USA Politics

The Flash said:
I don't think right/left spectrum is really applicable anymore anyway.
Click to expand...

I am not sure it ever was.. Forgot who, but I recall in college reading a circle instead of a line with Communism/Fascism right next to one another and anarchism on the opposite side. That seemed more useful.

Not this exact one, but something similar .. much more useful

political-spectrum_25per.png
 
Looks pretty good. I've always thought extreme left and extreme right were almost identical, so it's definitely a circle instead of a line.

But if you're really interested in politics, surely you don't really need a compass to talk about it. Left/right spectrum, this, or whatever.
 
The Flash said:
@Cornfed Hick From what I understand, left/right spectrum is almost exclusively founded upon principles of equality and social hierarchy. Not freedom. Extreme left is extreme because it strives for absolute no inequality. Centre-left is more focused on equal opportunity, not necessarily equality at all costs. The more right you go, the more desireable economic inequality becomes. Extreme right strives for absolute inequality, not just economically but also socially.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm not sure that's how most Americans think about it, but it's a coherent theory. This dovetails with something I've been thinking about lately, which is admittedly a little off-topic.

I could start a longer essay on this, but in my view, most sane people crave three things in different measures: love, power and freedom. Some might say money, but typically that's just a means of obtaining one of the other three. Leave aside the love part -- there are some people who value freedom more than power, and there are some who value power more than freedom. One could quibble with the distinction: freedom is, in essence, power over one's own life. But by power I mean power over others. It can be intoxicating, and it absolutely affects behavior. (Google "Stanford Prison Experiment.") They are sometimes complementary: people with power may have the freedom to do certain things that others can't. But they can also be mutually exclusive up to a point: someone who runs a business, for example, may have power over his employees, but in trying to maintain that power he loses much of his freedom. This explains why many wealthy, powerful people still work 18-hour days; they are slaves to the grind, and not really free.

Turning back to the political arena, I really don't think you can divorce the discussion about social and economic inequality from the debate about freedom. This is an overgeneralization, but people who value their own freedom tend to value others' freedom, too. "To each his own." But people who value power over others are obviously less inclined to respect others' freedoms. As an American "Conservative," my distrust of government generally is rooted in the paradox that the people you don't want running the country -- i.e., the people who value their own power over others' freedoms -- are precisely the people who seek to run the country. I'm not sure I totally buy the "economic" vs. "social" distinction either. People either have freedom to live their lives as they wish, or they don't. The freedom to make your living and how to manage the fruits of your labor seems no different than the freedom to decide whom you want to partner with romantically or whom you want to work with.
 
The Flash said:
Looks pretty good. I've always thought extreme left and extreme right were almost identical, so it's definitely a circle instead of a line.

But if you're really interested in politics, surely you don't really need a compass to talk about it. Left/right spectrum, this, or whatever.
Click to expand...

No, you really do not need it .. but that is the language most people use when discussing it. I'll add that one of the biggest problems in US politics is people are treating political parties/wings of parties like their favorite sports team and root for them no matter what and would not be caught dead accepting a position of "the other side" -- like there are really only 2 answers to every problem and of the literally thousands of issues in the US one side encompasses all that is right and correct on all of them.

The idiotic "news' outlets from Fox, the Huffington Post and much worse on either side certainly does not help.

So, if I really have to pick a label, I would pick Libertarian, but I certainly disagree with it on plenty of things .. I find it most right for me, but certainly not 100% right .. because nothing/no one is.
 
Collin said:
Say what you want about Reagan, but he did end The Cold War, and Ford really did nothing during his presidency. LBJ only escalated the Vietnam War causing one of the worst and easily most unessescary conflicts in US history. I also think Nixons impeachment overshadowed the other things he did during his presidency. But the rest? Yes, LBJ was better.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not insinuating LBJ was anything close to an amazing president, the same way I'm not insinuating Obama is anything close to an amazing president. I just think that in comparison to the competition, LBJ did a better job.

The Vietnam War was horrible and pointless, that much I agree with you on, much like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan 15 or so years later. But in terms of domestic policy, I think Johnson did a good job. Remember, it was during the Nixon presidency that support for the Vietnam war really began to falter, which is why it was in his best interests to end it.
 
bearfan said:
I find it most right for me, but certainly not 100% right .. because nothing/no one is.
Click to expand...

This is my position as well. There's no "perfect" political or economic system. All of them have their pros and cons. I'm somewhere between social liberal and social democrat but the exact extent of mixed economy and government influence is something I'm not sure about.

This very fact is the reason I find democracy and being able to have a platform where people of different ideologies can come together to discuss things and come up with the greater good to be so important. Probably the most valuable aspect of all politics.
 
RTC said:
Again, I'm not insinuating LBJ was anything close to an amazing president, the same way I'm not insinuating Obama is anything close to an amazing president. I just think that in comparison to the competition, LBJ did a better job.

The Vietnam War was horrible and pointless, that much I agree with you on, much like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan 15 or so years later. But in terms of domestic policy, I think Johnson did a good job. Remember, it was during the Nixon presidency that support for the Vietnam war really began to falter, which is why it was in his best interests to end it.
Click to expand...
It is true that the support for the War faltered during the Nixon era, but looking back most people would not support it and that's what truly matters. But to me at least, the Vietnam War was absolutely unacceptable and truly unforgivable. That's why I think he was so terrible.
 
bearfan said:
I am not sure it ever was.. Forgot who, but I recall in college reading a circle instead of a line with Communism/Fascism right next to one another and anarchism on the opposite side. That seemed more useful.

Not this exact one, but something similar .. much more useful

political-spectrum_25per.png
Click to expand...

I've seen something like that before, though I fall pretty firmly into the "Classical Liberal/Jeffersonian" school of a socialist who believes in liberty.
 
Collin said:
It is true that the support for the War faltered during the Nixon era, but looking back most people would not support it and that's what truly matters. But to me at least, the Vietnam War was absolutely unacceptable and truly unforgivable. That's why I think he was so terrible.
Click to expand...

Well, you're basing one huge event to determine his entire presidency, in the same way people do with Nixon and Watergate. Obviously, they are two different things, but LBJ did a lot better in terms of domestic policy than Nixon, at least IMO.
 
RTC said:
Well, you're basing one huge event to determine his entire presidency, in the same way people do with Nixon and Watergate. Obviously, they are two different things, but LBJ did a lot better in terms of domestic policy than Nixon, at least IMO.
Click to expand...
Yes but an event as catastrophic as that where a lot of people where killed is worthy. Nixon's debacle didn't harm anyone and was a little thing that turned into something huge and inevitably caused him to resign.
 
bearfan said:
I am not sure it ever was.. Forgot who, but I recall in college reading a circle instead of a line with Communism/Fascism right next to one another and anarchism on the opposite side. That seemed more useful.

Not this exact one, but something similar .. much more useful

political-spectrum_25per.png
Click to expand...
This diagram is interesting, but a little off. I don't know of many self-classified"Libertarians" who would put themselves on the "Socialism" side of the line. They really belong where the "Independents" notation is.
 
Definitely somewhere on the north east middle of that graph.
And it's not just easy as 'less gov't'. It depends on what that less of a government will do, where they're concentrating efforts. I don't need less government so corporations can seamlessly fuck me over, I need effective government with streamlined processes and minimal amount of employees and even more tight control of how corporate affairs affect general population.
 
The CIA have been interfering in so much across the globe since WW2, it's legitimately terrifying.
 
Hey, Obama said something I agree with. Good for him

“I know a couple years ago some folks on this campus got upset that Condoleezza Rice was supposed to speak at a commencement,” said Obama. “I don’t think it’s a secret that I disagree with many of the foreign policies of Dr. Rice and the previous administration. But the notion that this community or the country would be better served by not hearing from a former secretary of state or shutting out what she had to say, I believe that is misguided.”
The answer to bad speech is more speech, Obama continued.
“If you disagree with somebody, bring them in and ask them tough questions,” he said. “Hold their feet to the fire, make them defend their positions. If somebody’s got a bad or offensive idea, prove it wrong. Engage it, debate it, stand up for what you believe in. Don’t be scared to take somebody on. Don’t feel like you got to shut your ears because you’re too fragile and somebody might offend your sensibilities. Go after them if they’re not making any sense. Use your logic and reason and words, and by doing so you’ll strengthen your own position. And you’ll hone your arguments and maybe you’ll learn something and realize maybe you don’t know everything. You may have a new understanding, not only of what your opponents believe but what of you belie. Either way, you win
 
bearfan said:
I am not sure it ever was.. Forgot who, but I recall in college reading a circle instead of a line with Communism/Fascism right next to one another and anarchism on the opposite side. That seemed more useful.

Not this exact one, but something similar .. much more useful

political-spectrum_25per.png
Click to expand...

This is an interesting diagram and it reminds me of the cyclical or often "balanced" nature of things, our existence and our collective and individual minds (left half/right half). I believe that this is a large reason for our near 50/50 split as a nation politically in the USA as well as in other areas of concern. Almost everything falls to a common denominator of some sort eventually and those things that don't often cause imbalance and all consequences coming from that imbalance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top