The Ideological Spectrum

[michiganFats]

I was just wondering how all of you were taught the ideological spectrum. I was taught that anarchy is on the far left and totalitarianism is on the far right. I've been reading through a lot of threads this morning and I've noticed that many people have referenced the "liberal democrats" as being on the left and "conservatives" as being on the right. I'm not criticizing anyone, I'm just curious as to the common usage on this board so I don't misstate anything. I would classify both major parties in America as being "center-right".

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

I was just wondering how all of you were taught the ideological spectrum. I was taught that anarchy is on the far left and totalitarianism is on the far right. I've been reading through a lot of threads this morning and I've noticed that many people have referenced the "liberal democrats" as being on the left and "conservatives" as being on the right. I'm not criticizing anyone, I'm just curious as to the common usage on this board so I don't misstate anything. I would classify both major parties in America as being "center-right".

Ask ten people and you'll get ten different answers.

Republicans believe that America, and the Republican party, are both center right, while the Democrats are far left.

Democrats believe that America, and the Democratic party, are centrist, while the GOP is far right. The last election just proved them right, and Obama's centrist policies and cabinet choices, while horrifying some on the left, have confirmed that Obama is indeed a centrist.

The spectrum was handier back in the simpler days of the Cold War when one issue, relations with Russia, dominated everything -- your position on that one issue pretty much summed up your "color", red or blue. Today, there are a dozen different issues, and anybody who is actually capable of thinking for themselves, rather than just adhering to the platform of the party they belong to, is capable of being a hardliner on guns, a centrist on abortion, a leftist on gay marriage, all at the same time.

That problem pops up in all sorts of places, and gets even weirder the further from America you get. For instance, Stalin, economically, was way to the left. But in every other respect, Stalin was a rightwing totalitarian.

So the meaning of the spectrum can change depending on the times and the issues that dominate them, and on where you are in the world.

And there is a bit of namecalling too. Whenever a Republican had a weak argument, he would try to strengthen it by using a boring GOP scare-word, "liberal". After they wore it out with overuse, they began screeching "socialist" at the drop of a hat. Currently the Republicans are trying to redefine any policy they don't like as "socialism", whereas socialism only applies to government ownership of the means of economic production.

 

[michiganFats]

If the meaning of terms change, then there is no meaning at all. Without commonly acknowledged definitions for terms, we cannot understand each other. If we cannot understand each other, we cannot debate open and honestly.

 

[Truthmatters]

How I wish people would respect knowledge like you ask.

They dont, they twist and turn and call verifiable proof bullshit here.

Its the price you pay for trying to bring truth to people who want to hide in the back of the cave and remain stupid and in the dark.

 

[michiganFats]

Llama, I disagree with you, there was nothing about Stalin's economic policies that could be considered left.

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

If the meaning of terms change, then there is no meaning at all. Without commonly acknowledged definitions for terms, we cannot understand each other. If we cannot understand each other, we cannot debate open and honestly.

It might be a blessing in disguise. If people can no longer slam each other with "socialist" and "neocon", they might actually have to debate issues on their merits.

Or try to, anyway.

 

[Truthmatters]

Im really liken the company in this thread.

 

[Red Dawn]

I was just wondering how all of you were taught the ideological spectrum. I was taught t hat anarchy is on the far left and totalitarianism is on the far right. I've been reading through a lot of threads this morning and I've noticed that many people have referenced the "liberal democrats" as being on the left and "conservatives" as being on the right. I'm not criticizing anyone, I'm just curious as to the common usage on this board so I don't misstate anything. I would classify both major parties in America as being "center-right".

Here's all you need to know for purposes of this board:

Raising the top marginal income tax rate on the richest americans from 33 to 39% = Marxist-Lennist.

Invading Iraq= Compassionate conservatism.

Redeploying from iraq = Radical pacifist and raising the white flag of surrender.

Warrantless wiretapping of americans - Strict constitutional constructionism

 

[michiganFats]

RedDawn, are you implying that there are a lot of neo-conservative morons on this board? I'm shocked and amazed!!!

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

Usually Republicans use much smaller words than that, to reflect their drooling, knuckledragging base. Mein Kampf as told by Doctor Seuss.

Here's all you need to know for purposes of this board:

Raising the top marginal income tax rate on the richest americans from 33 to 39% = Marxist-Lennist.

Invading Iraq= Compassionate conservatism.

Redeploying from iraq = Radical pacifist and raising the white flag of surrender.

Warrantless wiretapping of americans - Strict constitutional constructionism

 

[michiganFats]

Smaller words such as....gay,gun,boom,gay,fight,gay,beer,gay,money,gay? The GOP is a bunch of closet gays.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I see we finally got to the bottom of what this thread was about.

Back to what you said it was going to be about Michigan...

In my poli sci class we were taught that spectrum analysis of left and right was actually not very helpful. I think we can see that already on this thread. We have the issue of Stalin, I'll not restate. But, at some point, the left-right analysis breaks down.

Therefore, we were taught to think of it like the face of a clock. 12:01 is Extreme right and 11:59 is Extreme left. When you think about it like that it is easier to see how and why the extremes at either end may stray into each others territory for a repressive policy or two.

Obviously, we would sit slightly to one side or the other of 6 o'clock. Anyone moving closer to 12 than 3 o'clock or 9 o'clock would likely feel they are being repressed in some major way.

 

[DiamondDave]

I was just wondering how all of you were taught the ideological spectrum. I was taught that anarchy is on the far left and totalitarianism is on the far right. I've been reading through a lot of threads this morning and I've noticed that many people have referenced the "liberal democrats" as being on the left and "conservatives" as being on the right. I'm not criticizing anyone, I'm just curious as to the common usage on this board so I don't misstate anything. I would classify both major parties in America as being "center-right".

First... try not to put totalitarianism and libertarian/anarchism on a left right basis... you can be more right OR left and still be totalitarian or libertarian/anarchist...

Second.. try and think of the spectrum as having both an x and y axis...

Third.. as seen by your ignorant responses so far, it is quite apparent that you are yet another in the long line of leftist partisan hacks... complete ignorance as to what a conservative is, or a neo conservative for that matter.. and with very little interest beyond trying to bash anyone on the 'right' that you label according to your titles based on pure ignorance

 

[michiganFats]

Dave, I don't think that's fair, You said I was ignorant without pointing out why you think I am. As far as "Neo-conservative" is concerned, I generally ignore that term because the definition doesn't jibe with the application.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I was just wondering how all of you were taught the ideological spectrum. I was taught that anarchy is on the far left and totalitarianism is on the far right. I've been reading through a lot of threads this morning and I've noticed that many people have referenced the "liberal democrats" as being on the left and "conservatives" as being on the right. I'm not criticizing anyone, I'm just curious as to the common usage on this board so I don't misstate anything. I would classify both major parties in America as being "center-right".

At first glance, when you classify both parties as being center-right the knee jerk reaction is to think "WTF" as if the DNC is actually left. The DNC has never represented the left in this country.

Then I think about the left. What does it mean to be left? Is there really any left party of any credibility in this country? Is there really any left power center? Where is the mainstream left media? Where? Look at other nations with leftist parties and power brokers and tell me where we have a comparative group.

The DNC is to the left of the GOP on most issues and it is ideologically to the left of the GOP. The DLC (Democratic Leadership Counsel) represented a more centrist position for the Democrats. Clinton was a DLC-er and I suspect Obama lieks some of the DLC positions...being the practical moderate with leftist leanings that he is.

Anarchy is not a leftist idea. Totalitarianism is not a far right idea. Both are what they are.

Etymology

The notion of Totalitarianism as "total" political power by state was formulated in 1923 by Giovanni Amendola who criticized Italian fascism as a system fundamentally different from conventional dictatorships.[2] The term was later assigned a positive meaning in the writings of Giovanni Gentile, the Italy’s most prominent philosopher and leading theorist of fascism. He used the term “totalitario” to refer to the structure and goals of the new state. The new state was to provide the “total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals.”[3] He described totalitarianism as a society in which the ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens.[4] According to Benito Mussolini, this system politicizes everything spiritual and human:[2] The concept of totalitarianism emerged in the 1920's and 1930's, although it is frequently and mistakenly seen as developing only after 1945 as part of anti-Soviet propaganda during the cold war.

"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state".

[edit] Difference between authoritarian and totalitarian states

According to Karl Lowenstein, "the term 'authoritarian' denotes a political organization in which the single power holder - an individual person or "dictator", an assembly, a committee, a junta, or a party monopolizes political power. The term "authoritarian" refers rather to the structure of government than to the structure of society. An authoritarian regime confines itself to political control of the state.

The governmental techniques of a totalitarian regime are necessarily authoritarian.[2] But a totalitarian regime does much more. It attempts to mold the private life, soul, and morals of citizens to a dominant ideology. The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into every nook and cranny of society; its ambition is total.[2]

Totalitarian regimes seek to destroy civil society i.e. communities that operate independently of the State. Neither the Italian fascists nor the Nazis completely "destroyed their respective social structures", and so these countries "could rapidly return to normalcy" after defeat in World War II. In contrast, attempts to reform the regime in the USSR "led to nowhere because every non-governmental institution, whether social or economic, had to be built from scratch. The result was neither reform of Communism nor establishment of democracy, but a progressive breakdown of organized life".[2]

 

[michiganFats]

Devnell, good points all. That having been said, my take on your post is that we don't really have an ideological spectrum we can refer to. I think that's a problem

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ask ten people and you'll get ten different answers.

Republicans believe that America, and the Republican party, are both center right, while the Democrats are far left.

Democrats believe that America, and the Democratic party, are centrist, while the GOP is far right. The last election just proved them right, and Obama's centrist policies and cabinet choices, while horrifying some on the left, have confirmed that Obama is indeed a centrist.

Obama is a practical centrist with leftist leanings. He defies the conventional descriptions and pigeon holes of the wingnut-ocracy (as do most of the good politicians) in America. Nuance and multi-dimesionality is what most of us are made up of. It's just that the squeaky wheel of the wingnut-ocracy gets heard more often.

think: Ann Coulter/Al Sharpton/Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul

The spectrum was handier back in the simpler days of the Cold War when one issue, relations with Russia, dominated everything -- your position on that one issue pretty much summed up your "color", red or blue.

Not true at all. You are either ignorant of the makeup of the political parties back then or you are intentionally or unintentionally engaging in revisionism.

one name: Scoop Jackson

Today, there are a dozen different issues, and anybody who is actually capable of thinking for themselves, rather than just adhering to the platform of the party they belong to, is capable of being a hardliner on guns, a centrist on abortion, a leftist on gay marriage, all at the same time.

again not true. your views are an uninformed oversimplification of a complex yet simple reality. There have always been battles over party platforms. In fact, more so back in the day than now.

That problem pops up in all sorts of places, and gets even weirder the further from America you get. For instance, Stalin, economically, was way to the left. But in every other respect, Stalin was a rightwing totalitarian.

Really? In what ways was Stalin a rightwing totalitarian?

So the meaning of the spectrum can change depending on the times and the issues that dominate them, and on where you are in the world.

The meaning of the spectrum DOES NOT change. The ends of the spectrum stay the same. What changes are understandings and definitions of terms.

And there is a bit of namecalling too. Whenever a Republican had a weak argument, he would try to strengthen it by using a boring GOP scare-word, "liberal". After they wore it out with overuse, they began screeching "socialist" at the drop of a hat. Currently the Republicans are trying to redefine any policy they don't like as "socialism", whereas socialism only applies to government ownership of the means of economic production.

The GOP ahs been doing this since the 1970s. Where have you been? How old are you? Where you ever active or interested in politics before Reagan?

and please, pardon my style. It is very old school Dem.

 

[michiganFats]

If the meaning of the spectrum changes, then we all need to keep up with the changes, if we don't, we can't talk to each other.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We do have a spectrum. The ends of the spectrum have remained the same. What has changed is the critical thinking faculties of the American public.

When acquiring money, toys and other material things at the expense of everything else replaced a well rounded education (either in schools or self taught) as the main value of the middle class in the eighties (the grand kids of the WWII/Depression youngsters were coming of age) simple concepts and rational debate went the way of the Edsel.

People are unclear on the concepts. When we got to the Reagan revolution definitions got stretched and observations of reality become myopic. The Democratic Party leadership under Tip O'Neil held out for as long as they could, but the American public became dumbed down with greed...

Thank you Ronald Reagan.

Devnell, good points all. That having been said, my take on your post is that we don't really have an ideological spectrum we can refer to. I think that's a problem

 

[DiamondDave]

Dave, I don't think that's fair, You said I was ignorant without pointing out why you think I am. As far as "Neo-conservative" is concerned, I generally ignore that term because the definition doesn't jibe with the application.

Smaller words such as....gay,gun,boom,gay,fight,gay,beer,gay,money,gay? The GOP is a bunch of closet gays.

Pretty self explanatory