Liberals and reality

[rtwngAvngr]

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/jost_conservatism.html

Political Conservatism, Classical Liberalism and
Social Democracy
G. Richard Jansen
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO, 80523

In the May issue of the Psychological Bulletin Jost and his colleagues published a paper on political conservatism that has justifiably stirred up a hornets nest of controversy. In the same issue of the journal Greenberg and Jonas challenged the authors and in a third Jost et al responded.

First to the hypothesis. Jost and his colleagues put forth the argument that political conservatism is characterized by, among other variables, dogmatism,, intolerance of ambiguity, a lack of openness to experience, uncertainty avoidance, and a need for order and structure(1). This hypothesis was tested and in their view confirmed by carrying a meta-analysis involving these and other psychological variables in 88 studies carried out in 12 countries and involving 22,818 subjects. The authors further concluded that the “core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality,” and can best be explained a theory of motivated social cognition.

In the second paper Greenberg and Jonas take issue with the broad conclusions of Jost, and especially the definition of the core ideology of conservatism(2). These authors demonstrated conclusively that, rather than being resistant to change, conservatives are clamoring for change. They acknowledge that conservatives do not favor equality of condition but are, in contrast, strongly for equality before the law and equality of opportunity. Greenberg and Jonas also demonstrate that left-wing governments have historically exhibited a high tolerance for inequality, the Nomenklatura in the old Soviet Union comes to mind, and that there is also ample evidence and human experience that demonstrates that political leftists are easily as dogmatic and unchanging as political conservatives. The contention of Jost that Stalin is a figure of the political right, not the political left is laughable on its face. What is true, of course, is that the extreme political left, exemplified by Stalin, and the extreme political right exemplified by Hitler, ended up in much the same place and indeed admired each other prior to the attack on the Soviet Union by Germany in 1941. As Greenberg and Jonas pointed out, on a scale ranging from libertarianism to totalitarianism, conservatives are closer to the libertarian pole than are either moderates or liberals. Jost and colleagues in their rejoinder accept most of the points made by Greenberg and Jonas but claim they are the “exceptions that prove the rule”(3). Nonsense. Although the authors cited Popper they should read Karl Popper more carefully. What Greenberg and Jonas did was falsify the Jost et al hypothesis, i.e. reduce it to rubble. Jost and his co-authors saw 22,818 trees and missed the forest completely. However much more needs to be said on their controversial claims.

Methodology
Jost and his colleagues carried out a meta-analysis of 88 studies involving 22,818 individual subjects in which approximately 27 discrete psychological variables were examined, according to the authors, in terms of the political orientation of the subjects. However the political variable in these diverse studies included fascism, authoritarianism-rebelliousness, onservatism-radicalism, general conservatism, economic conservatism, right-wing political orientation, conservative voting record, conservative orientation, RWA scale, SDO scale, C scale, and Economic System Justification scale. The methodology and software employed were not described, indeed in this paper there is not even a section entitled methodology or methods. Meta-analysis to be even valid much less successful should be based on a systematic review of the available literature, definition of terms, and a complete unbiased collection of original high quality studies that examine the same, not 27 variables in terms of 12 other variables.

This clearly was not done. As mentioned a hodgepodge of variables were examined in studies involving mostly undergraduate students. The subjects, other than undergraduates were not adequately described, either qualitatively or quantitatively. Gender, age, race or ethnicity were not addressed The authors describe no efforts to attest to the quality of the studies examined, or the biases potentially involved in the studies themselves or by the investigators, not to mention their own biases. Many of the studies quoted apparently were not peer reviewed since they were in monographs book chapters and conference papers.. The impression of statistical rigor is more apparent than real, and may lead un-critical readers into unjustified acceptance and an unwillingness to examine the myriad of studies cited.

Definitions of Terms
Jost and his co-authors do not adequately define terms. Indeed in the meta-analysis they use such terms as conservative, right-wing, authoritarianism, and fascism without distinction or definition. For example the title refers to political conservatism as the subject of the paper, but in the first paragraph the emphasis switches to the political left and right, and then to authoritarianism and fascism. As we will see, the political right is not necessarily or even mainly conservative and it is clear that the political left is no longer liberal in the classically and historically correct sense.

Conservatism can be contrasted with liberalism, the political right with the left, collectivism with individualism, a constrained with an unconstrained vision or understanding of human nature, and finally today’s Republican Party with today’s Democratic party in the United States. Historically liberalism stood for liberty and freedom from coercion by the State in the political and economic realms under the rule of law. Jefferson said it well when he said that that government is best that governs least. Conservatism historically was based on a tradition and social stability under established institutions, especially the family and the church. As is now well understood, while conservatism per se has changed relatively little liberalism since Marx and the Fabians has changed much and now increasingly emphasizes larger governments, higher taxes and more government regulation especially of business and commerce at the expense of individual freedom. Historically the political left stood for greater freedom and well being of the common man and the right for duty and obedience to lawful authority combined with the ideal of moral propriety and a moral order to society. In the 20th century the extreme left was represented by communism and socialism, and the moderate left by social democracy and the New Deal. The extreme right was represented by Naziism and fascism and the moderate right by a advocacy of market economy combined with limited government and protection of private property, i.e. pretty much the classical liberalism abandoned by the left.. The poles at the extremes have come together when one compares the actuality of communism with fascism and Stalin with Hitler.

F. A. Hayek, in his seminal book The Road to Serfdom emphasized the crucial importance of individualism over collectivism(4). In communist and socialist States the collective control of the means of production and distribution is accomplished by government ownership while in social democracies by taxation and government regulation. Thomas Sowell in his equally seminal book A Conflict of Visions (5) divided political “visions” into unconstrained and constrained. Briefly the unconstrained vision sees people as infinitely malleable and improvable by societal conditions and government policies while those holding the constrained vision see people constrained by the realities of human nature. For example when Madison said we wouldn’t need government if men where angels this is a classic expression of the constrained vision which was pretty much held by most if not all of the Founders at the Constitutional Convention.

Now for the political parties. Since the New Deal the Democratic party has stood for social democracy more than classical liberalism, collectivism more than individualism, an unconstrained vision of human nature and is clearly on the political left as the term is generally understood. The Republican party is more difficult to categorize. There remains some classical conservatives in the traditional sense. However since Reagan the Republican party is increasingly attracted to individualism and the classical liberalism of Hayek. While compared to the Democratic party it is placed on the political right, its policies are strongly Hayekian in terms of limited government, lower taxes, less government regulation of commerce and business, and protection of private property rights. Reagan, Thatcher and now George W. Bush are followers of Hayekian political economy which Hayek considers to be classical liberalism and who considers himself to be an “Old Whig.”
These distinctions and definitions, while somewhat tedious and pretty much ignored by Jost are crucial to any discussion of conservatism and liberalism and an evaluation of the variables examined in the paper under consideration. In the following discussion rather than using such poorly defined terms as conservative and liberal which have, as considered above, changed substantially with time we will compare the political right with the political left which, after all, is
the thrust of both Jost et al(1) and Greenberg and Jonas (2).

Resistance to Change
The political, left of today , whether the Democratic party in the United States, the Labour Party in the U.K., or one of the Social Democratic parties in Europe are resisting change and desperately trying to conserve failing Welfare States in Europe and what remains of the New/Fair Deals in the United States. The political right, mainly Republicans still known, if somewhat inaccurately as conservatives, are working to get rid of these failed political and economic systems that have held sway through much of the 20th century. Liberals do not want to try vouchers for private schools as a means to rescue failing schools , especially in the big cities. Liberals are resistant to change in respect to preferential employment policies and college student admissions which are way past their time of usefulness. It is conservatives such as President Bush who are trying to change the world order for the better by taking the war on Terror to the enemy including Iraq with the liberal left fighting the President every step of the way. In spite of graphic pictures of babies developing in the uterus, liberals refuse to change from their absolutist position including opposing partial birth abortion which is opposed by a strong majority of the public. No matter whether there are issues where conservatives are indeed resistant to change such as the sanctity of marriage and its reality of being exclusively between a man and a women, the thesis that today’s conservatives are more resistant to change than today’s liberals simply cannot be sustained.

Justification of Inequality
In this case also, clarity and definition of terms are important. It is clear from the history of the last several hundred years, certainly since the French Revolution, that maximum equality and maximum liberty are not compatible with each other. As Madison observed in Federalist 10
“The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.” In other words all men are not equal in condition or outcome but are equal before the law. Maximum liberty will inevitably increase inequality of condition or outcome. The only way to force equality of condition and outcome is to restrict liberty. In this equation today’s political left favors equality over liberty and equality of condition over equality of oportunity. In contrast, the political right favors liberty over equality, and equality of opportunity over equality of condition.

Dogmatism and Intolerance to Ambiguity.
A better way to compare the political right with the political left is to look at publications and individuals that best represent these respective views to the American people. On the right we have, for example; The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Commentary, Charles Krauthammer, Joe Scarborough, Cal Thomas, George Will, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, Brit Hume and President George W. Bush. On the political left the New York Times, The Nation, The New Republic, Chris Matthews, Paul Krugman, Paul Begala, Dan Rather, Nome Chomsky , Robert Scheer, James Carville and Al Gore. It would be pretty hard, indeed impossible to claim that the political right, as exemplified by these representative voices is more dogmatic and intolerant to ambiguity than the left. Take any of the important social, political, economic or national defense issues of today and the argument of Jost and his co-authors falls apart as soon as it confronts the real world of opnion and ideas as contrasted with social theory.

Lack of Openness to Experience.
What has the experience of the 20th century taught us?

1. Communism was not the wave of the future but rather an evil and failed political and economic system that, as the Black Book of Communism detailed (6) was responsible for the life of over 100 million innocent people.
2. Lenin, Stalin and Mao were brutal, evil men presiding over oppressive totalitarian systems.
3. Socialism has failed as a political and economic system all over the world, especially in less-developed countries.
4. The social democracies of Scandinavia and Western Europe are failing as productivity and national income can not keep up with social costs.
5 Collectivism, must and does, by its very nature inevitably lead to a loss of liberty and personal freedom.
6. A market economy is demonstrably superior to a command economy.

On all these issues, the dominant political and economic issues of the20th century, the political left was not only resistant to experience and on several of them still is to this day, but was wrong and on the wrong side of history.
Communism cannot be written off as an aberration of socialism. It is indeed socialism, and in its day it was much admired by the non-Communist “intellectual left” as exemplified by the following quotes from Hollander’s book Political Pilgrims (7)

On Visiting Communist Russia

Lincoln Steffens; “I am a patriot for Russia; the future is there; Russia will win out and it will save the world.”
Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury; “Stalin is no oriental despot. His new Constitution shows it. His readiness to relinquish power shows it. His reluctance to add to the power he already possesses shows it. His willingness to lead his people down new and unfamiliar paths of democracy shows it.”
Lion Feuchwanger; “The air which one breathes in the West is stale and foul. In the Western Civilization there is no longer clarity and resolution.......One breathes again when one comes from this oppressive atmosphere of a counterfeit democracy and hypocritical humanism into the invigorating atmosphere of the Soviet Union.” “The realization of socialist democracy is Stalin’s ultimate goal.”
Corliss and Margaret Lamont; “The direction in the soviet, both from the material and cultural standpoints, seems steadily and on the whole upward, and the problems those of growth. Elsewhere in the world the direction seems downward and the problems those of decay.”
John Strachey; “To travel from the capitalist world into Soviet territory is to pass from death to birth”.
Edmund Wilson; "One gradually comes to realize that, though the people’s clothes are dreary, there is little, if any, destitution; though there are no swell parts of the city, there are no degraded parts either. There are no shocking sights on the streets; no down and outers, no horrible disease, no old people picking in garbage pails.”
John Dewey; “As it is, I feel as if for the first time I might have some inkling of what may have been the moving spirit and force of primitive Christianity.”
George Bernard Shaw; “Stalin has delivered the goods to an extent that seemed impossible ten years ago; and I take my hat off to him accordingly.”
Henry Wallace on visiting the notorious gulag at Kolma, where the annual death rate is now known to have reached 30%, “The Kolma gold miners are big husky young men, who came to the Far East from European Russia. I spoke with some of them.”
Sidney and Beatrice Webb (nee Potter); “Stalin is not a dictator....he is the duly elected representative of one of the Moscow constituencies to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. By this assembly he has been selected as one of the thirty members of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, accountable to the representatives for all activities.”
Joseph Davies, U.S. Ambassador to Russia, author of Mission to Moscow. “His (i.e. Stalin’s) brown eye is exceedingly wise and gentle. A child would like to sit on his lap and a dog would sidle up to him.”

On Visiting Communist Cuba

Saul Landau; “Cuba is the first purposeful society that we have had in the Western Hemisphere for many years- it’s the first society where human beings are treated as human beings, where men have a certain dignity, and where this is guaranteed to them.” To Saul Landau, Castro was “a man who has been steeped in democracy.”

Elizabeth Sutherland, art editor from The Nation; “He (Castro) seems, first of all, utterly devoted to the welfare of his people- and his people are the poor not the rich. When he speaks, it is as if his own dedication and energy were being directly transfused into his listeners with an almost physical force.”
Susan Sontag; “It seems sometimes as if the whole country is high on some benificent kind of speed, and has been for years.”
Jonathan Kozol; “There is a sense, within the Cuban schools, that one is working for a purpose and that purpose is a great deal more profound and more important than the selfish pleasure of individual reward. The goal is to become an active member in a common campaign to win an ethical objective."

cont

 

[rtwngAvngr]

On Visiting Communist North Vietnam.

Tom Hayden and Staughton Lynd; “We knew too what the Vietnamese contribution to a humane socialism would be; it was evident in the unembarrassed handclasps among men, the poetry and song at the center of man-women relationships, the freedom to weep practiced by everyone.....as the Vietnamese speak of their country....Here we begin to understand the possibilities for a socialism of the heart.”
Susan Sontag; “in Vietnam one is confronted by a whole people possessed by a belief in what Lawrence called ‘the subtle lifelong validity of a heroic impulse."
Ramsey Clark; "You feel a unity in spirit. I doubt very seriously that I could walk in safety in Saigon, or the cities and villages of South Vietnam, as I have here, because of the division and the confusion and the lack of faith and belief there.”

On Visiting Communist China

David Rockefeller; “One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony. From the loud patriotic music at the border onward, there is a real and pervasive dedication to Chairman Mao and the Moaist principles. Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution , it has obviously succeeded in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose.”
Urie Bronfenbrenner; “To me China seems like a kind of benign monarchy ruled by an emperor priest who has won the complete devotion of his subjects. In short, a religious and highly moralistic society.”
Simone de Beauvoir; “life in China today is exceptionally pleasant.....Plenty of fond dreams are authorized by the idea of a country where the government pays the people’s way through school, where generals and statesmen are scholars and poets.”
John K. Fairbank; “The people seem healthy, well-fed and articulate about their role as citizens of Mao’s new China”. “The Maoist revolution is on the whole the best thing that has happened to the Chinese people in centuries...Maoism...has got results.”
Staunton Lynd and Tom Hayden; “We landed in Peking early in the afternoon....The sense of a different world was immediate...... We could feel the West was behind us.... The communist Internationale boomed with conviction from outdoor loudspeakers at the large modern airport.....Walking before breakfast.... we passed a group of women energetically singing before a days work. Everywhere is the pulse of purposeful activity.”

The inability of the political left to assess reality and learn from experience cannot be over-stated.

Uncertainty and Need for Order and Structure
The avoidance of uncertainty and the need for order and structure conveniently can be considered together. The political left favors a large central government, a Nanny State, if you will, with strong governmental regulation of business. It favors generous redistributionist income and inheritance policies and a very generous panoply of social services. In clear contrast, the political right favors a smaller government consistent with a strong national defense, minimum regulation of business, minimum income and inheritance redistributionist policies and less generous social services. Clearly the left is more in favor of order and structure in government and in the economy, and less willing for people to face the uncertainties of life without generous income redistribution and social services.

Additional Real Differences between the Political Left and Right.
We come now to several real and seminal differences between the political left and the political right. First, as to the fundamental nature of man. The left believes that man is inherently good while the right, to the contrary, believes that man is inherently evil, or at a minimum has a sinful nature. Abraham Maslow, one of the fathers of humanistic psychology was one of many in that movement who was convinced that man is inherently good. In a paper published after his death, Maslow wrote that the biggest problem among those on the liberal-left was the failure to understand and confront evil.. Reinhold Niebuhr, a man of the left very far from being an Evangelical Christian, nevertheless broke with the left on this issue and held that man was inherently sinful. He famously said that the Christian doctrine of Original Sin was a doctrine that could be empirically verified merely by observing the behavior of mankind. This is dealt with in more detail in the paper A Neurophysiological Perspective on Original Sin ((8). original sin . Rousseau believed in the innate goodness of man and that all the ills of mankind derived from civilization. Hobbes of course believed just the opposite as did Madison who said that if men were angels, i.e. innately good, we wouldn’t need a government.
The other major issue on which the left and right differ fundamentally is belief in a transcendent and all powerful God and the importance of religion in public life. The French revolutionists enthroned a Goddess of Reason to replace the Christian God and the result was the reign of terror and murder. Our founding Fathers believed just the opposite as expressed by George Washington in his Farewell Address;

“Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle”

The political left, in the main, does not believe in such a transcendent and all powerful God while the political right, in the main, does. Numerous polls have demonstrated this to be true and this difference between the left and the right can be traced back to the time of Hegel when his main followers, the Hegelian Right, did believe in a transcendent God and the Hegelian left, the young Hegelians led by Feuerbach, did not.

Right after the 2000 Presidential election CNN published a major exit poll covering 13,130 subjects. The result couldn’t have been clearer and less ambiguous;

Gore Voters Bush Voters
Attend Religious Services % %
More than weekly 36 63
Weekly 40 57
Monthly 51 46
Seldom 54 42
Never 61 32

Passing of an Illusion.
As described by the late French author Francois Furet the political left from 1917 until the passing of the old Soviet Union was living an illusion that abruptly disappeared with the demise of communism, except of course in American universities. Unfortunately, Jost and his co-authors are still beating a dead horse, whether that horse is called communism, socialism or social democracy Their description of the characteristics of the political right, conservatives if you will, is evidence of such an illusory World view by individuals so imbedded in their own biases as to render them unable to see clearly.

References.

 

[Freedom Lover]

The definition of liberal that you posted in the reply refers to the classical liberal, such as Thomas Jefferson, who believed that the "government that governs best is the government that governs least". His beliefs are well founded in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

It is the modern liberal, starting with FDR, that has polluted this meaning into ..........that governs most. I suggest that you read Anne Coulter's book "Treason" which is heavily documented with how the socialist democrats have been steadily advancing their philosophy since the 1930's. Not only have they undermined Thomas Jefferson's philosophy of government, but they have created the tyranny of the courts in order to get their way, knowing that a big majority of their ideas would never pass the Congress and/or voters, so they gain it anyway by judicial fiat.

I will repeat from a earlier posting that two of the main issues in this year's campaign should be capitalism (Reps.)vs. socialism (Democrats) and how best to put a stop to the tyranny being imposed upon us by the federal courts in our country.

Finally, I have this whole thing figured out regarding the socialist democrats and their hatred of Bush and worlwide appeasement policies. They hate Bush because he interrupted their steady march toward socialism in this countryand they espouse appeasement in foreign affairs because the military takes tax dollars that they would rather use for more socialist programs to make us more and more dependent upon the government, and in turn them. To this I say no,thanks!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Good points. And also, they act now like they're for small government, since a lot of spending is (patooey) military right now. Liberals are not opposed to a one world government, they just want to make sure that one world government operates along their ideas of global socialism and not the american ideal of freer markets, more individual rights, and less social engineering on the part of the government. This is why they'r agains expansion of u.s. power and influence globally, they side with the idiotic eurosocialists.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by Freedom Lover


they have created the tyranny of the courts in order to get their way, knowing that a big majority of their ideas would never pass the Congress and/or voters, so they gain it anyway by judicial fiat.

Elaborate on "tyranny of the courts". Please give at least 5 examples so that we can fully understand your point.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

please give five examples? bwahahaha. Yes bury the opposition in bureaucracy. typical.

 

[Freedom Lover]

What country today has implented socialism succressfully? Even China is moving more toward free markets. The Eurosocialist countries are in trouble. Most of their unemployment rates are double and even triple ours. Socialism takes away individual initiative and constantly rewards mediocrity and punishes success..

 

[sportzter5]

http://www.collegehumor.com/?textfile_id=42902


I'm not sure if anyone has found this before, but its a great point and definately worth the time reading.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by sportzter5
http://www.collegehumor.com/?textfile_id=42902


I'm not sure if anyone has found this before, but its a great point and definately worth the time reading.

Excellent!

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
You need to share a little more isaac. Where do you disagree with me? I know you do, you're just chicken to jump in until you see the endgame, Like all libs. God forbid they feel stupid after making an error. In IT we call it "analysis paralysis".

I disagree with you that the political spectrum either is your brand of conservatisms or communism, fascism and everything else. I disagree on your view of moderates and liberals. I also disagree with your particular politcal view.

I also disagree with your manners in debate. To disagree does not mean one has to be disagreeable. Though, I certainly can deal with this.

On what?

Many conservatives believe that believe that there are more options either than conservatism or communism, fascism and everything else. Consider the political parties in Europe. They have a much greaty plurality in terms of far right, moderate right, far left, moderate, etc. However, conservatives still believe conservatism is the right choice, and that in my mind is still fair.

You snide little judgements are uncalled for. I already debunked the common charge of binary thinking levelled against conservatives.

You have debunked nothing in that respect. From what I've seen, the only one suggesting that binary thinking occurs at all, on either end of the political spectrum, is you. I have suggested nothing of the kind.

Yes. The post on this thread. I'm not saying it's the rosetta stone of political definition or anything.

It was a simple question and thank you, I now see where you are coming from.

What does it mean to "equate" the human factor?

To believe that there is more to society than equality in economics. I would interpret equating the human factor in liberalism as transcending the Darwinstic view of interspecies interaction and elevate compassion in providing support when we are not bound ecologically to do so. Liberals hard on the left believe that providing support should take precedence over economic equality. I say that economic equality is paramount, but that there should always be some support just because I feel that it is being moral and for no other reason.

That's not to say pure free market conservatives are without compassion, they simply believe that the best way to support their fellow man is by completely letting the market take care of society. I don't agree with this, but that's the philosophy anyways.

I don't want anarchy, I believe in a low level social net of welfare, but I think shame should be attached to receiveing welfare, unless of course a person is crippled or something, this social factor alone could vastly reduce the number on welfare, but no, as it is, libs tell people they deserve this money, and that republicans and whitey are the reason they need it. They are actively taught to blame others for their troubles.

Perhaps in the old days when the instruments of capitalism were not available to all and the entrepeneurial mindset was not prevalant, that was the outcome. Now we all must become entrepeneurs, we must take personal responsibility for all aspects of delivering our good or service, collecting payment and seeing to the continuation and growth of the endeavor. The dumb, comfortable days of being a cog on someone else's wheel are gone, and rightfully so. Are we men or are we "workers"?

I agree with much, if not all, of what you say there. Though in all honestly it suprises me given the fact that allowing welfare leans i bit towards "liberal" idealogy. Given that you believe that there are only polars in therms of political idealogy, it appears that there is indeed a politcal ideology right of yours, being the pure free market conservatism.

We agree on this one.

I'm glad.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by kcmcdonald
Hm? that's a good question. The only way i can figure it is that conservatives, in general, take the issue of "social welfare" and try to decunstruct it down to it's simppelest forms. Partly i think because no politician can rightly say that he wishes to do away with all social welfare. he would never get elected. By contrast the libs are mostly hands off because to exand certain programs any father than they are now would caot the taxpayers a great deal of money and in turn would cost that democrate his job.

I hope this helps you out. I've never had a question possed that way it is a very good point. I don't know 100% why. I'll look in to it and see if I can find something in the parties or ideoligies history.

I think you're quite right. It's interesting how politics and moralism always seems to get mixed by both liberals and conservatives.

I always thought logically, if I wasn't exposed at all to modern political and moral realities that political conservatives would advocate that the government stay out of moral affairs. Conversely, I'd expect liberals to want their government to regulate moralism. Go figure.

I suppose I just never thought before how political ideology and moral ideology got intertwined since they have been so every since I've been interested in politics.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I disagree with you that the political spectrum either is your brand of conservatisms or communism, fascism and everything else. I disagree on your view of moderates and liberals. I also disagree with your particular politcal view.

Based on which specific postions. Proactively pursuing terrorists. Keeping tax cuts. Telling the truth? Not politicizing national security?

I also disagree with your manners in debate. To disagree does not mean one has to be disagreeable. Though, I certainly can deal with this.

On this I feel you're just not used to someone challenging your views to the extent that I do, so you're subconscously villainizing me. Actually I'm quite funny and likeable.

Many conservatives believe that believe that there are more options either than conservatism or communism, fascism and everything else. Consider the political parties in Europe. They have a much greaty plurality in terms of far right, moderate right, far left, moderate, etc. However, conservatives still believe conservatism is the right choice, and that in my mind is still fair.

That's fine and dandy. But on many issues, there are only two options: You defend yourself, or you don't. You raise taxes, or you don't. You believe in individual rights over group rights, or you don't.

You have debunked nothing in that respect. From what I've seen, the only one suggesting that binary thinking occurs at all, on either end of the political spectrum, is you. I have suggested nothing of the kind.

No. I'm certain that you brought it up by asking what my black and white political categories were.

It was a simple question and thank you, I now see where you are coming from.


To believe that there is more to society than equality in economics.

Of course there is. Equality in economics is just something that may or may not happen.

I would interpret equating the human factor in liberalism as transcending the Darwinstic view of interspecies interaction and elevate compassion in providing support when we are not bound ecologically to do so.

What are you, a creationist? Are you a vegetarian? Elevate compassion?

I say that economic equality is paramount

So, you're a communist?

That's not to say pure free market conservatives are without compassion, they simply believe that the best way to support their fellow man is by completely letting the market take care of society. I don't agree with this, but that's the philosophy anyways.

Most conservatives do not believe in 100% unconstrained markets. I, for instance, do believe in trust busting laws.

I agree with much, if not all, of what you say there. Though in all honestly it suprises me given the fact that allowing welfare leans i bit towards "liberal" idealogy. Given that you believe that there are only polars in therms of political idealogy, it appears that there is indeed a politcal ideology right of yours, being the pure free market conservatism.



I'm glad.

:clap1:

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Based on which specific postions. Proactively pursuing terrorists. Keeping tax cuts. Telling the truth? Not politicizing national security?

I believe that terrorism is a disease. You can and should fight the symptoms with military action as terrorism has not excuce. Though terrorism does not have an excuse, it does have a cause. However, you will not get rid of it ever unless you also combat its symptoms: poverty, political inequality and democracy defecit.
Taxes are a necessary evil, though I too believe they should always be kept low and will probably be right in line with you on that one.
Telling the truth? Both sides lie. To say so otherwise is folly.
Not politicizing national security. I think it's fair to say national security is inherintly political since apparently it is decided on by politicians.
I also support strong environmental regulation, universal medicare, workfare, flat tax, double-tax on shares earnings. I oppose traditional welfare and gun control.

On this I feel you're just not used to someone challenging your views to the extent that I do, so you're subconscously villainizing me. Actually I'm quite funny and likeable.

People challenge my views all the time. Why do you think I go to what is currently a right-leaning board? I want to hear what others have to say who do not agree with you and that certainly includes you.

That's fine and dandy. But on many issues, there are only two options: You defend yourself, or you don't. You raise taxes, or you don't. You believe in individual rights over group rights, or you don't.

There is almost always a third or fourth way. You can not only defend yourself to different degrees. You can be the world's largest super power, you can be a major power like germany or a pitiful minor power like Canada or have no power at all like the Holy See. You can be communist and essentially have 100% taxes, you can be social democratic like Canada and Sweden and have high taxes and large social porgrams, you can have low taxes with less social programs like US and Mexico. You can also have no taxes like Monaco.

No. I'm certain that you brought it up by asking what my black and white political categories were.

Indeed, and you said you debunked it. However, most of things you have said to me would suggest otherwise. Every point you've been making suggests that politics does indeed work in opposite poles. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Let me be clear that I do not paint conservatives as the boogy man or enemy like some liberals do.

What are you, a creationist? Are you a vegetarian? Elevate compassion?

Humanist. I believe that there is something special about our specifes that makes us different. Call it divine providence if you are a religious person, or egoism (even arrogance) of sentience as a scientific person. I do believe that difference leads us to live within some moral context. For that reason, I believe that I have responsibility to my fellow man or woman.

So, you're a communist?

Economic equality does not necessarily mean everyone has the same. I interpret it to mean a level ability to compete for individual prosperity. I would define communism as economic fraternity.

Most conservatives do not believe in 100% unconstrained markets. I, for instance, do believe in trust busting laws.

As do I, thank god. But how can some conservatives believe in 100% contsrained markets and some cannot if there is only one, polar, brand of conservatism?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I believe that terrorism is a disease. You can and should fight the symptoms with military action as terrorism has not excuce. Though terrorism does not have an excuse, it does have a cause. However, you will not get rid of it ever unless you also combat its symptoms: poverty, political inequality and democracy defecit.

Yes, and these problems in these regions are primarily due to the despotism, inhumanity, and inherent flaws in the current doctrinaire interpretations of fundamentalist islam. Also this oil has created an unnaturally large yet also solely dependant on a single resource economy that is underdeveloped in many ways. y

Taxes are a necessary evil, though I too believe they should always be kept low and will probably be right in line with you on that one.

That's good.

Telling the truth? Both sides lie. To say so otherwise is folly.

Just making sure you're still alive on that one. Though I do honestly feel that liberals are more dishonest.

Not politicizing national security. I think it's fair to say national security is inherintly political since apparently it is decided on by politicians.

What I'm talking about is the current willingness of democrats in america to pretend that they and the rest of the world's leadership didn't also believe Saddam was a dire threat. How else can you explain getting as far as U.N. resolution 1441? Now they pretend like george bush was alone in an insane dream. It's bullshit.

I also support strong environmental regulation, universal medicare, workfare, flat tax, double-tax on shares earnings. I oppose traditional welfare and gun control.

Not bad. I'm certain with a flat tax the tax revenue would expand so much due to the burgeoning economy that we could probably actually afford universal welfare. Do you think the dems will let a flat tax happen? Hell no. Will the cpa industry? Good for you on your opposition to traditional welfare and gun control.

People challenge my views all the time. Why do you think I go to what is currently a right-leaning board? I want to hear what others have to say who do not agree with you and that certainly includes you.



There is almost always a third or fourth way.

But at any given point in time, there is a basic core choice that must be made. Sometimes what your calling a third or fouth choice is really just an elaboration of the details of the primary decision.

You can not only defend yourself to different degrees. You can be the world's largest super power, you can be a major power like germany or a pitiful minor power like Canada or have no power at all like the Holy See.

But all of these are just the outcomes of fate. Germany most likely would prefer to be number one. Actually, I can see Canada being willing to settle.

You can be communist and essentially have 100% taxes, you can be social democratic like Canada and Sweden and have high taxes and large social porgrams, you can have low taxes with less social programs like US and Mexico. You can also have no taxes like Monaco.

Monaco rocks. What was your point again? It's not all or nothing? No sh*t. Did I say it was?

Indeed, and you said you debunked it. However, most of things you have said to me would suggest otherwise. Every point you've been making suggests that politics does indeed work in opposite poles. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Let me be clear that I do not paint conservatives as the boogy man or enemy like some liberals do.


Humanist. I believe that there is something special about our specifes that makes us different. Call it divine providence if you are a religious person, or egoism (even arrogance) of sentience as a scientific person. I do believe that difference leads us to live within some moral context. For that reason, I believe that I have responsibility to my fellow man or woman.


Economic equality does not necessarily mean everyone has the same. I interpret it to mean a level ability to compete for individual prosperity. I would define communism as economic fraternity.

Anyone can walk in anywhere and apply for a job as it is. Anyone can choose to not drop out of school and do their homework. Anyone cannot do drugs. The crushing poverty your pretending exists just does not exist, not in america.

As do I, thank god. But how can some conservatives believe in 100% contsrained markets and some cannot if there is only one, polar, brand of conservatism?

I never said there's only one brand of conservatism.

Anyway. Party on!

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Yes, and these problems in these regions are primarily due to the despotism, inhumanity, and inherent flaws in the current doctrinaire interpretations of fundamentalist islam. Also this oil has created an unnaturally large yet also solely dependant on a single resource economy that is underdeveloped in many ways. y

Very true indeed. The next century will be quite a wake up for those countries. All the more reason to go green on them.

What I'm talking about is the current willingness of democrats in america to pretend that they and the rest of the world's leadership didn't also believe Saddam was a dire threat. How else can you explain getting as far as U.N. resolution 1441? Now they pretend like george bush was alone in an insane dream. It's bullshit.

I would suggest US appeasement in worldpolitik. Saddam was no good man. Make no mistake about it. However, I don't believe that the evidence is there to say that he was a current external threat. So far, this evidence has not been proved to be true. If it does show up, I'll be the first to change my tune.

Internally, of course, he was a despot, however there are many countries with despots that the western world leaves alone. In fact western countries have installed many of these dictatators. The other question is whether Iraq will be better off without Saddam. As ridiculous as it sounds, we do not know the nature of the next regime. If it turns out to be a Shiite fundamentalist regime, then we may have another Iran on ours hands. Though, I'm still rooting for democracy and US-Coalition success, but democracy never or at least rarely works when force fed down someones throat.
[/quote]

Not bad. I'm certain with a flat tax the tax revenue would expand so much due to the burgeoning economy that we could probably actually afford universal welfare. Do you think the dems will let a flat tax happen? Hell no. Will the cpa industry? Good for you on your opposition to traditional welfare and gun control.

I know very little of your Demorats to be honest. I think just the name itself angers quite a few liberals, but it's inherintly fair. I'd also like to see tax heavily removed or shifted from earnings and shift to production and consumption in order to reform industrial efficiency, but I suppose that's another matter for a different time

But at any given point in time, there is a basic core choice that must be made. Sometimes what your calling a third or fouth choice is really just an elaboration of the details of the primary decision.

You absolutely right third or fourth choices can be an elaboration on a binary decision, but they still offer an ability to mediate between the two. There are some issues where there is complete and seperate third ways. For instance, take my previous tax example. Sometimes it isn't a matter of taxing more or taxing less, but taxing different. That third way is not a function of either polar ends.

Monaco rocks. What was your point again? It's not all or nothing? No sh*t. Did I say it was?

I think you did say it was all or nothing, that's why I've been asking you all these questions.
ie:

Dont know anyone else. I see two sides. the side of Freedom, and the Side that encompasses all opposings views, IE Neocommunist liberals, Fascists, Tyrants, dictators, Terrorists etc.
I dont buy the liberal conservative specrtum.

Anyone can walk in anywhere and apply for a job as it is. Anyone can choose to not drop out of school and do their homework. Anyone cannot do drugs. The crushing poverty your pretending exists just does not exist, not in america.

If you dropped welfare all together, it would.

I never said there's only one brand of conservatism.

But as suggested in the above quote you only see two sides to the political coin. However, if there are different brands of conservatism, wouldn't one be more liberal than another? Correct me if I misinterpret you, I think this where my bone of contention is.

Party on Garth.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Very true indeed. The next century will be quite a wake up for those countries. All the more reason to go green on them.


I would suggest US appeasement in worldpolitik.

Yes. Appeasement worked well with hitler.

Saddam was no good man. Make no mistake about it. However, I don't believe that the evidence is there to say that he was a current external threat. So far, this evidence has not been proved to be true. If it does show up, I'll be the first to change my tune.

OK. But to to constantly keep singling out bush as if he was the only one who thought saddam had weapons is intellectually dishonest. Everyone did. THAT's the point here.

Internally, of course, he was a despot, however there are many countries with despots that the western world leaves alone. In fact western countries have installed many of these dictatators.

Most of the time it was done for a higher political reasons like gaining influence in an area that the USSR was trying to control. IT's not always pretty I admit. I was against communism. Were you?

The other question is whether Iraq will be better off without Saddam. As ridiculous as it sounds, we do not know the nature of the next regime.

This is really a negative outlook. "Let's not do something about the current abominations because we don't know what's next? " You're in analysis paralysis again Isaac. You don't want to act because you don't know every detail. If you don't try, it has no chance of getting better. Were you getting money from the oil for food corruption too?

If it turns out to be a Shiite fundamentalist regime, then we may have another Iran on ours hands. Though, I'm still rooting for democracy and US-Coalition success, but democracy never or at least rarely works when force fed down someones throat.

Really? Has it been tried? I've only seen communism and other forms of tyranny forced down people's throat. Does that work? Oh wait. They don't ask.

I know very little of your Demorats to be honest. I think just the name itself angers quite a few liberals, but it's inherintly fair. I'd also like to see tax heavily removed or shifted from earnings and shift to production and consumption in order to reform industrial efficiency, but I suppose that's another matter for a different time


You absolutely right third or fourth choices can be an elaboration on a binary decision, but they still offer an ability to mediate between the two.

Not if the initial binary decision has already been made and cannot be undone. Unless you have a time machine.

There are some issues where there is complete and seperate third ways. For instance, take my previous tax example. Sometimes it isn't a matter of taxing more or taxing less, but taxing different.

Yes. yes. A vast infinite number of choices. But most choices in practice fall along answering a fundamental question with two choices: Is it better for people or government to decide what should be done with most of the money?

Sometimes there are third ways, yes, however.

That third way is not a function of either polar ends.


I think you did say it was all or nothing, that's why I've been asking you all these questions.

In the real world, bound in time and external circumstance, and not being inside a simulated computer modelling program with infinite level of undo and redo/ sometimes you must start making decisions and acting, yes, without knowing the full consequences of everything you do. It's called life.

ie:





If you dropped welfare all together, it would.

But as suggested in the above quote you only see two sides to the political coin. However, if there are different brands of conservatism, wouldn't one be more liberal than another? Correct me if I misinterpret you, I think this where my bone of contention is.

Party on Garth.

Dude. I'm not a black and white thinker.

Ahomosayswhat.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Yes. Appeasement worked well with hitler.

I wouldn't compare the US to Nazi Germany.

OK. But to to constantly keep singling out bush as if he was the only one who thought saddam had weapons is intellectually dishonest. Everyone did. THAT's the point here.

Very true, but I guess that's what happens when you're the world's only super power. With great power.....

Most of the time it was done for a higher political reasons like gaining influence in an area that the USSR was trying to control. IT's not always pretty I admit. I was against communism. Were you?

I'm sure that's very reassuring to the people that have and are currently living under those regimes. It's fine to justify the installation of these dictators as a roadblock to communism, but let's call a spade and a spade. We, as western nations, do have a responsibility to the nations whose government we install.

This is really a negative outlook. "Let's not do something about the current abominations because we don't know what's next? " You're in analysis paralysis again Isaac. You don't want to act because you don't know every detail. If you don't try, it has no chance of getting better. Were you getting money from the oil for food corruption too?

So measure once, cut twice?

Really? Has it been tried? I've only seen communism and other forms of tyranny forced down people's throat. Does that work? Oh wait. They don't ask.

It was tried in 1898 in Cuba we got Castro.
It was tried in 1898 in the Philipines and over 50 years of poverty and civil war ensued culminating with Marcos in the 70's declaring martial law. Though, I suppose now they're starting to get it right though corruption and violence is still abound.
It was tried in Congo in 1972 by the French and civil still continues.
There are examples of successful installed democracies, but more often they occured after the fall of communist states, ironically enough.

In the real world, bound in time and external circumstance, and not being inside a simulated computer modelling program with infinite level of undo and redo/ sometimes you must start making decisions and acting, yes, without knowing the full consequences of everything you do. It's called life.

So very true. We cannot and should not stop making decisions. However, we must be accountable for the decisions we make.

Dude. I'm not a black and white thinker.

Very well, though that one post still sticks out. Your subsequent replies have proved otherwise. I'll take your word on it.

Ahomosayswhat.

Shyeah! And monkies fly out of my butt!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I wouldn't compare the US to Nazi Germany.

No. But I would compare Saddam to him. And the current appeasement orientation of today's liberals is just as flawed as it was during Hitler's time, and will probably be just as effective. Which is to say, ineffective. Have your heard about this before?

Very true, but I guess that's what happens when you're the world's only super power. With great power.....

So when you're a world superpower, it's ok for people to lie and try to revise history. That's what I would expect you to think. That's sad, Isaac.

I'm sure that's very reassuring to the people that have and are currently living under those regimes. It's fine to justify the installation of these dictators as a roadblock to communism, but let's call a spade and a spade. We, as western nations, do have a responsibility to the nations whose government we install.

Now we're fixing it, and you're still upset. Will anything please the left?

So measure once, cut twice?

If there's time.

It was tried in 1898 in Cuba we got Castro.
It was tried in 1898 in the Philipines and over 50 years of poverty and civil war ensued culminating with Marcos in the 70's declaring martial law. Though, I suppose now they're starting to get it right though corruption and violence is still abound.
It was tried in Congo in 1972 by the French and civil still continues.
There are examples of successful installed democracies, but more often they occured after the fall of communist states, ironically enough.

So I guess communism is a required precursor to successful democratic capitalism. Who knew?

So very true. We cannot and should not stop making decisions. However, we must be accountable for the decisions we make.

Yes, but it would nice if during a time of war there was actually some substance to these charge of misleadership. It's so transparently political. Dems look insane. DO they realize it?

Very well, though that one post still sticks out. Your subsequent replies have proved otherwise. I'll take your word on it.


Shyeah! And monkies fly out of my butt!

One post? Forget what that was about. Oh well.

sphinticious.

 

[MadMax]

Originally posted by lilcountriegal
I dont think you look like an ass RWA. I just think you misunderstood the humor behind DK's post.

We have some "out there" people on this board that post some absurd things... DK is one of the (if not THE) most thoughtful posters for the other side.

I think while you looked at the post and saw him calling you a troll, others looked at the post and saw humor behind it without any personal attacks. Maybe thats just because DK is above personal attacks, IMO.

So be it.. whichever, whatever. I think it was all in fun that just turned into a big misunderstanding.

Eh... I could be wrong... volumes of alcohol could be impairing my judgement.

Quit stealing my excuses Lil.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
No. But I would compare Saddam to him. And the current appeasement orientation of today's liberals is just as flawed as it was during Hitler's time, and will probably be just as effective. Which is to say, ineffective. Have your heard about this before?

The difference is that the world knew with out a doubt Hitler has an arms build up and mobilization. They were also warned, years in advance by the Anchluss. We do not know and still do not know if he had weapons. Though, I'll be the first to change my tune if the coalition finds the weapons.

So when you're a world superpower, it's ok for people to lie and try to revise history. That's what I would expect you to think. That's sad, Isaac.

I didn't say that all. Show me where I said that.

Now we're fixing it, and you're still upset. Will anything please the left?

I'll be pickled tink if things improve in Iraq and Afghanistan for their people. I wish nothing but the best for the people. Though, currently things aren't looking so great. I suppose I will reserve judgement for some odd years down the road.
If there's time.

So I guess communism is a required precursor to successful democratic capitalism. Who knew?

Maybe marx was wrong and got it in reverse after all

Yes, but it would nice if during a time of war there was actually some substance to these charge of misleadership. It's so transparently political. Dems look insane. DO they realize it?

Well, from the polls i've seen, it's about half and half.

One post? Forget what that was about. Oh well.

I'll live