

                    Maybe the justice piece we could agree on. But it has to be real justice with a real sword and a real scale and a real blindfold. Dropping coins on the scale to buy the sword and the blindfold has to be disallowed. Otherwise, I think you get what we have now. "Liberty" from justice for the wealthy few. "Just" stagnation and hopelessness for everyone else.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

                      Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
                      .....Maybe the justice piece we could agree on. But it has to be real justice with a real sword and a real scale and a real blindfold. Dropping coins on the scale to buy the sword and the blindfold has to be disallowed. Otherwise, I think you get what we have now. "Liberty" from justice for the wealthy few. "Just" stagnation and hopelessness for everyone else.

                      +1
                      with the political class making up the rules - for everyone else, while exempting themselves - as they go along.

                      TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

                        Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
                        It's funny, from this angle it seems like Themis has been beaten and abused, forced to her knees to pleasure Atlas, all in a vain attempt to keep him from shrugging. Themis wept.
                        Very well put!
                        I wonder where Nemesis is and when she will arrive to check and punish the hubris?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

                          Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
                          It's funny, from this angle it seems like Themis has been beaten and abused, forced to her knees to pleasure Atlas, all in a vain attempt to keep him from shrugging. Themis wept.

                          Maybe the justice piece we could agree on. But it has to be real justice with a real sword and a real scale and a real blindfold. Dropping coins on the scale to buy the sword and the blindfold has to be disallowed. Otherwise, I think you get what we have now. "Liberty" from justice for the wealthy few. "Just" stagnation and hopelessness for everyone else.
                          Yes. It is why I was specific about liberality in fiscal matters. The term Liberal was not really supposed to be about liberty from moral guidance and enforcement from the law, but you can see how well that is going these days...it's only liberty from the laws, so the money can be collected more easily by those with no principles. And Justice...if she isn't blindfolded, with just weights and measures, with the ability to enforce what she says with Laser exactitude and a generous review period, with appeals of course, would be a welcome change.

                          After the Founders managed to make us a Republic, it appears it maybe lasted for George Washington's two terms in office, and faded quickly thereafter. If one is to be generous fiscally, but morally sound, people would have to be serious about it. Scrupulous truth and exactitude for fiscal and legal matters would have to come into style, but how does one start that kind of movement, and yet guard against zealotry?

                          It is a pity that people resist change as vehemently as they do. What happened to the idea of experimentation? The populous have become a cowardly lot, with no appetite for adventure, and no desire to do anything but bitch about the end result of their apathy.

                          Perhaps we could attempt a borough by borough competition for workable change? Just for fun, and a a good reality TV show? That might make it fun for everyone involved, and get people over the hump of indifference.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

                            http://patriotupdate.com/videos/capi...-civilization/

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

                              Originally posted by Mn_Mark View Post
                              Agreed that the financial crisis was caused by government collusion (for decades) that enabled businessmen to take gambles underwritten by the public via their cronies in the government. People WILL seek to make money - quick, easy, fast money, preferably obtained by someone else taking the risk. That's human nature. It cannot be legislated away. It cannot be controlled by government. So as I see it the choice is basically between a sort of crony/mobster/oligarch government like I mention above, or else as free a market as possible, which will be ruthless and occasionally have sharp panics and corrections that burn out the dead wood.
                              The logical conclusion is that the only regulation needed in this arena is to limit the size of companies so that one blowup doesn't threaten the entire system.
                              Last edited by Slimprofits; April 01, 2014, 11:02 AM. Reason: poor spelling

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Wallerstein on Ron Paul's Libertarianism

                                Commentary No. 374, April 1, 2014


                                "Libertarian Politics in the United States"

                                The general elections of most countries with parliamentary systems have largely functioned in the same way. They have had some regular alternation between two parties, one ostensibly left-of-center and one ostensibly right-of-center. In these systems, there has been little difference between the two main parties in terms of foreign policy and only a limited set of differences on internal politics, centering on issues of taxation and social welfare.

                                However, the actual mechanics of the elections in different countries vary. The system used in the United States has been possibly the most constraining in maintaining this two-party pattern. This is the result of two features in the U.S. Constitution. One is the exceptionally important role of the president, leading parties to put winning the presidential election as their first priority. The second is the curious system by which the president is chosen - an electoral college, in which, for 48 out of 50 states, the method of choice is a one-round election in which the winner of a plurality in a given state takes all of its electoral votes.


                                The combination of these two features has made it virtually impossible for "third party" candidates to win presidential elections or to be more than "spoilers." Up to now, Libertarians have largely run as "third party" candidates. Libertarianism has never been, therefore, an important force in affecting policy choices or electoral preferences. The seriousness of the attempts by Sen. Rand Paul to obtain the Republican nomination has changed all that.

                                Libertarianism is most simply defined as a basic hostility to the government and its institutions. A full-fledged libertarian wants few (if any) state-owned enterprises, no constraints on private enterprises by government regulations, extremely low taxes, total individual freedom in the social realm, primacy of privacy rights over governmental intrusion, and the reduction of armed forces and police to a minimum. Libertarians rule out any kind of government-backed social protection such as pensions or unemployment insurance. Much of this appeals to deep cultural roots in the United States. But the full program is so extensive that very few people have been ready to embrace it completely.

                                There have been movements promoting these ideas. The most famous one is that founded by Ayn Rand, a novelist and propagator of what she called "objectivism." Her novels stressed the importance of individualism and the Enlightenment. She was critical of religion as a belief system rendered irrational by philosophy, which superseded it.

                                Politically there have been Libertarian candidates for president, notably former Congressman Ron Paul (father of Rand Paul). The votes Ron Paul received were always very marginal, both within the Republican Party's primaries and in the general elections when he ran as an independent candidate.


                                So what is new? What is new is that Rand Paul won a seat in the U.S. Congress as a Republican senator from Kentucky in 2010. He won first the Republican primary and then the election largely as the result of fervent support from Tea Party Republicans who objected to his primary opponent as too "Establishment" and too "centrist" in his orientation.

                                As soon as he became a senator, Rand Paul began to play an important public role in asserting Libertarian values, and building an organizational base for his candidacy in 2016 (and thereafter). He has presented himself as less rigid in his interpretation of Libertarianism than his father, seeking thereby to create a more substantial voter base. Nonetheless, his candidacy is shaking up the way U.S. politics has been working.

                                There are three sets of issues on which Rand Paul does not conform to the traditional Republican-Democratic discourse: the economy, social questions, and foreign policy. On the economy, he has sought to go further in his anti-government position than the erstwhile mainstream Republicans. On taxes, on state expenditures, and on the so-called deficit, he stands out as a Tea Party hawk. This meets considerable opposition from big business supporters of the Republican Party who generally feel his policies will make things worse, not better, for their interests. Still, on economic issues, he comes closest to being a traditional Republican.


                                On social issues, however, he is drawing very different lines of cleavage. He is generally supportive of the argument that the state does not belong in the bedroom, and that the choices on how to govern one's life should remain with the individual. In addition, and not least, he is fiercely opposed to the role of the National Security Agency and other state structures in violating the privacy of U.S. residents. Recently, he took these causes to a major locus of left sentiment, the student body at the University of California, Berkeley. There he made a speech along these lines that was wildly applauded. One of his Republican critics said of this speech that there was hardly a Republican sentiment in it.

                                And then there is foreign policy. He has expressed serious reservations about the belief that the United States has a role (even a political role, a fortiori a military role) in promoting "democracy" in other countries. He goes perhaps less far than his father who recently said the Russia's annexation of Crimea was not something on which the United States should be having a position. Here too, the lines he draws politically are not conventional. His views bring together some far-right Republicans and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

                                The bottom line of all this is that the previous two-party swing of compromise between two parties that are not all that different may not be able to survive the intrusion of Libertarianism into the heart of U.S. politics. Libertarians are now a somewhat unpredictable joker. They constitute a third force. And the result may be that "third parties" - not necessarily only the Libertarians - may be able to turn a two-party system into a three-party system, even within the constraints of the U.S. constitution.

                                We shall see after 2016.



                                by Immanuel Wallerstein

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X