NationStates Jolt Archive

Barring divine intervention, it appears like Barack Obama will win the presidential election. Is this the result of a charismatic candidate who is running against a very unpopular party, or is this election the sign of a shift to the left, like the 1932 election? Discuss. (Also, if anyone has any links to articles talking about this, please share. I couldn't find any with the Google.)

I think this is separate enough from the actual election that it doesn't belong in the election mega-thread. If the Mods feel otherwise, I welcome their cold touch of death upon this thread.

An article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/a_realigning_election.html)on the subject. (Thanks to Sarkhaan.)
EDIT: Hm, I added a poll but it doesn't seem to be working. Sorry about that.
EDIT: Now it is working. Never mind.

Most likely simply anti Bushism. Most Americans aren't leftist, so there's little reason to assume a change in ideology.

I personally hope that America has been more left than their voting record (though that's not saying much). From the people I've talked to, I've gotten the impression that it was mainly the "Oh noez, terrists! Warprezident protects us!" people that voted for Bush, most of whom have realized their folly. The other bit is anti Bushism, be it because people realize he's caused so many problems, because people believe he isn't cruel enough to illegal immigrants, or because people are finally coming to realize after eight years of untax and spend conservatism that it's not fiscal conservatism.

I personally hope that America has been more left than their voting record (though that's not saying much). From the people I've talked to, I've gotten the impression that it was mainly the "Oh noez, terrists! Warprezident protects us!" people that voted for Bush, most of whom have realized their folly. The other bit is anti Bushism, be it because people realize he's caused so many problems, because people believe he isn't cruel enough to illegal immigrants, or because people are finally coming to realize after eight years of untax and spend conservatism that it's not fiscal conservatism.
been leaning more right. last two elections the largest and fastest growing 3rd party in the US was the nationalist party. projected by 2020 to over take the republicans.

been leaning more right. last two elections the largest and fastest growing 3rd party in the US was the nationalist party. projected by 2020 to over take the republicans.

Projected by whom?

Barring divine intervention, it appears like Barack Obama will win the presidential election. Is this the result of a charismatic candidate who is running against a very unpopular party, or is this election the sign of a shift to the left, like the 1932 election? Discuss. (Also, if anyone has any links to articles talking about this, please share. I couldn't find any with the Google.)

I think this is separate enough from the actual election that it doesn't belong in the election mega-thread. If the Mods feel otherwise, I welcome their cold touch of death upon this thread.

You could argue that 1932 was an example of a charismatic candidate running against a very unpopular party as well.

I don't think these ideological shifts happen independently of who is running for president. I think both affect each other.

been leaning more right. last two elections the largest and fastest growing 3rd party in the US was the nationalist party. projected by 2020 to over take the republicans.

I've never even heard of the nationalist party.

Most likely simply anti Bushism. Most Americans aren't leftist, so there's little reason to assume a change in ideology.
Not leftist, no...but more liberal, yes. What the conservative movement since Reagan has had that the liberal movement has lacked is organization, which leads to mobilization. They have had core causes (abortion, gay marriage, traditional family values, etc), which have enabled massive groups to spring up, amassing wealth and power. Evangelicals are a good example...they are something like 27% of the general population, yet appear in droves to vote...recently, moreso than most other groups.

It seems that the liberal movement has finally hit the turning point where they can't just sit there and watch. This is what would create the shift.

I've never even heard of the nationalist party.

Charming basket of peaches (http://www.freewebs.com/anponline/), they are.

Projected by whom?

i just made it up to make the German fear for a war crazed America.

Charming basket of peaches (http://www.freewebs.com/anponline/), they are.

Aren't the republicans nationalist enough?

Aren't the republicans nationalist enough?

On immigration the republicans tend to be opposite of a nationalist agenda. more so because big business likes to have a cheap labor pool.

Democrats tend to be closer in ideology to the nationalist party. because their union backers tend to fear immigration.

i just made it up to make the German fear for a war crazed America.

The American Nationalist Party isn't warmongery. They're Buchanan-style isolationists. They just want to kick the Mexicans out, presumably because they like hanging their own drywall and mowing their own lawns.

i just made it up to make the German fear for a war crazed America.This German gets to vote in US elections, actually.

Barring divine intervention, it appears like Barack Obama will win the presidential election. Is this the result of a charismatic candidate who is running against a very unpopular party, or is this election the sign of a shift to the left, like the 1932 election? Discuss. (Also, if anyone has any links to articles talking about this, please share. I couldn't find any with the Google.) .

Try Satanic intervention.
I believe it is like the 1932 election simply because of the many similarities now and back then.
1.) The gap between the rich and the poor is at its highest ever. The previous record mark was just before the great depresion.
2.) The economy is struggling.
3.) The world is going through a tumoultous time, and conflict seems inevitable.

Some of each -- as you may recall, there was a huge furor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlevania_2#Reception) over the cover of Nintendo Power's second issue (September/October 1988, I believe) had Simon Belmont holding Dracula's head on the cover, whereas that'd get little reaction these days.

Also, keep in mind that older people tend to be more conservative than younger people, so the republicans have to deal with supporters dying of old age more than the democrats.

Is this the result of a charismatic candidate who is running against a very unpopular party, or is this election the sign of a shift to the left, like the 1932 election?
Both

Its just a cycle, Bothe republicans and democrats screw things up. after each screw up, power always goes to the left or right. Right now, we are going into a left phase, and in four years, if Obama screws up, it will swing back to the right.

If it's like 1932, it will be twenty years, not four, before the Democrats lose the White House, and then only to an opposition party which has changed drastically, saying "me too!" to a lot of what used to be "leftist" ideas.

Maybe, the huge amount of Americans who don't vote will rise up, and vote independent.

American politics is a like a pendulum, it swings back and forth fairly regularly. Reagan was a response to four years of Carter, Clinton was the response to twelve years of Reagan/George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush was the response to eight years of Clinton, and Obama is (likely) the reponse to eight years of Bush. If Obama and the Democrats shift things too far to the left, then the Republicans will be in power by 2016 or so.

Most people in America tend to blindly support either the Democrats or republicans regardless of candidate, it's 20-30% of Independents that typically decide thins, and right now they'ere backing Obama beacuse they dislike Bush and McCain issomewhat close to Bush in ideological terms.

IMO the country tends to work best when one part controls Congress and the other the White House. When one or the other takes over things usually turn to crap.

Maybe, the huge amount of Americans who don't vote will rise up, and vote independent.
My hope would be that a new conservative party would start to form, as the Republican party gets buried, and good riddance to bad rubbish.

.

IMO the country tends to work best when one part controls Congress and the other the White House. When one or the other takes over things usually turn to crap.


I don't think America is working at its best right now.

On immigration the republicans tend to be opposite of a nationalist agenda. more so because big business likes to have a cheap labor pool.

Democrats tend to be closer in ideology to the nationalist party. because their union backers tend to fear immigration.

Immigration is one of those issues that divide both parties. Some libertarian and libertarian leaning Republicans like Ron Paul and Thomas Sowell(an economist/political philosopher/general conservative intellectual) are pro immigration controls. Then there are those Republicans that represent businesses that prosper using legal and illegal immigrant labor. The Democrats have the unions and low wage workers worried about immigrants, and they also have latinos and those immigrants who become citizens.

The driving force in this election is probably a function of anybody but Bush, and the extremely charismatic Barack Obama. A systemic trend towards a more leftwards candidate, though, is possible.

The driving force in this election is probably a function of anybody but Bush, and the extremely charismatic Barack Obama. A systemic trend towards a more leftwards candidate, though, is possible.

Especially if Obama leftist policies work.

Call it by whatever name you want but the basic idea is that Republicans screwed up royally and now they have to pay. Or at least they should, though nothing surprises me about these things anymore. Not after 2 terms of Bush. Also, apart from some goofy pundit criteria, Obama is not "leftist".+

Call it by whatever name you want but the basic idea is that Republicans screwed up royally and now they have to pay. Or at least they should, though nothing surprises me about these things anymore. Not after 2 terms of Bush. Also, apart from some goofy pundit criteria, Obama is not "leftist".+


How should they "Pay" ?

If you mean by suffering under an Obama regime, that would stick it more to the American people, than Republicans.

How should they "Pay" ?

If you mean by suffering under an Obama regime, that would stick it more to the American people, than Republicans.

Not really an obama regime would bring fiscal responsibilty back to America.

How should they "Pay" ?.

By losing elections, preferably by landslide.

And if those involved really are to "suffer" under an Obama administration, hopefully it will be due to the discomfort of their corrupt greed being curtailed.

American politics is a like a pendulum, it swings back and forth fairly regularly. Reagan was a response to four years of Carter, Clinton was the response to twelve years of Reagan/George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush was the response to eight years of Clinton, and Obama is (likely) the reponse to eight years of Bush. If Obama and the Democrats shift things too far to the left, then the Republicans will be in power by 2016 or so.


The pendulum isn't quite that simple. The current Republican domination of the White House began with Nixon. Since his election, we have only had two Democratic presidents: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Both of these men were somewhat more centrist, coming from the right wing of the Democratic party. Both were Southerners. Carter was a direct reaction to Nixon...Clinton, less so a reaction to Bush...he was more elected because he was somewhat conservative, as well as the impact of Ross Perot. Republicans won 8 out of 11 elections. This move was triggered by Vietman.

Prior to this, Democrats held office in 7 of 9 elections, triggered by the Great Depression. Eisenhower was the one Republican of this era, and he was, at one point, being courted by the Democratic party as a potential candidate before he chose to run Republican. Simply put, Eisenhower was amazingly apolitical...a true moderate.

Before this, was a long stretch from Lincoln to Hoover triggered by the Civil War. Of the 18 elections, 14 were won by Republicans. Only Grover Cleveland (whos politics would get him labled a DINO today) and Wilson won. Cleveland, because of his Republican-like politics, and Wilson, in no small part, because the Republican party split themselves.

It has been major crisises that led to true realignments...Civil War, Great Depression, Vietnam.


the most telling sign will be the popular vote. For the first time in quite a while, the Democrats have a true chance at the White House with a more liberal member of the party. If he can pull 50% of the popular vote, it may be a major sign.

I have seen some analysts saying that this may be the "first" post-9/11 election. Essentially, they argue that it may have taken the 8 years to fully understand and process the implications of that event, as well as the additional events since.

The Republican method of handling these crisises has been astoundingly Democratic, with the establisment of new government bureaus and massive bailout packages. Voters may be thinking that, if this is what is needed, Democrats are better able to do this. Couple this with Democrats tendancy to stay away from expensive wars, this might be the impotus for a major realignment.

Essentially, this would place Bush in the rank of Hoover...a mishandled economic crisis leading to the loss of respect for his party. This could demonstrate a long trend in the Democrats favor, not seen since the 60's, in which Democrats would control the White House in a majority of elections, only allowing moderate Republicans access to the Oval Office.

I'm voting for Obama in hopes that his administration will bring reason and diplomacy back to American foreign policy, following the disgraceful behavior demonstrated by the Bush/Cheney administration.

I'm voting for Obama in hopes that his Supreme Court nominees and judicial appointments will push the courts back towards the center, where Americans are still permitted rights of privacy and free speech without governmental monitoring.

I'm voting for Obama to send a message to the Rove political machine that even Centrists and Republicans are tired of campaigns based on fear and derision, and that such campaigns are a dead legacy of the pre-Internet era.

I'm voting for Obama to send a message to the Republican Party that they can't hold on to members like me by pandering to hatemongers like Fox News and NeoCon radio, or by putting anti-intellectuals like Sarah Palin at the head of their message.

I'm voting for Obama with the full knowledge that putting the Democrats in charge of all three branches of government will have detrimental effects on my personal finances, that the economy cannot be fixed by governmental fiat, and that a single party government will lead to unbridled excess that we'd really be better off without. But that price I am willing to pay, for all those other reasons.



It's not just anti Bushism. It's definitely not pro-liberalism. It's pro-Americanism. It's time to bring back a nation I can be proud of.

putting the Democrats in charge of all three branches of government will have detrimental effects on my personal finances

this seems doubtful based on the available data. unless you are personally in charge of one of the republicans' favored companies, democratic rule is historically better for everyone economically.

*snip*

Arthur Schlesinger wrote a book that talks some about this, The Cycles of American History. I don't know if he came up with the theory, but it connects these election cycles with the mood of the country as a whole, what he believes is a swing between progressivism and reaction, and realism and idealism. It's an interesting read.
Also, you're examples bring up another reason I was wondering whether any commentator had described this as a potential realigning election: they seem to happen approximately every thirty years. It's easy to attribute patterns to coincidences, but it makes sense that the pendulum would swing every generation, and that means we're due for one soon.

I'm voting for Obama in hopes that his administration will bring reason and diplomacy back to American foreign policy, following the disgraceful behavior demonstrated by the Bush/Cheney administration.

I'm voting for Obama in hopes that his Supreme Court nominees and judicial appointments will push the courts back towards the center, where Americans are still permitted rights of privacy and free speech without governmental monitoring.

I'm voting for Obama to send a message to the Rove political machine that even Centrists and Republicans are tired of campaigns based on fear and derision, and that such campaigns are a dead legacy of the pre-Internet era.

I'm voting for Obama to send a message to the Republican Party that they can't hold on to members like me by pandering to hatemongers like Fox News and NeoCon radio, or by putting anti-intellectuals like Sarah Palin at the head of their message.

I'm voting for Obama with the full knowledge that putting the Democrats in charge of all three branches of government will have detrimental effects on my personal finances, that the economy cannot be fixed by governmental fiat, and that a single party government will lead to unbridled excess that we'd really be better off without. But that price I am willing to pay, for all those other reasons.



It's not just anti Bushism. It's definitely not pro-liberalism. It's pro-Americanism. It's time to bring back a nation I can be proud of.
Interesting to see it from that point of view...but, lets be fair. Republicans since Reagan have borrowed and spent. Yes, you might have to pay more in taxes under a Democrat, but it is better for your money in the long term.

this seems doubtful based on the available data.

I'm not saying that Republicans would be better for my portfolio either. All I know for certain is that it's going to get worse before it gets better, and a Democratic landslide (which I expect) will give the social engineers the apparent mandate to spend more of my money than I would like. I'm very much a fiscal conservative, and I'm not seeing a lot of that attitude on either side of the aisle right now.

this seems doubtful based on the available data. unless you are personally in charge of one of the republicans' favored companies, democratic rule is historically better for everyone economically.
Maybe he'll have to pay higher income taxes. One of those avaricious plumbers, no doubt.

Arthur Schlesinger wrote a book that talks some about this, The Cycles of American History. I don't know if he came up with the theory, but it connects these election cycles with the mood of the country as a whole, what he believes is a swing between progressivism and reaction, and realism and idealism. It's an interesting read. I'll have to pick that up.
Also, you're examples bring up another reason I was wondering whether any commentator had described this as a potential realigning election: they seem to happen approximately every thirty years. It's easy to attribute patterns to coincidences, but it makes sense that the pendulum would swing every generation, and that means we're due for one soon.[/QUOTE]

Steven Stark wrote about it on RCP...it does seem time for a swing (the Civil War to Great Depression shift took a long time, but the rest have been fairly regular).

I don't see how this can't be realigning. I know that young voters are not likely to actually vote, but the ammount that my generation seems to lean Democrat/liberal (I saw a report of almost 3:1), the next four to eight years will see a huge change in demographics.

Here is Steven Starks article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/a_realigning_election.html). Much of what I posted is taken from this. (As a note, this is published originally in The Boston Phoenix, a paper similar to The Village Voice)

Here is Steven Starks article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/a_realigning_election.html). Much of what I posted is taken from this. (As a note, this is published originally in The Boston Phoenix, a paper similar to The Village Voice)
Thanks for the article; I'll post it in the OP.

I'm voting for Obama...

I think this is fairly pertinent, people are voting for Barack Obama - in every sense, finger's crossed, he has won this election - I don't think it's necessarily an anti-Bush vote, though it's a factor, I don't think it's necessarily a swing to the left, though that's also a factor, it's that people are actually voting for a candidate, one who has run an extremely good campaign.

I think this is fairly pertinent, people are voting for Barack Obama - in every sense, finger's crossed, he has won this election - I don't think it's necessarily an anti-Bush vote, though it's a factor, I don't think it's necessarily a swing to the left, though that's also a factor, it's that people are actually voting for a candidate, one who has run an extremely good campaign.

I would say that is the number one change from the last two elections. These aren't votes against Bush or against McCain or againt H. Clinton, but for someone. People actually care about a candidate, rather than fearing what the other guy might do. It seems the "lesser of two evils" effect has been changed.

I still worry that the Bradley effect may rear its ugly head, but for some reason, I am being optomistic.

Also, keep in mind that older people tend to be more conservative than younger people, so the republicans have to deal with supporters dying of old age more than the democrats.

That truism is going by the board, too. In Australia's latest Federal election, the 50-59 bracket had a Labor majority. That's going to creep up the graphs as the Baby Boomers age.

I suspect, in fact, that this is cyclic, too. I remember my grandfather as being more small-l liberal than my aunts and uncles, and I've read memoirs from the Victorian era in which the young folk complain of the dreadful outspoken-ness of their elders (who were the youth of the Regency).

... and I've read memoirs from the Victorian era in which the young folk complain of the dreadful outspoken-ness of their elders (who were the youth of the Regency).

Ha ha, 'read memoirs' translates into 'I was there'.

You're kidding no one Ardchoille, or should I call you....Oldchoille?

*rubs chin with thumb and index finger*

this seems doubtful based on the available data. unless you are personally in charge of one of the republicans' favored companies, democratic rule is historically better for everyone economically.

I am not so sure. There tends to be oversight when the three branches are shared.

One party owning all three increases the chance of rubber stamping things as shown by the republicans.....

I forgot to answer the op:

I am against Anti-Bushism. Where else could we get words like educamated?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/top10bushisms.htm

... or should I call you....Oldchoille?


No. Now get off my lawn!

No. Now get off my lawn!

Then give me my ball back you old crone.

The American Nationalist Party isn't warmongery. They're Buchanan-style isolationists. They just want to kick the Mexicans out, presumably because they like hanging their own drywall and mowing their own lawns.

I mow my own lawn. But I'm a democrat. And by dry-wall, is that the same thing as sheetrock? Because I've put that shit up, too.

That truism is going by the board, too. In Australia's latest Federal election, the 50-59 bracket had a Labor majority. That's going to creep up the graphs as the Baby Boomers age.

I suspect, in fact, that this is cyclic, too. I remember my grandfather as being more small-l liberal than my aunts and uncles, and I've read memoirs from the Victorian era in which the young folk complain of the dreadful outspoken-ness of their elders (who were the youth of the Regency).

Definatly true. The conservativism of the late 70's and 80's was born of the 60's...a reaction not far removed from that of the Victorians.

While it has been the trend that the world shifts to be more socially liberal, it is not always the rule.

I find it to be more of a two steps forward, one step back type thing.

By the by, Ard, thanks for the shout out in moderation, though now I fear mod bias based off my user name ;)

You're not the first and you won't be the last to make a sarky comment that gets taken seriously. It's the risk we sarky people run on the internet.

:p

The pendulum isn't quite that simple. The current Republican domination of the White House began with Nixon. Since his election, we have only had two Democratic presidents: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Both of these men were somewhat more centrist, coming from the right wing of the Democratic party. Both were Southerners. Carter was a direct reaction to Nixon...Clinton, less so a reaction to Bush...he was more elected because he was somewhat conservative, as well as the impact of Ross Perot. Republicans won 8 out of 11 elections. This move was triggered by Vietman.

Prior to this, Democrats held office in 7 of 9 elections, triggered by the Great Depression. Eisenhower was the one Republican of this era, and he was, at one point, being courted by the Democratic party as a potential candidate before he chose to run Republican. Simply put, Eisenhower was amazingly apolitical...a true moderate.

Before this, was a long stretch from Lincoln to Hoover triggered by the Civil War. Of the 18 elections, 14 were won by Republicans. Only Grover Cleveland (whos politics would get him labled a DINO today) and Wilson won. Cleveland, because of his Republican-like politics, and Wilson, in no small part, because the Republican party split themselves.

It has been major crisises that led to true realignments...Civil War, Great Depression, Vietnam.


the most telling sign will be the popular vote. For the first time in quite a while, the Democrats have a true chance at the White House with a more liberal member of the party. If he can pull 50% of the popular vote, it may be a major sign.

I have seen some analysts saying that this may be the "first" post-9/11 election. Essentially, they argue that it may have taken the 8 years to fully understand and process the implications of that event, as well as the additional events since.

The Republican method of handling these crisises has been astoundingly Democratic, with the establisment of new government bureaus and massive bailout packages. Voters may be thinking that, if this is what is needed, Democrats are better able to do this. Couple this with Democrats tendancy to stay away from expensive wars, this might be the impotus for a major realignment.

Essentially, this would place Bush in the rank of Hoover...a mishandled economic crisis leading to the loss of respect for his party. This could demonstrate a long trend in the Democrats favor, not seen since the 60's, in which Democrats would control the White House in a majority of elections, only allowing moderate Republicans access to the Oval Office.

Eisenhower really was a true moderate. He was a Republican, but got along fairly decently with both parties and was definitely not part of the more extreme members of his party.

He was also the last Republican either of my grandmothers voted for in a presidential election, and probably in general, despite both of them being registered Republicans until 2002.

Eisenhower really was a true moderate. He was a Republican, but got along fairly decently with both parties and was definitely not part of the more extreme members of his party.

He was also the last Republican either of my grandmothers voted for in a presidential election, and probably in general, despite both of them being registered Republicans until 2002.

Until recently, I didn't know that the Democrats had actually tried to get him prior to his Republican career. The man was so incredibly moderate that it astounds me. I actually have to wonder if someone like that could be elected today.

It unquestionably contributed to the fact that he frequently ranks among our top presidents, however.

The only fly in the ointment is that he used intellectual as an insult against Adlai Stevenson.

been leaning more right. last two elections the largest and fastest growing 3rd party in the US was the nationalist party. projected by 2020 to over take the republicans.

Projected by whom?

By the Nationalist Party.

The only fly in the ointment is that he used intellectual as an insult against Adlai Stevenson.

Quite unfortunate.

I also don't see what the big deal about Stevenson having a hole in his shoe was. Maybe the man does a lot of walking. I mean, really, how is that relevant?

The American Nationalist Party isn't warmongery. They're Buchanan-style isolationists. They just want to kick the Mexicans out, presumably because they like hanging their own drywall and mowing their own lawns.

yes but in Europe you say nationalist you bring to mind other images.

I also don't see what the big deal about Stevenson having a hole in his shoe was. Maybe the man does a lot of walking. I mean, really, how is that relevant?

It was seen as a symbol of his frugality and "normal person" credentials.

i think its a sign that at least a few people have finally gotten it through their thick little heads that makiavellianism ISN'T going to fulfill their own wildest dreams of avarice.

people are just tired of being musroom farmed.

people i've talked to, people who openly claim to be card carrying faschists, are still, haven't chainged their stripes, though many do seem to be thinking about it, but even the hardest core, unless the're personally getting something out of it, or have been really hard core brainwashed into thinking they are, and the latter keeps getting fewer and fewer, even these people, people who openly identify themselves as being these people, those that i've talked to, have had it up to here with bushism, with the whole thing, and even people who still have some enthusiasm for killing people in the middle east, seem to have not such sentiment in favor of bailing out the crooks who bombed the economy.

i think that may have been the final straw for many otherwise enthusiastic supporters of callus makiavellianism.

people who are going to be callus, who, that's how they see things, their outlook on life, well not everyone is going to instantly, majically convert to using better judgement or developing a conscience, but to almost everyone, dispite the herculean snow job of corporate media, just have stopped buying what the're being told, just like all the rest of us may have a little sooner.

this tumultuous time, this brutalizing of the world, i think most of us can see how it has been deliberately engineered to the benifit of the few, to their keeping a hold over all of us, and that it is THAT few, that CALLS itself 'conservative', which really means putting symbolic value ahead of any kind of real gratification, let alone opportunities for gratification, even for themsleves in any real sense that i can see.

i mean you know, people might WANT to believe a lie for a little while, but when it just plain takes too much effort to keep trying to believe what becomes increasingly obviously untrue, well of course people, rightfully get tired and give up on it.

it seem to me, to have taken a hell of a long time, and a lot of what they'd convinced themselves could never happen happening, but i think we finally have, are reaching, that point.

yes but in Europe you say nationalist you bring to mind other images.Like the Republicans. =D

Like the Republicans. =D

i was thinking more along the lines of Liste Jörg Haider or something more right.

i was thinking more along the lines of Liste Jörg Haider or something more right.Yes, that would be the Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republikaner).

Quite unfortunate.

I also don't see what the big deal about Stevenson having a hole in his shoe was. Maybe the man does a lot of walking. I mean, really, how is that relevant?

It wasn't relevant at all, of course, but made Stevenson look out of touch and not with the common man, yadda yadda yadda. An even better story I've heard is about one of the half-hour time slots Stevenson bought on television for a speech, sort of like what Obama is doing now. He was a good speechwriter, and very much against the concept of a sound bite. During one of his speeches on TV, though, he ran a little over time and his mike was cut. The result was people watching on TV saw Stevenson give a speech...and then keep giving a speech, totally oblivious to the fact that no one could here what he was saying. It didn't help his heads-in-the-clouds image.
Eisenhower, by contrast, ran bits like this (http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1952).

A fan of Stevenson's gushed at him, "You have the vote of every thinking person in this country!"

To which Adlai replied, "Too bad I need a majority."

It wasn't relevant at all, of course, but made Stevenson look out of touch and not with the common man, yadda yadda yadda. An even better story I've heard is about one of the half-hour time slots Stevenson bought on television for a speech, sort of like what Obama is doing now. He was a good speechwriter, and very much against the concept of a sound bite. During one of his speeches on TV, though, he ran a little over time and his mike was cut. The result was people watching on TV saw Stevenson give a speech...and then keep giving a speech, totally oblivious to the fact that no one could here what he was saying. It didn't help his heads-in-the-clouds image.
Eisenhower, by contrast, ran bits like this (http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1952).

Obama took that to the net level, he has an entire channel on my satellite provider that runs "political infomercials" all day.

Can't it be both?

Can't it be both?Not in AMERICA!!!

clearly it's anti-bush. Obama would have a fuck's chance in hell of winning had this been any other election, or the economy was good, or if McCain hadn't picked that dipshit Palin.

clearly it's anti-bush. Obama would have a fuck's chance in hell of winning had this been any other election, or the economy was good, or if McCain hadn't picked that dipshit Palin.
McCain was losing before he picked Palin. Palin gave him a quick boost, but no VP could have saved him.
The economy saved Obama from the bust that Palin provided, turning the momentum, but Obama was still ahead (granted, less so) before the economy dropped.

Had this been any other election doesn't really matter. It isn't. What does this one represent?

It can't be so simple as "against Bush", as Bush isn't running. It may be against Republicans, but that isn't quite the same thing.

I also don't see what the big deal about Stevenson having a hole in his shoe was. Maybe the man does a lot of walking. I mean, really, how is that relevant?

http://blog.fantasticbonanza.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/cu-stevenson-hole.jpg



also,
http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/1954/19vt2.jpg

Yes, that would be the Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republikaner).

if you had said Die Republikaner I would have caught you meant in Germany. My apologizes i just though you were making a quip about European perceptions of the US republicans.

I think it's a little of both.

fourth option: people waking up and realizing, that unless your name is haliburton, makiavellianism ISN'T going to fulfill your wildest dreams of avarice.

people have to realize that liberalism is not leftism ...

americans seem to equate the two as a similar concept ...

true liberalism is actually right wing politics- the abolishment of any control on private , economic or oublic life...

but most left wing policies are now becoming more associated with liberalism ....simply bcoz most right wingers are harcore conservatives ..


right wing is about less regulation

left wing is about more regulation

liberalism is about less control

conservatism is about more control


so in conclusion, the concept of politics that many have are actually the opposite of the theoretical reality....


but in answer to the question...i say that.

1. america is becoming more liberal ( note bothe right wingers and left wingers are more liberal nowadays, i'm talking about the younger generations)

2. no, america is not becoming more leftist. it is more anti- bush, thus anti republican.

I'm voting for Obama in hopes that his administration will bring reason and diplomacy back to American foreign policy, following the disgraceful behavior demonstrated by the Bush/Cheney administration.

I'm voting for Obama in hopes that his Supreme Court nominees and judicial appointments will push the courts back towards the center, where Americans are still permitted rights of privacy and free speech without governmental monitoring.

I'm voting for Obama to send a message to the Rove political machine that even Centrists and Republicans are tired of campaigns based on fear and derision, and that such campaigns are a dead legacy of the pre-Internet era.

I'm voting for Obama to send a message to the Republican Party that they can't hold on to members like me by pandering to hatemongers like Fox News and NeoCon radio, or by putting anti-intellectuals like Sarah Palin at the head of their message.

I'm voting for Obama with the full knowledge that putting the Democrats in charge of all three branches of government will have detrimental effects on my personal finances, that the economy cannot be fixed by governmental fiat, and that a single party government will lead to unbridled excess that we'd really be better off without. But that price I am willing to pay, for all those other reasons.



It's not just anti Bushism. It's definitely not pro-liberalism. It's pro-Americanism. It's time to bring back a nation I can be proud of.

I believe this deserves a "Hoo-rah!"

right wing is about less regulation

ha!

ha!

Perhaps he meant in-theory, economic right wing is supposed to be about less regulation.

Or, alternatively, not.

Perhaps he meant in-theory, economic right wing is supposed to be about less regulation.

Or, alternatively, not.

even that would get a 'ha!' from me

people have to realize that liberalism is not leftism ...

americans seem to equate the two as a similar concept ...

true liberalism is actually right wing politics- the abolishment of any control on private , economic or oublic life...

I've heard this before, and while it has historical footing, has not been true in the United States since the 1930s. Historically liberalism, as the name suggests, has one core commitment: individual liberty. By this logic, nearly every politician in the US is liberal.
Now, since the 1930s, and really even before then, liberals have also been in favor of changing society based on reason. Jeremy Bentham wanted to chuck all of English common law and start from scratch, and the Jacksonian era of American politics saw more power given to state legislatures and taken away from state judiciaries. That's not to say conservatives are irrational, but they felt gradual evolution in society was better; immediate change could be risky.
So when people talk about liberalism being right-wing, they are probably thinking of classical liberalism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#ClaLib). It's changed since then.

people have to realize that liberalism is not leftism ...

americans seem to equate the two as a similar concept ...

true liberalism is actually right wing politics- the abolishment of any control on private , economic or oublic life...

but most left wing policies are now becoming more associated with liberalism ....simply bcoz most right wingers are harcore conservatives ..


right wing is about less regulation

left wing is about more regulation

liberalism is about less control

conservatism is about more control


so in conclusion, the concept of politics that many have are actually the opposite of the theoretical reality....


but in answer to the question...i say that.

1. america is becoming more liberal ( note bothe right wingers and left wingers are more liberal nowadays, i'm talking about the younger generations)

2. no, america is not becoming more leftist. it is more anti- bush, thus anti republican.

I think you need to study up on your American politics.

people have to realize that liberalism is not leftism ...

americans seem to equate the two as a similar concept ...

true liberalism is actually right wing politics- the abolishment of any control on private , economic or oublic life...

but most left wing policies are now becoming more associated with liberalism ....simply bcoz most right wingers are harcore conservatives ..


right wing is about less regulation

left wing is about more regulation

liberalism is about less control

conservatism is about more control


so in conclusion, the concept of politics that many have are actually the opposite of the theoretical reality....


but in answer to the question...i say that.

1. america is becoming more liberal ( note bothe right wingers and left wingers are more liberal nowadays, i'm talking about the younger generations)

2. no, america is not becoming more leftist. it is more anti- bush, thus anti republican.

Arguing about the semantics of the word "liberal" isn't really useful to the discussion. The OP question asked whether the US was becoming more liberal, in the sense that the word is used here.

Scott McClellan was on Larry King Live (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/) tonight with an extended explanation of his choice to endorse Obama. His discussion of the rightward move of the Republican Party led him into an endorsement of Centrist ideologies. He pointed out how Governor Bush moved from being a Texas moderate to a presidential neocon, while demonstrating how McCain has followed much the same path. He's a good communicator. It was worth watching.

He's not exactly a power player in politics, and yeah, he's pimping his book ... but I wonder if he is trying to position himself early for the rise of a true Centrist party. After hearing him tonight, I'd strongly consider backing his play. He laid waste to the partisan assholes who tried to shoot him down. He might be worth watching ...

I certainly HOPE it's merely anti-Bush sentiment, because the last thing this country needs is to go backwards to liberalism. And yes, it would be a step BACKWARDS, in the wrong direction.

I'm voting for Obama in hopes that his administration will bring reason and diplomacy back to American foreign policy, following the disgraceful behavior demonstrated by the Bush/Cheney administration.

I'm voting for Obama in hopes that his Supreme Court nominees and judicial appointments will push the courts back towards the center, where Americans are still permitted rights of privacy and free speech without governmental monitoring.

I'm voting for Obama to send a message to the Rove political machine that even Centrists and Republicans are tired of campaigns based on fear and derision, and that such campaigns are a dead legacy of the pre-Internet era.

I'm voting for Obama to send a message to the Republican Party that they can't hold on to members like me by pandering to hatemongers like Fox News and NeoCon radio, or by putting anti-intellectuals like Sarah Palin at the head of their message.

I'm voting for Obama with the full knowledge that putting the Democrats in charge of all three branches of government will have detrimental effects on my personal finances, that the economy cannot be fixed by governmental fiat, and that a single party government will lead to unbridled excess that we'd really be better off without. But that price I am willing to pay, for all those other reasons.



It's not just anti Bushism. It's definitely not pro-liberalism. It's pro-Americanism. It's time to bring back a nation I can be proud of.

You're making a big mistake, Fris. I understand you not liking Bush and all that sort of thing, but Obama's tax plan will totally WRECK and DESTROY the economy (more than it already is), not merely "have detrimental effects on your personal finances".

Plus, in order for Americans to have "rights of privacy and free speech without governmental monitoring", you have to get rid of the Patriot Act. Merely putting Obama in the White House won't make it happen. In fact, now that I mention it, I have not heard Obama say anything, one way or another, about getting rid of the Patriot Act. He may very well intend to keep it, and quite frankly that persuades me not to vote for him.

If you are mad at Bush, and/or don't like McCain, then vote for a third-party candidate or write someone in. Voting for Barack Hussein Obama is a huge mistake.

P.S.: If you consider any of the above to be "fear and derision" like you spoke against, I did not intend for it to be such, but honestly, Obama SCARES me.

Barring divine intervention, it appears like Barack Obama will win the presidential election. Is this the result of a charismatic candidate who is running against a very unpopular party, or is this election the sign of a shift to the left, like the 1932 election?

Anti-Bushism

even that would get a 'ha!' from me

Then you're clueless about what the "official" position is

Then you're clueless about what the "official" position is

transient opportunistic lies do not a theory make

transient opportunistic lies do not a theory make

failures in effective follow through on the theory do not destroy the theory

failures in effective follow through on the theory do not destroy the theory

right-wing economics has never been defined by opposition to economic regulation per se. certain subgroups of the right have adopted it in various times and places, though even when they are serious about it (not often) they almost always give it a backseat position compared to actual defining right-wing concerns that run directly counter to it.

right-wing economics has never been defined by opposition to economic regulation per se. certain subgroups of the right have adopted it in various times and places, though even when they are serious about it (not often) they almost always give it a backseat position compared to actual defining right-wing concerns that run directly counter to it.

Then explain what you think right-wing economics are

Then explain what you think right-wing economics are

an incoherent mess defined mostly by the more general conservative love of hierarchy, obedience, and 'traditional' power.


which is the more right-wing position: freely allowing strip clubs and porn stores and opium dens or outlawing those things?

You're making a big mistake, Fris. I understand you not liking Bush and all that sort of thing, but Obama's tax plan will totally WRECK and DESTROY the economy

Sorry, you're wrong. Having read multiple analyses of the plans offered by Obama and McCain on a variety of sites, it's clear to me that both plans will increase the deficit. McCain's plan will increase it more.

You may have fallen for the old "tax and spend" bullshit that the RNC is pushing, but the fact is that the Republican model hasn't worked. Yeah, we had some happy years under Reagan, but we're still paying them off. McCain is following the same model, and I don't trust his economic sense or his impulsive decision making ability. I'd rather go with a contemplative analyst who is capable of listening to several sides of any argument before jumping. Obama has demonstrated that in Illinois. McCain has demonstrated the opposite.

Fact is, both candidates will be forced to abandon their campaign promises and move into defensive mode. The bailout plus two wars have to be paid for, which will kill any social engineering even in a solidly Democratic government. Believe it or not, some Democrats actually listen to their constituencies, and the people won't allow massive spending programs with fiat money.

No, I'm not going to waste my vote on a protest candidate. I've spent the last six months analyzing all sides, listening to CNN and FOX and MSNBC, reading a wide variety of websites, and educating myself. I'm not swayed by the left-leaning voices in General. I'm something an intellectual, and I can make up my own mind.

The choice is clear. I live in a battleground state, and I intend to put the better man into office.

People say the credit crunch is a bad thing. Mostly because they can't borrow money anymore. I disagree.

I think the credit crunch could be the most awesome thing that ever happened to the US. We'll finally see who actually is a smarty pants.

an incoherent mess defined mostly by the more general conservative love of hierarchy, obedience, and 'traditional' power.


You mean like being an anarchist that works at a university?

The bailout plus two wars have to be paid for, which will kill any social engineering even in a solidly Democratic government. Believe it or not, some Democrats actually listen to their constituencies, and the people won't allow massive spending programs with fiat money.

neo-hooverism is bad, m'kay. or, to quote his shrillness (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17krugman.html?ref=opinion), "right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered ..."

You mean like being an anarchist that works at a university?

yeah, because we totally object to universities...
wait, even that wouldn't matter, considering we're talking ideology rather than implementation.

Good man Frisbee - you were very eloquent earlier. I do feel sorry for Mc Cain, however. Bush has handed him the mother of shit sandwiches. A huge economic mess, two unresolved land wars in Asia, an America with few foreign friends, an incredible legacy of cronyism (look no further than Dick Cheyney and Haliburton. How can a Republican candidate win in such a climate? Middle America is staring job loss in the face by continuing with the Republicans. This crisis will keep the Democrats in power for at least 8 years.
Most Australians support Barack (oddly enough, "to barrack for" in Australian slan means "to root for" - so we barrack for Barack!)

an incoherent mess defined mostly by the more general conservative love of hierarchy, obedience, and 'traditional' power.
See my first response
which is the more right-wing position: freely allowing strip clubs and porn stores and opium dens or outlawing those things?
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/large-smiley-037.gif

yeah, because we totally object to universities...
wait, even that wouldn't matter, considering we're talking ideology rather than implementation.

Well, it's only a hierarchy when you're not involved. AMIRITE?

I mean, I have actually made significant strides in taking down the ruling class this year.

Didn't it take itself down? But pray tell (in your humble way) how you did it Lacadaemon.

Well, it's only a hierarchy when you're not involved. AMIRITE?

yes, how dare i do anything at all in this society! have i no principles?!

...

come on, you must have some idea how to respond

come on, you must have some idea how to respond

I fail to see what that has to do with economic policies

I fail to see what that has to do with economic policies

you fail to see what the regulating vs not regulating of (certain) businesses has to do with economic policies?

Didn't it take itself down? But pray tell (in your humble way) how you did it Lacadaemon.

I was part of the whole short the IBs effort. It worked. And I have no shame in doing it.

yes, how dare i do anything at all in this society! have i no principles?!

Did I say that? No. I just don't think working for a University is a particularly anarchist thing to do. Sort of more perpetuating the hierarchy than anything.

If it's just a hobby, I understand. We all have them.

you fail to see what the regulating vs not regulating of (certain) businesses has to do with economic policies?

considering your examples, yes.

Didn't it take itself down? But pray tell (in your humble way) how you did it Lacadaemon.

I took it down and i did it by taking a shite on the UN door steps at 3 am. that was one good trip to new york.

Ha! Ha! G and D, that is disgusting - but Bush has been shitting on the UN for years.

Ha! Ha! G and D, that is disgusting - but Bush has been shitting on the UN for years.

who do you think i was doing it with ???

Did you wipe your bum afterwards. George wouldn't have needed to - he had Tony Blair and John Howard (ex-PM of Australia) to lick it for him.

Sorry, you're wrong. Having read multiple analyses of the plans offered by Obama and McCain on a variety of sites, it's clear to me that both plans will increase the deficit. McCain's plan will increase it more.

You may have fallen for the old "tax and spend" bullshit that the RNC is pushing, but the fact is that the Republican model hasn't worked. Yeah, we had some happy years under Reagan, but we're still paying them off. McCain is following the same model, and I don't trust his economic sense or his impulsive decision making ability. I'd rather go with a contemplative analyst who is capable of listening to several sides of any argument before jumping. Obama has demonstrated that in Illinois. McCain has demonstrated the opposite.

Fact is, both candidates will be forced to abandon their campaign promises and move into defensive mode. The bailout plus two wars have to be paid for, which will kill any social engineering even in a solidly Democratic government. Believe it or not, some Democrats actually listen to their constituencies, and the people won't allow massive spending programs with fiat money.

No, I'm not going to waste my vote on a protest candidate. I've spent the last six months analyzing all sides, listening to CNN and FOX and MSNBC, reading a wide variety of websites, and educating myself. I'm not swayed by the left-leaning voices in General. I'm something an intellectual, and I can make up my own mind.

The choice is clear. I live in a battleground state, and I intend to put the better man into office.

This is entirely unrelated, but I've been wondering for some time exactly where you see yourself standing, politically speaking, in terms of general political views.

Did you wipe your bum afterwards. George wouldn't have needed to - he had Tony Blair and John Howard (ex-PM of Australia) to lick it for him.

John Howard wiped it for me. Bush got his wiped by Blair.

considering your examples, yes.

well, i don't know what to do for you. your implied claim was that right-wing economics is theoretically defined by wanting less regulation. i pointed out, off the top of my head, several places where the more right-wing position is to regulate business to the point of banning. therefore, to be right-wing can not be equated with opposition to economic regulation.

and that's just among right-wingers that pretend to like free markets. various branches of the right have been in favor of incorporating some sectors of the economy directly into the (right-wing) political ruling structure, or at least protecting the 'traditional' rights and powers of the aristocracy (official or not), etc.

right-wing economics has never been defined by opposition to economic regulation per se. certain subgroups of the right have adopted it in various times and places, though even when they are serious about it (not often) they almost always give it a backseat position compared to actual defining right-wing concerns that run directly counter to it.

I think you're conflating right wing vs left wing with conservative/authoritarian vs progressive/liberal. Not the same thing.

well, i don't know what to do for you. your implied claim was that right-wing economics is theoretically defined by wanting less regulation. i pointed out, off the top of my head, several places where the more right-wing position is to regulate business to the point of banning

This is based on a social premise, not an economic premise. The social premise being social conservatism. A libertarian can be considered right wing as well, but they wouldn't care about a strip club.

I'm sitting here and scoffing. I can't believe why people think that Obama or McCain are any good for our country. Why do we need to use either of them? I'm for Bob Barr- real fiscal stability, and a return to the US miding its own business, liike pre-WW I.

I think you're conflating right wing vs left wing with conservative/authoritarian vs progressive/liberal. Not the same thing.

while they are not identical, conservatism is a right-wing position. in fact, it is by far the numerically largest right-wing position. there are other right-wing ideologies, sure, but the point is, we cannot define right-wing economics in terms of opposition to regulation without doing some severe damage to the surrounding concepts - requiring us to call large numbers of conservatives 'farther left' than the liberts, for one thing.

conservatism is not the same as authoritarianism, either. as something becomes more authoritarian, it does not necessarily also become more conservative. this can be seen from the fascist example.

This is based on a social premise, not an economic premise. The social premise being social conservatism. A libertarian can be considered right wing as well, but they wouldn't care about a strip club.

precisely my point. right-wing economics does not exist as a unified entity. the left is slightly better in this regard, as they are generally treating economics in terms of fairness and harm, while various right-wingers are instead working from multiple other foundations - purity, traditionalism, respect for authority, and "woohoo, more money for me!!!"

but the distinction is not based around supporting or opposing regulation in and of itself. regulation is always for something.

I'm sitting here and scoffing. I can't believe why people think that Obama or McCain are any good for our country. Why do we need to use either of them? I'm for Bob Barr- real fiscal stability, and a return to the US miding its own business, liike pre-WW I.
The US minded its own business before WW1? You mean its own business in Cuba and Mexico, and in regards to Spain?

while they are not identical, conservatism is a right-wing position. in fact, it is by far the numerically largest right-wing position. there are other right-wing ideologies, sure, but the point is, we cannot define right-wing economics in terms of opposition to regulation without doing some severe damage to the surrounding concepts - requiring us to call large numbers of conservatives 'farther left' than the liberts, for one thing.


Well I think you and I have different definitions of right and left wing, if you use the traditional one dimension political analysis then obviously you will run into these problems, but if you incorporate two dimensions (which is what is done these days), then social non economic politics is not tied to the left or the right. This is how it works with political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2


conservatism is not the same as authoritarianism, either. as something becomes more authoritarian, it does not necessarily also become more conservative. this can be seen from the fascist example.

True, but there is a correlation at present (though it may change in future) with the more conservative someone is, the more authoritarian they are (to a point, until it goes in to fascism, so I see your point).

right-wing economics has never been defined by opposition to economic regulation per se. certain subgroups of the right have adopted it in various times and places, though even when they are serious about it (not often) they almost always give it a backseat position compared to actual defining right-wing concerns that run directly counter to it.

I'd think that when we use the term "Right-wing" economics, that there's a whole slew of totally differing economic philosophies that comprise "right-wing" economics. Nationalist, Conservative, Classical Liberal, Neo-liberal, Feudalist, primitivist/agrarian, and on and on and on.

Well I think you and I have different definitions of right and left wing, if you use the traditional one dimension political analysis then obviously you will run into these problems, but if you incorporate two dimensions (which is what is done these days), then social non economic politics is not tied to the left or the right. This is how it works with political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

the political compass is useful in terms of conceptualizing some distinctions. but just declaring that free-marketeering is the only defining characteristic of being right-wing isn't going to fly. it makes a brutal mess of things when we try to look at the world historically, for example. the underlying values must matter more than the economic policies themselves.

the liberts (used to?) market themselves as being 'neither left nor right' because while they thought the free-marketeering was part of being right-wing, they also thought all that conservative authoritarianism was too. for example, the original nolan chart looked like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Nolan-chart.svg/275px-Nolan-chart.svg.png


likewise for the world's smallest political quiz:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Worlds-Smallest-Political-Quiz.svg/415px-Worlds-Smallest-Political-Quiz.svg.png

the main problem with their linkage of free-marketeering and social authoritarianism and calling that right-wing is that the extreme end is impossible. you cannot be both, it makes no sense.

and since normal discourse (and my reasoned judgment) would put the porn store banners farther to the right than the porn store libertarians, i'm going to need a good argument for disagreeing.

Nationalist

Economically that tends to be centrist, if not completely statist.


Conservative, Classical Liberal

Kinda the same thing in many parts of Europe.


Neo-liberal

Meaningless.


Feudalist, primitivist/agrarian, and on and on and on.

Hmmm, I think those are just too old to apply to modern dimensions, also it doesn't have a specific economic policy. It's whatever the local lord or whatever thinks is best.

Economically that tends to be centrist, if not completely statist.



Kinda the same thing in many parts of Europe.



Meaningless.



Hmmm, I think those are just too old to apply to modern dimensions, also it doesn't have a specific economic policy. It's whatever the local lord or whatever thinks is best.

My point is that right-wing economics, if such a thing even exists, which I'm highly skeptical that it does, is not some monolithic entity. It's just as diverse as the endless variations on Anarchism and Communism, and many of its components are entirely dissimilar from others.

I'd think that when we use the term "Right-wing" economics, that there's a whole slew of totally differing economic philosophies that comprise "right-wing" economics. Nationalist, Conservative, Classical Liberal, Neo-liberal, Feudalist, primitivist/agrarian, and on and on and on.

yup, that's my sense too. attempts to reduce it all to free markets vs not free markets obscure more than they illuminate, and generally have no explanatory force outside of a very limited (and, i'd argue, largely imaginary) present moment.

the political compass is useful in terms of conceptualizing some distinctions. but just declaring that free-marketeering is the only defining characteristic of being right-wing isn't going to fly. it makes a brutal mess of things when we try to look at the world historically, for example. the underlying values must matter more than the economic policies themselves.


Hmmm, but underlying values can vary massively on the left as well. For instance, the BNP are almost as left wing as the Green Party economically, but for totally different reasons. I think it's too difficult to apply left and right to underlying principles, because there are far too many.


the liberts (used to?) market themselves as being 'neither left nor right'
because while they thought the free-marketeering was part of being right-wing, they also thought all that conservative authoritarianism was too. for example, the original nolan chart looked like this:


Right, well the nolan chart I guess is just a different definition. I don't think it's used much today in modern academia though.


likewise for the world's smallest political quiz:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Worlds-Smallest-Political-Quiz.svg/415px-Worlds-Smallest-Political-Quiz.svg.png

I think it's historically inaccurate to describe right and left as liberal and conservative. Historically, leftists has always been referring to Marxists, socialists and anarchistic types, where as the right has historically been referring to those who value private property.

My point is that right-wing economics, if such a thing even exists, which I'm highly skeptical that it does, is not some monolithic entity. It's just as diverse as the endless variations on Anarchism and Communism, and many of its components are entirely dissimilar from others.

And as I've been saying, these variations are modelled by going up and down on the political compass, which allows for various different political beliefs on the right.

Btw FS, where do you score on the worlds smallest political quiz? Mine is:
PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 40%.

Hmmm, but underlying values can vary massively on the left as well. For instance, the BNP are almost as left wing as the Green Party economically, but for totally different reasons. I think it's too difficult to apply left and right to underlying principles, because there are far too many.

actually, that's a great example. do you know anyone who would describe the bnp as anything other than a far right party? aside from the bnp people themselves - i don't know what they call themselves - they are universally recognized as a party of the fringe right. and this is so precisely because of their underlying principles.

I think it's historically inaccurate to describe right and left as liberal and conservative. Historically, leftists has always been referring to Marxists, socialists and anarchistic types, where as the right has historically been referring to those who value private property.

except where the right valued feudal property relations and the left was pushing for redistributing the illegitimate property of the rich into privately held property for the people.

Btw FS, where do you score on the worlds smallest political quiz? Mine is:
PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 40%.

100ish
40ish
(i vacillate a bit, depending on whether i feel the exceptions outweigh the blanket statements or not)

actually, that's a great example. do you know anyone who would describe the bnp as anything other than a far right party? aside from the bnp people themselves - i don't know what they call themselves - they are universally recognized as a party of the fringe right. and this is so precisely because of their underlying principles.


I think it's precisely because people believe left vs right refers to social liberal/authoritarian, thus because the BNP are extremely authoritarian, they label the BNP as far right.


except where the right valued feudal property relations and the left was pushing for redistributing the illegitimate property of the rich into privately held property for the people.

Was right vs left as terms actually being used then? If they were, then all I can say is that the terms have evolved to meet new standards, since the aristocratic feudal property owners just don't exist in the west any more.

100ish
40ish
(i vacillate a bit, depending on whether i feel the exceptions outweigh the blanket statements or not)

Interesting how our scores on this are so similar, and yet we have radically different beliefs towards the economy, doesn't that suggest that this measure is also flawed?

I think it's precisely because people believe left vs right refers to social liberal/authoritarian, thus because the BNP are extremely authoritarian, they label the BNP as far right.

except those people would not label lenin or mao as far right figures. now perhaps this is just inconsistency on their part, but the sort of system i prefer at least makes these judgments compatible, and gets at what i think they would be getting at.

Was right vs left as terms actually being used then? If they were, then all I can say is that the terms have evolved to meet new standards, since the aristocratic feudal property owners just don't exist in the west any more.

historically, that's where left and right came from. more than that, i'd like to have a somewhat generalizable system for classifying political positions and motivating values, rather than one that is very context limited if at all possible.

also, given the right's reaction to the attacks on the on-going feudalish system in latin america, for example, the fact that it doesn't work that way in the industrialized north is really just evidence that the right adopted a new baseline after the initial successes of the left. of course, the values that were driving the left then drove them further still when they realized that the old gains weren't enough to satisfy them.

except those people would not label lenin or mao as far right figures. now perhaps this is just inconsistency on their part, but the sort of system i prefer at least makes these judgments compatible, and gets at what i think they would be getting at.


Ok, what should this model be? What exactly defines right wing and what exactly defines centre and left wing?

Ok, what should this model be? What exactly defines right wing and what exactly defines centre and left wing?

Maybe it's just me, but I personally don't like to try to spatially orient political leanings. It's like trying to spatially orient flavor preference. I mean, heck, our modern system of "right, center, left" is derived from how the Revolutionary French legislature was physically laid out. Monarchists on the right, radicals on the left. Seriously, how relevant is that sort of layout to the modern, western political scheme. Most "conservatives" nowadays would probably be in the center to the left in that original chamber.

Ok, what should this model be? What exactly defines right wing and what exactly defines centre and left wing?

as a starting point, take the stated values of the french revolution for the left - liberty, equality, brotherhood. for the right we have something like 'natural' hierarchy and inequality, authority, order, and traditionalism. these values serve as sort of a rough guide, and factions within the broad sides disagree about the meaning and ordering of them, but overall it seems to me that it is these sorts of considerations which sort out the left from the right. much more so than the specifics of economic policy, for sure.

Maybe it's just me, but I personally don't like to try to spatially orient political leanings. It's like trying to spatially orient flavor preference. I mean, heck, our modern system of "right, center, left" is derived from how the Revolutionary French legislature was physically laid out. Monarchists on the right, radicals on the left. Seriously, how relevant is that sort of layout to the modern, western political scheme. Most "conservatives" nowadays would probably be in the center to the left in that original chamber.

True, but as I said, the right left distinction is evolving, also the link I gave specifically mentions the irrelevance of the French legislature model today, but rather than discard it, they just update it.

as a starting point, take the stated values of the french revolution for the left - liberty, equality, brotherhood. for the right we have something like 'natural' hierarchy and inequality, authority, order, and traditionalism.

But then very few people will admit to being on the right. Where would libertarians lie as well?

But then very few people will admit to being on the right. Where would libertarians lie as well?

we don't need them to admit it, we just need to look at their actions and theoretical justifications. its not like we go around taking the democratic pretensions of the democratic people's republic of korea seriously. i mean, the more honest ones come right out and publish papers about how egalitarianism is a revolt against nature, etc., but we don't need that to determine that that is where they are coming from. just ask people if we should engage in new social programs aimed at lessening the inequality in society through redistribution. ask them how important it is for there to be someone giving order and for others to follow them, and for people to know their place. ask them whether we should let foreigners come here freely.

the fact that they'll often try to couch things in terms of equality, for example, just shows how successful the left's revolution has been. but scratch most 'equality of opportunity' types with the prospect of making sure that all children have the same quality and access to education and health care, regardless of background, and you will quickly see a significant block that thinks that certain groups deserve more 'equal opportunity' than others.

libertarians just split when it comes down to it. for example, many of the prominent libertarians in america became all in favor of endless war and secret torture camps and government spying and scapegoating immigrants, etc. when push came to shove. or at least consistently sided with those that were in favor of all of that, though with some muted 'reservations'. another (lesser) group said "fuck that shit". turns out that you have right-'libertarians' and left-libertarians, even amongst those that formerly thought they largely agreed on what libertarianism was.

Where would libertarians lie as well?

Wherever they happen to be?

Oh...
Different meaning of lie, my bad

we don't need them to admit it, we just need to look at their actions and theoretical justifications. its not like we go around taking the democratic pretensions of the democratic people's republic of korea seriously. i mean, the more honest ones come right out and publish papers about how egalitarianism is a revolt against nature, etc., but we don't need that to determine that that is where they are coming from. just ask people if we should engage in new social programs aimed at lessening the inequality in society through redistribution. ask them how important it is for there to be someone giving order and for others to follow them, and for people to know their place. ask them whether we should let foreigners come here freely.


Well I think your divisions are far too exclusive. For instance, loads of what we currently describe as leftists would recognise that there is always some form of natural hierarchy in large societies. Also, some people might like the idea of equality for instance, but feel that such a goal is unreachable by direct distribution, and the best way to improve equilibrium quality of living is through fiscal means.


libertarians just split when it comes down to it. for example, many of the prominent libertarians in america became all in favor of endless war and secret torture camps and government spying and scapegoating immigrants, etc.

Just because they call themselves libertarians doesn't mean they are, but who are you referring to? I think that these people are in the extreme minority of libertarians.


turns out that you have right-'libertarians' and left-libertarians, even amongst those that formerly thought they largely agreed on what libertarianism was.

I thought left libertarians and right libertarians was the distinction between individualist vs collectivist libertarians. Many anarcho-communists call themselves left libertarians.

I hope like hell that we haven't turned to socialism..........but any time someone suggests taking earnings from the rich and redistributing them to the poor, people tend to get in line for the handout!

Well I think your divisions are far too exclusive. For instance, loads of what we currently describe as leftists would recognise that there is always some form of natural hierarchy in large societies. Also, some people might like the idea of equality for instance, but feel that such a goal is unreachable by direct distribution, and the best way to improve equilibrium quality of living is through fiscal means.

these considerations are what makes for at least part of the gradation along the spectrum. they are what allows us to not only place both social democrats and anarcho-communists on the left, but also give them relational positions there; center-left vs far left.

Just because they call themselves libertarians doesn't mean they are, but who are you referring to? I think that these people are in the extreme minority of libertarians.

amongst them are people like glen reynolds, eugene volokh, ron paul, charles fried, thomas sowell, etc. we are talking about some of the more prominent libertarians around.

the split between these factions has been playing for at least half of the bush administration in their journals and conferences and blogs (i would mention their electoral politics, but they have none to speak of). for example, http://www.reason.com/news/show/34149.html

I thought left libertarians and right libertarians was the distinction between individualist vs collectivist libertarians. Many anarcho-communists call themselves left libertarians.

i was just using left and right for their convenience in showing the split amongst those that allegedly were all on the same side before.

these considerations are what makes for at least part of the gradation along the spectrum. they are what allows us to not only place both social democrats and anarcho-communists on the left, but also give them relational positions there; center-left vs far left.


Why limit it to one dimensions though? Also, I still want to know where a libertarian would lie, that is someone who supports small government AND social liberalism (not war and torture etc...).


amongst them are people like glen reynolds, eugene volokh, ron paul, charles fried, thomas sowell, etc. we are talking about some of the more prominent libertarians around.


Well the US is just quirky. However, if you ask the average libertarian, and not the politicians and republicans who call themselves libertarian, if they support the war, they are most likely to say no. If they said yes, then I would find it very difficult to call them libertarian anyway.

Also, wiki describes Volokh as a libertarian leaning conservative, not an outright leaning conservative. And have you got a source that shows that Fried and Sowell supports the war and torture etc...?

Why limit it to one dimensions though? Also, I still want to know where a libertarian would lie, that is someone who supports small government AND social liberalism (not war and torture etc...).

because to adequately capture all the nuances, we'd need n-dimensional graphs. but failing that, the one dimensional one covers a hell of a lot of ground. its about a compromise between convenience and informativeness, combined with the fact that i don't think there actually is one particular defining feature along which any reasonable left-right spectrum can be drawn on. so we merge the relevant values into a single conceptual dimension, and out comes a thing that is actually pretty good at figuring out who allies with who on any particular issue.

libertarians without any particular allegiance to traditionalism and authority seem to me to fall into a sort of 'radical center-right', as opposed to their conservative-libert brethren who are much farther to the right.

Also, wiki describes Volokh as a libertarian leaning conservative, not an outright leaning conservative. And have you got a source that shows that Fried and Sowell supports the war and torture etc...?

i was thinking specifically of fried's defense of the bush admin's warrantless surveillance and sowell's "we don't torture, but we totally should!". i'll go looking for the actual articles i'm thinking of later.