The Fictitious Left-Right Paradigm

[Malcom X]

The entire concept began with the Assembly Nationale during the French Revolution. Those who sat on the right side of the chamber supported the Monarchy. Those on the left side of the chamber supported the Revolution. They were seperated to deter infighting.

Why do you use this model as the basis of all political thought? This superficial, artificial horizontal line has narrowed your view, blinded your sight from any foriegn ideas, any new truths that lie contrary to the simplistic, rigid doctrine of conservatism and liberalism.

I am neither a Conservative nor a Liberal. I do not fall into the trap of false polarization, the illusory war with no victor. Do you? Are you entrapped by the puppet show, invested in it's plot so loyally that any thought outside it's bounds are immediately branded extreme, radical, and wholly unworthy of critical attention?

We always hear about how we must acknowledge both sides of an issue. You see that? BOTH sides of an issue. Not ALL sides, not ALL possible angles. BOTH sides. The sides that have already been laid out for you.

You don't have a choice. You've never had a choice in their world. Start thinking for yourselves... stop thinking left and right, liberal and conservative. Start thinking like a free human being.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91pPQ0xUWvs]YouTube - WAKING LIFE WITH ALEX JONES REMIX - BY GODS OTHER DEVIL[/ame]

 

[rdean]

The entire concept began with the Assembly Nationale during the French Revolution. Those who sat on the right side of the chamber supported the Monarchy. Those on the left side of the chamber supported the Revolution. They were seperated to deter infighting.

Why do you use this model as the basis of all political thought? This superficial, artificial horizontal line has narrowed your view, blinded your sight from any foriegn ideas, any new truths that lie contrary to the simplistic, rigid doctrine of conservatism and liberalism.

I am neither a Conservative nor a Liberal. I do not fall into the trap of false polarization, the illusory war with no victor. Do you? Are you entrapped by the puppet show, invested in it's plot so loyally that any thought outside it's bounds are immediately branded extreme, radical, and wholly unworthy of critical attention?

We always hear about how we must acknowledge both sides of an issue. You see that? BOTH sides of an issue. Not ALL sides, not ALL possible angles. BOTH sides. The sides that have already been laid out for you.

You don't have a choice. You've never had a choice in their world. Start thinking for yourselves... stop thinking left and right, liberal and conservative. Start thinking like a free human being.

Ridiculous.

Certainly, for the right wing, they follow an imbecilic plan. Tax cuts for millionaires. Slashing education. War without consequence (or so they think). They don't know how to think things through beyond how they imagine an outcome. We see it every day.

The Democrats are a very broad coalition that operates by consensus from many different disparate groups. In fact, when the Republicans actually begin courting more than old, uneducated, Christian and white, you will see them move closer to sanity. Considering that you appear to be operating strictly on "imagination", I suspect you are far more right wing than you will ever acknowledge. Have a nice day.

 

[Malcom X]

The entire concept began with the Assembly Nationale during the French Revolution. Those who sat on the right side of the chamber supported the Monarchy. Those on the left side of the chamber supported the Revolution. They were seperated to deter infighting.

Why do you use this model as the basis of all political thought? This superficial, artificial horizontal line has narrowed your view, blinded your sight from any foriegn ideas, any new truths that lie contrary to the simplistic, rigid doctrine of conservatism and liberalism.

I am neither a Conservative nor a Liberal. I do not fall into the trap of false polarization, the illusory war with no victor. Do you? Are you entrapped by the puppet show, invested in it's plot so loyally that any thought outside it's bounds are immediately branded extreme, radical, and wholly unworthy of critical attention?

We always hear about how we must acknowledge both sides of an issue. You see that? BOTH sides of an issue. Not ALL sides, not ALL possible angles. BOTH sides. The sides that have already been laid out for you.

You don't have a choice. You've never had a choice in their world. Start thinking for yourselves... stop thinking left and right, liberal and conservative. Start thinking like a free human being.

Ridiculous.

Certainly, for the right wing, they follow an imbecilic plan. Tax cuts for millionaires. Slashing education. War without consequence (or so they think). They don't know how to think things through beyond how they imagine an outcome. We see it every day.

The Democrats are a very broad coalition that operates by consensus from many different disparate groups. In fact, when the Republicans actually begin courting more than old, uneducated, Christian and white, you will see them move closer to sanity. Considering that you appear to be operating strictly on "imagination", I suspect you are far more right wing than you will ever acknowledge. Have a nice day.

This is exactly the type of entrapped mindset I'm talking about.

To even dare question the logic of the artificial left-right ideological scale will cause anyone blinded by it to call you the opposite of what they claim to be. If you were a conservative you would have called me a liberal.

This civil war mindset is dangerous and irrational.

 

[rdean]

The entire concept began with the Assembly Nationale during the French Revolution. Those who sat on the right side of the chamber supported the Monarchy. Those on the left side of the chamber supported the Revolution. They were seperated to deter infighting.

Why do you use this model as the basis of all political thought? This superficial, artificial horizontal line has narrowed your view, blinded your sight from any foriegn ideas, any new truths that lie contrary to the simplistic, rigid doctrine of conservatism and liberalism.

I am neither a Conservative nor a Liberal. I do not fall into the trap of false polarization, the illusory war with no victor. Do you? Are you entrapped by the puppet show, invested in it's plot so loyally that any thought outside it's bounds are immediately branded extreme, radical, and wholly unworthy of critical attention?

We always hear about how we must acknowledge both sides of an issue. You see that? BOTH sides of an issue. Not ALL sides, not ALL possible angles. BOTH sides. The sides that have already been laid out for you.

You don't have a choice. You've never had a choice in their world. Start thinking for yourselves... stop thinking left and right, liberal and conservative. Start thinking like a free human being.

Ridiculous.

Certainly, for the right wing, they follow an imbecilic plan. Tax cuts for millionaires. Slashing education. War without consequence (or so they think). They don't know how to think things through beyond how they imagine an outcome. We see it every day.

The Democrats are a very broad coalition that operates by consensus from many different disparate groups. In fact, when the Republicans actually begin courting more than old, uneducated, Christian and white, you will see them move closer to sanity. Considering that you appear to be operating strictly on "imagination", I suspect you are far more right wing than you will ever acknowledge. Have a nice day.

This is exactly the type of entrapped mindset I'm talking about.

To even dare question the logic of the artificial left-right ideological scale will cause anyone blinded by it to call you the opposite of what they claim to be. If you were a conservative you would have called me a liberal.

This civil war mindset is dangerous and irrational.

The problem here is "evidence". The Republican Party is 90% white and mostly Christian. They are a "group". They target other groups. Democrats don't do that because they are made up of those other groups. Trying to pigeonhole Democrats and Republicans simply doesn't make a lick of sense. Their policies are as different as they are.

 

[American Horse]

The entire concept began with the Assembly Nationale during the French Revolution. Those who sat on the right side of the chamber supported the Monarchy. Those on the left side of the chamber supported the Revolution. They were seperated to deter infighting.

Why do you use this model as the basis of all political thought? This superficial, artificial horizontal line has narrowed your view, blinded your sight from any foriegn ideas, any new truths that lie contrary to the simplistic, rigid doctrine of conservatism and liberalism.

I am neither a Conservative nor a Liberal. I do not fall into the trap of false polarization, the illusory war with no victor. Do you? Are you entrapped by the puppet show, invested in it's plot so loyally that any thought outside it's bounds are immediately branded extreme, radical, and wholly unworthy of critical attention?

We always hear about how we must acknowledge both sides of an issue. You see that? BOTH sides of an issue. Not ALL sides, not ALL possible angles. BOTH sides. The sides that have already been laid out for you.

You don't have a choice. You've never had a choice in their world. Start thinking for yourselves... stop thinking left and right, liberal and conservative. Start thinking like a free human being.

It didn't begin with the French Revolution, it began long before in the first great republic, Rome, about 2,500 years ago. It's a logical dichotomy; holding fast to institutions/resisting change and casting aside old institutions: and promoting change. Rome, in the latter days of the republic, had two proto-parties: the Optimates (the best) and the Populi (people).

The Optimates were the patricians and were conservatives resisting change, the the Populi were also patricians but supported change in the political system to give more rights and political power to the ordinary people.The Populi were also using the appeal to the plebs to increase their own power.

In it's simplest form the dichotomy is resistence to change and promoting change. Of course there are differing subsets and permutations. The left and the right became attached to the two political leanings probalby from the Roman Eagle, with it's left wing and right wing.

 

[Malcom X]

Ridiculous.

Certainly, for the right wing, they follow an imbecilic plan. Tax cuts for millionaires. Slashing education. War without consequence (or so they think). They don't know how to think things through beyond how they imagine an outcome. We see it every day.

The Democrats are a very broad coalition that operates by consensus from many different disparate groups. In fact, when the Republicans actually begin courting more than old, uneducated, Christian and white, you will see them move closer to sanity. Considering that you appear to be operating strictly on "imagination", I suspect you are far more right wing than you will ever acknowledge. Have a nice day.

This is exactly the type of entrapped mindset I'm talking about.

To even dare question the logic of the artificial left-right ideological scale will cause anyone blinded by it to call you the opposite of what they claim to be. If you were a conservative you would have called me a liberal.

This civil war mindset is dangerous and irrational.

The problem here is "evidence". The Republican Party is 90% white and mostly Christian. They are a "group". They target other groups. Democrats don't do that because they are made up of those other groups. Trying to pigeonhole Democrats and Republicans simply doesn't make a lick of sense. Their policies are as different as they are.

I didn't say the left and right aren't different. I'm saying the difference isn't substantial.

You say the Democrats don't wage pointless wars? Only two Democratic Presidents did not wage war during their term(s): Franklin Pierce and Grover Cleveland.

You say they support the poor and working class? Why was the largest doner to Obama's campaign Goldman Sachs?

You may make vague generalizations about the racial makeup of Republicans vs. Democrats, but that is neither here nor there.

 

[rikules]

The entire concept began with the Assembly Nationale during the French Revolution. Those who sat on the right side of the chamber supported the Monarchy. Those on the left side of the chamber supported the Revolution. They were seperated to deter infighting.

Why do you use this model as the basis of all political thought? This superficial, artificial horizontal line has narrowed your view, blinded your sight from any foriegn ideas, any new truths that lie contrary to the simplistic, rigid doctrine of conservatism and liberalism.

I am neither a Conservative nor a Liberal. I do not fall into the trap of false polarization, the illusory war with no victor. Do you? Are you entrapped by the puppet show, invested in it's plot so loyally that any thought outside it's bounds are immediately branded extreme, radical, and wholly unworthy of critical attention?

We always hear about how we must acknowledge both sides of an issue. You see that? BOTH sides of an issue. Not ALL sides, not ALL possible angles. BOTH sides. The sides that have already been laid out for you.

You don't have a choice. You've never had a choice in their world. Start thinking for yourselves... stop thinking left and right, liberal and conservative. Start thinking like a free human being.

you're not a team player, are you?

 

[Malcom X]

The entire concept began with the Assembly Nationale during the French Revolution. Those who sat on the right side of the chamber supported the Monarchy. Those on the left side of the chamber supported the Revolution. They were seperated to deter infighting.

Why do you use this model as the basis of all political thought? This superficial, artificial horizontal line has narrowed your view, blinded your sight from any foriegn ideas, any new truths that lie contrary to the simplistic, rigid doctrine of conservatism and liberalism.

I am neither a Conservative nor a Liberal. I do not fall into the trap of false polarization, the illusory war with no victor. Do you? Are you entrapped by the puppet show, invested in it's plot so loyally that any thought outside it's bounds are immediately branded extreme, radical, and wholly unworthy of critical attention?

We always hear about how we must acknowledge both sides of an issue. You see that? BOTH sides of an issue. Not ALL sides, not ALL possible angles. BOTH sides. The sides that have already been laid out for you.

You don't have a choice. You've never had a choice in their world. Start thinking for yourselves... stop thinking left and right, liberal and conservative. Start thinking like a free human being.

It didn't begin with the French Revolution, it began long before in the first great republic, Rome, about 2,500 years ago. It's a logical dichotomy; holding fast to institutions/resisting change and casting aside old institutions: and promoting change. Rome, in the latter days of the republic, had two proto-parties: the Optimates (the best) and the Populi (people).

The Optimates were the patricians and were conservatives resisting change, the the Populi were also patricians but supported change in the political system to give more rights and political power to the ordinary people.The Populi were also using the appeal to the plebs to increase their own power.

In it's simplest form the dichotomy is resistence to change and promoting change. Of course there are differing subsets and permutations.

Interesting. I had not heard of Roman political parties.

My point still stands. Political ideology must be something more than a pendulum.

If Liberals are in power, do Conservatives automatically become left-wing because they want a "change" from the current government?

 

[Malcom X]

The entire concept began with the Assembly Nationale during the French Revolution. Those who sat on the right side of the chamber supported the Monarchy. Those on the left side of the chamber supported the Revolution. They were seperated to deter infighting.

Why do you use this model as the basis of all political thought? This superficial, artificial horizontal line has narrowed your view, blinded your sight from any foriegn ideas, any new truths that lie contrary to the simplistic, rigid doctrine of conservatism and liberalism.

I am neither a Conservative nor a Liberal. I do not fall into the trap of false polarization, the illusory war with no victor. Do you? Are you entrapped by the puppet show, invested in it's plot so loyally that any thought outside it's bounds are immediately branded extreme, radical, and wholly unworthy of critical attention?

We always hear about how we must acknowledge both sides of an issue. You see that? BOTH sides of an issue. Not ALL sides, not ALL possible angles. BOTH sides. The sides that have already been laid out for you.

You don't have a choice. You've never had a choice in their world. Start thinking for yourselves... stop thinking left and right, liberal and conservative. Start thinking like a free human being.

you're not a team player, are you?

Not if I don't believe in what the "team" is playing for?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Ridiculous.

Certainly, for the right wing, they follow an imbecilic plan. Tax cuts for millionaires. Slashing education. War without consequence (or so they think). They don't know how to think things through beyond how they imagine an outcome. We see it every day.

List of Obama "accomplishments":

Reauthorized the Patriot Act and the Rendition elements of it.
Extended the Bush Tax Cuts.
Got us into 3rd War.
Tripled the deficit.

If I didn't know different I'd swear Obama was Republican!

 

[American Horse]

<SNIP>
It's a logical dichotomy; holding fast to institutions/resisting change and casting aside old institutions: and promoting change. Rome, in the latter days of the republic, had two proto-parties: the Optimates (the best) and the Populi (people).

The Optimates were the patricians and were conservatives resisting change, the the Populi were also patricians but supported change in the political system to give more rights and political power to the ordinary people.The Populi were also using the appeal to the plebs to increase their own power.

In it's simplest form the dichotomy is resistence to change and promoting change. Of course there are differing subsets and permutations.

Interesting. I had not heard of Roman political parties.

My point still stands. Political ideology must be something more than a pendulum.

If Liberals are in power, do Conservatives automatically become left-wing because they want a "change" from the current government?

The left/right liberal/conservative parAdigm needs time to for the two major philosophies to reach some kind off internal consensus and for that consensus to gel, so to speak.

People, and moreso unaligned people, need the arguments to convince them so that they can express themselves as an electorate. The two parties are vehicles for organizng and then developing ideas that have mass appeal within their respective philosophies. The pendulum affect has something to do with the "economy" of the policical system, and the need for adjustments over time. We could probably do better in the swings if we had a different information media.

The "parties" that comprised the social/policial system of Rome were not true parties in the modern sense, but they allowed for and created a debate and departure from a rigor mortis in their system.

 

[Malcom X]

<SNIP>
It's a logical dichotomy; holding fast to institutions/resisting change and casting aside old institutions: and promoting change. Rome, in the latter days of the republic, had two proto-parties: the Optimates (the best) and the Populi (people).

The Optimates were the patricians and were conservatives resisting change, the the Populi were also patricians but supported change in the political system to give more rights and political power to the ordinary people.The Populi were also using the appeal to the plebs to increase their own power.

In it's simplest form the dichotomy is resistence to change and promoting change. Of course there are differing subsets and permutations.

Interesting. I had not heard of Roman political parties.

My point still stands. Political ideology must be something more than a pendulum.

If Liberals are in power, do Conservatives automatically become left-wing because they want a "change" from the current government?

The left/right liberal/conservative parAdigm needs time to for the two major philosophies to reach some kind off internal consensus and for that consensus to gel, so to speak.

People, and moreso unaligned people, need the arguments to convince them so that they can express themselves as an electorate. The two parties are vehicles for organizng and then developing ideas that have mass appeal within their respective philosophies. The pendulum affect has something to do with the "economy" of the policical system, and the need for adjustments over time. We could probably do better in the swings if we had a different information media.

The "parties" that comprised the social/policial system of Rome were not true parties in the modern sense, but they allowed for and created a debate and departure from a rigor mortis in their system.

The problem here is the existence of the STATE to keep us constantly at war with ourselves.

 

[kaz]

Ridiculous.

Certainly, for the right wing, they follow an imbecilic plan. Tax cuts for millionaires. Slashing education. War without consequence (or so they think). They don't know how to think things through beyond how they imagine an outcome. We see it every day.

The Democrats are a very broad coalition that operates by consensus from many different disparate groups. In fact, when the Republicans actually begin courting more than old, uneducated, Christian and white, you will see them move closer to sanity. Considering that you appear to be operating strictly on "imagination", I suspect you are far more right wing than you will ever acknowledge. Have a nice day.

Yes, Democrats are honest as the day is long, they are as honorable as a Knight in Camelot. They cannot lie and are naive only because of their undying love and trust in their fellow man. Republicans are small minded, hate filled gnomes who steal newspapers from the poor, trip old ladies on street corners and don't recycle.

Oh, and Republicans are black and white, they can't see gray like the far more intelligent liberals. Do I have this right?

 

[Imma B Me]

Ridiculous.

Certainly, for the right wing, they follow an imbecilic plan. Tax cuts for millionaires. Slashing education. War without consequence (or so they think). They don't know how to think things through beyond how they imagine an outcome. We see it every day.

The Democrats are a very broad coalition that operates by consensus from many different disparate groups. In fact, when the Republicans actually begin courting more than old, uneducated, Christian and white, you will see them move closer to sanity. Considering that you appear to be operating strictly on "imagination", I suspect you are far more right wing than you will ever acknowledge. Have a nice day.

First off, to the OP, great thread topic, this kind of discussion I find really productive.

Now, Rdean, while I agree that the self labeled Democratic party has more diversity and inclusion than the self labeled Republican one, by labeling themselves along political lines, both, do their diversity a disservice. While I think it's great to be able to say one is conservative or liberal on a specific view, that label should be predicated on one's stance on that specific view and not one's labeled affiliation.

I believe that anytime "we the people" are deciding US policies the only affiliation that should be focused on is that we are ALL Americans. Now that may sound sappy and pie in the sky to some but I am serious. As long as a US citizen advocates for policies "that form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity", then those are American policies, no matter how diverse and different they are from the status quo.

The debates should be centered on the specific policy proposals and not if it's a (R), (D), or anything else. As long as America is diverse and people have a true representative voice in American policy, the nation will be diverse, with no need for vast divisive labels. It is divisive labels that I believe allow some US citizens and others, with completely un-American policies, that go in part or totally against trying to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity", to discretely perpetrate their agenda.

Labeling used as a substitute for individual identity either for racial, ethnic, religious, gender or political reasons can easily cause some people to support policies against their own individual, self interest and is exploited by others.

 

[American Horse]

The left/right liberal/conservative paradigm needs time to for the two major philosophies to reach some kind off internal consensus and for that consensus to gel, so to speak.

People, and moreso unaligned people, need the arguments to convince them so that they can express themselves as an electorate. The two parties are vehicles for organizng and then developing ideas that have mass appeal within their respective philosophies. The pendulum affect has something to do with the "economy" of the policical system, and the need for adjustments over time. We could probably do better in the swings if we had a different information media.

The "parties" that comprised the social/policial system of Rome were not true parties in the modern sense, but they allowed for and created a debate and departure from a rigor mortis in their system.

The problem here is the existence of the STATE to keep us constantly at war with ourselves.

The parties are the best tools we have for apprehending the state, or at least the components of the state.

 

[Flopper]

We have become so polarized that every issue has a right and left side. I can remember when we had conservative democrats and liberal republicans. I suppose they exist today, but their voices seem to be drowned out the ideologues. Coalitions of Democrats and Republicans in Congress were common. Today it's a rarity.

Most of the regulations and programs, but not all are worth their cost. What is needed in government are pragmatists that can put aside ideology and weight government functions comparing their cost against their accomplishments.

 

[kaz]

We have become so polarized that every issue has a right and left side. I can remember when we had conservative democrats and liberal republicans. I suppose they exist today, but their voices seem to be drowned out the ideologues. Coalitions of Democrats and Republicans in Congress were common. Today it's a rarity.

Most of the regulations and programs, but not all are worth their cost. What is needed in government are pragmatists that can put aside ideology and weight government functions comparing their cost against their accomplishments.

This whole thing that Washington wasn't polarized before is greatly exaggerated. What really changed is the country had one party rule since the 30s and in the 80s that started to change. Democrats were brutal one party rulers constantly changing voting rules and doing everything they accuse Republicans of. The Democrats in congress today are old enough to remember when they just ruled and resent the change and are hysterical about it. The media was also silent when the Republicans were the ones being crushed and now they're aghast.

The reality is the only change is it's going both ways and before the shit only flowed down on Republicans. Sure, you liked it better if you were a Democrat then, but there was absolutely nothing cordial about their one party rule.

 

[peach174]

We have become so polarized that every issue has a right and left side. I can remember when we had conservative democrats and liberal republicans. I suppose they exist today, but their voices seem to be drowned out the ideologues. Coalitions of Democrats and Republicans in Congress were common. Today it's a rarity.

Most of the regulations and programs, but not all are worth their cost. What is needed in government are pragmatists that can put aside ideology and weight government functions comparing their cost against their accomplishments.

Both parties used to have pretty much equal amounts of Conservative, Moderate and Liberals. This is when congress works best at compromises with equal amounts of viewpoints.
Progressive liberals have hijacked the Democratic party, first they silenced the conservative Dem's (did not allow them on very important committees) and threated them in the backroom deals so they did not run for reelection. Then they did the same thing to the Moderates of the party for the last 4 yrs. Pelosi is very good at that. Dem's have become the party of socialists only (with different points of views) - they call that diversity, but no conservatives or moderates need apply. That is why congress is now so polarized.

We the voters need to get that balance back into both parties.
Socialists are not the majority of this nation (even though they think they are).

 

[Malcom X]

The left/right liberal/conservative paradigm needs time to for the two major philosophies to reach some kind off internal consensus and for that consensus to gel, so to speak.

People, and moreso unaligned people, need the arguments to convince them so that they can express themselves as an electorate. The two parties are vehicles for organizng and then developing ideas that have mass appeal within their respective philosophies. The pendulum affect has something to do with the "economy" of the policical system, and the need for adjustments over time. We could probably do better in the swings if we had a different information media.

The "parties" that comprised the social/policial system of Rome were not true parties in the modern sense, but they allowed for and created a debate and departure from a rigor mortis in their system.

The problem here is the existence of the STATE to keep us constantly at war with ourselves.

The parties are the best tools we have for apprehending the state, or at least the components of the state.

Well, now you're going to have to explain to me how that works. All I've ever seen the two parties do is enhance the power of the STATE. If we had true representative democracy, with multiple parties, or no parties at all... then we might have at least some genuine control over the STATE's apparatus.