The Ideological Spectrum

Ideologies are malleable things. Consider only the conservatives assumption they are now classical liberals (whatever that is) because they love freedom (whatever that is). I won't go into what that really stands for but ideologically it screws up understanding what liberalism really is about or its history in thought.

I don't think there is a left any longer in the US. How many times do you hear about poverty, loss of worker rights, or the situation of those in need vis-a-vis the wealthy? Almost never in MSM. I personally look at the 'left' as those who honestly see the situation and propose ideas that are too radical for implementation for a variety of reasons. Gradually though these ideas often surface and are accepted, but the process is slow.

Labels have great power and while we have no left, the right calls anyone they disagree with leftist or liberal. These words have become synonymous in current lingo and 'left' is always communist so that is bad stuff. And liberal is such a bad label we have become progressives because lord knows those liberals are bad too. lol Any way I strongly suggest this book for those interested in understanding ideology.

Amazon.com: Ideology: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Michael Freeden: Books

I like it.
 
What? Of course the use of a left/right spectrum can be criticized. But to what end? To re-frame a debate or reshape the parameters of things?

The fact that somebody introduced Stalin has nothing to do anything. Those who think they are arguing about the left/right spectrum when introducing personalities in order to define what is left or what is right are fools in need of shock therapy.

Look i mentioned Ronald Reagan, but look at the context in how I did it. a boob would think I am being a hypocrite.

I think the "end" was to provide a model that didn't leave you hanging when you tried to explain why some people on the extremes adopted some features of policy associated with those on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Much as the Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers Party. What could sound more left wing, right? Until you find out that the party leader didn't care one whit for economics and by 1929 had purged nearly every leader from the party that did. However, up until that point, the Nazis, as right wing fascist as they were, had a left wing economic program including support for trade unions etc.

Stalin isn't important to the discussion except when you look at his programs and you try to break down how you would classify his policies. Your model should help you place him somewhere. Certainly, Stalin used a strong nationalism especially during and after WWII. But, you can look at someone who collectivized the farms and sent 20 million people to their deaths in the process as anything less than a left wing communist.

What I read Michigan doing was fretting about how to explain these features of Stalin's policies. That was the only reason I mentioned Stalin. So, for me, the clock face approach seems to explain the spectrum in a superior manner without leaving me hanging on the extreme ends.
 
Dev I have to ask for support on this (something beyond appointments made thus far). My research on this guy shows that he has dedicated his life to far left wing causes and has allied himself from his early days in Chicago (before law school) with people whose ideologies represent the farther left folks in the US. See this article from the Washington Post about Obama and our new Sec State and their common backgrounds an mentors.


I think it is unfair to say Obama aligned himself with the people you are vaguely referring to her, but I agree they shared some values. Which ones exactly? Maybe love of America or her institutions or her ideals?

This in the WP article I posted.
Community organizing, for Clinton principally an academic exercise, was more complex for Obama when he arrived in Chicago in 1985 to work with the Developing Communities Project, an offshoot of the Alinsky network. His experience became an emotional and visceral exploration of the roots of urban African American decay and his own identity.
Unless I'm not understanding what you mean aligned. I think this looks like aligned to me. Very plainly, I'm saying that if he is working as an operative for and Alinsky offshoot organization, then he would be a radical almost by definition. People are called radicals because they are not in the mainstream in their school of thought. (Much like reactionaries on the other side).
Aligned can mean many things. Using the broad definition you do it can be said Obama aligned himself with the conservatives at the Harvard Law Review. He needed their support to win the seat of President of the Harvard Law Review. So they all walked out of a meeting thinking Obama and they were aligned on issues or policy or whatever. Were they? Did he align himself with them? If so he is aligned with conservative Lawyer students as well as radicals on the left. Hmmm...

Operative is quite a term to use. Some would say loaded. He shared the goals of community organizing. Whether he was successfully indoctrinated into Saul's methods is open to question. From what I gather is he moved on from the old and created a new paradigm for himself. What you are doing is similar to those who say he went to school with Muslims so he must be a Muslim or at least a Muslim by osmosis.

I am quite comfortable saying David Axelod is more of a radical than Obama is. But as with Bush and Rove nonsense, do you think one man is the others brain?

So, who is Saul Alinsky? He wrote "Rules for Radicals" and mentored other people like Ceasar Chavez of Farm Worker Union fame.

Wiki Saul Alinsky
Saul, was/is a brilliant left wing radical/reactionary as far as I know. I've had a few older friends through the years who were actually trained under or with Alinsky methods. A few are still radicals, a few more are more centrist as life experiences change the ideals and perceptions of people as they mature.
I'm not denying Alinsky's skill. Far from it. As for who is still what, I'm perfectly willing to accept that Obama, at some point stopped being a radical and became something else. That's actually what I was challenging you for, some evidence to demonstrate that is in fact what happened. My research does not bear that out. My research indicates that he took his street level organizing to higher level and a different venue, but his views and goals didn't change, just the tools at his disposal.
As to Obama's views and goals having changed, I think most likely they have matured and evolved. The tools he used/uses have surely changed...witness his success at getting people to go along the ride with him from all the way back at the city and state level.

Obama's political were not even radical. What appears radical to some was his one speech against going into Iraq, and when that is parsed hardly qualifies as radical. The evidence is there. Obama is no Alinsky radical. From the evidence it is safe to state "Obama is not a radical".

The burden of proof is on those who say he is.

Now clearly, Obama had lots of other associates in his life, but he constantly strove throughout his life to for the same goals he started with when he got to Chicago. Why is it that you claim that now that he has the power, he will throw what he worked his whole life for out the window and suddenly become a darker complected Bill Clinton? I just don't see a basis upon which to make that judgment.
The basis is his history. From his days in Boston/Cambridge, Obama has been a man on a mission...personal advancement mixed with the knowledge that ones ideals are useless in the real world unless they are married to the power to affect change.

I don't necessarily disagree with this analysis, but what concerns me is the long quote that I posted from Alinsky. The rhetoric all during the campaign seems to be straight out of this manual. Look at these quotes in the context of somethings you have been hearing from Obama:
Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.
"Change you can believe in." Affirmative, non-challenging popular message. Did the people feel frustrated? defeated? lost in the futureless Bush system? If they didn't did they after October? Hmmm.
To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system,
How much more "in the system" can you be than being president?

I don't want to make this post a book, but you can go down the list of the Rules for Radicals and see how many of them are present in the campaign and even the strategic composition of the cabinet. Taken at face value, the picks are "centrist," but after reading Alinsky, is it appropriate to simply take these picks at face value? It would be one thing if Obama had never had any Alinsky contact, but he did. He was trained. He was an operative. So, I think it is fair to analyze his picks in the context of "what would Alinsky do." In that case, the picks are not so puzzling. He is building support in the middle class. He is making "very reasonable and acceptable picks" garnering the broadest possible support. Now, what happens gradually over time, as this original set of folks leave and are gradually replaced with other people (maybe his Czars), that might be a different matter.



What did Obama want to do in Chicago in his early days? Help out of work people?
This is covered in the WP article.


below is a very good read. so good, most of the Obama dreamers I know refused to acknowledge what they read when I would ask them to discuss it.


The New Republic
The Agitator by Ryan Lizza
Barack Obama's unlikely political education.
Post Date Monday, March 19, 2007
Yes it was. I'd heard all of that before though. I'd say it kind of supports my argument.

I don't ascribe to the school of hidden meanings, and quotes out of context may be made to look like anything. Many of Alinsky's words and principles aren't so radical, what was radical was many of his proposed methods. I'd go so far as to say not all his ideas were so radical.

Like with Reagan years ago people are reading all sorts of things into what Obama might do, or will do, with very little to back up any of the assertions.
What I see is it is a way of discrediting the man or marginalizing or dismissing the man's belief in a broader agenda for the public. Obama is more a pragmatic populist progressive than a liberal or a moderate.

I think Obama has his eye on history and he has a good heart. He is bright and intelligent and a quick study. His attributes bring much to the office/job.

I do think it will look like he is going to take the country to the left and I think that is true if you recognize that the country has in some ways drifted very far to the right of center. My take on it is Obama will bring the nation back more towards the center. Dramatic change is very rare in American politics.

I'm tired and rambling...

ltr

d.
:cool:

========================
 
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.
What? Of course the use of a left/right spectrum can be criticized. But to what end? To re-frame a debate or reshape the parameters of things?

The fact that somebody introduced Stalin has nothing to do anything. Those who think they are arguing about the left/right spectrum when introducing personalities in order to define what is left or what is right are fools in need of shock therapy.

Look i mentioned Ronald Reagan, but look at the context in how I did it. a boob would think I am being a hypocrite.

:cool:
I think the "end" was to provide a model that didn't leave you hanging when you tried to explain why some people on the extremes adopted some features of policy associated with those on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Features of policies have no ideology. I see no conflict with a right wing fanatic being for a populist policy that smells of socialism. No absolutes with me. I do not do doctrine very well and I doubt most people do. They are told they must, but that is why control is so necessary...people may stray...human nature might enter the picture..


an aside:
I need no model to help me understand how extremists tick. I knew a former communist who became a Reaganite libertarian neocon before Reagan ever did anything in office. Happened when he was attending lefty meetings at MIT. Of course he went from one extreme to the other. This guy went with the ideas of the neoLibs/cons because he'd come to the realization that commie doctrine was hooey and being an extremist he saw that the other side just had to right... :lol: ...opposing ideas in his head that he struggled with ..extreme opposing ideas, because he was after all, an extremist reactionary. I think the Reagan value of greed helped a little too. just my opinion.

Extremists live on the ends of the spectrum. They have a blind spot in the center just like the human eye...except extremists lack the brains ability to fill in the center. They are not so much blind as they are clueless.


Much as the Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers Party. What could sound more left wing, right? Until you find out that the party leader didn't care one whit for economics and by 1929 had purged nearly every leader from the party that did. However, up until that point, the Nazis, as right wing fascist as they were, had a left wing economic program including support for trade unions etc.

The Nazi party did end up a right wing fascist one. I also know they formed alliances with the right and left inside Germany while also forming alliances with Communists outside of Germany.

Are you mixing up the man Hitler with the party before he became the party ...and became the state ...and became all rolled into one? why did the purge happen...because of ideology, power, economics? Strasser's Nazi party vs Hilter's?

I guess I'd have to say the old National Socialist German Workers Party and Hitler had different agenda as far as economics went. What you are doing is what people do when they confuse (or are disingenuous?) Stalinism with Lenin's Communism.

we are delving into a one-dimensional world of absolutes with this stuff. people are not one-dimensional.

Stalin isn't important to the discussion except when you look at his programs and you try to break down how you would classify his policies. Your model should help you place him somewhere. Certainly, Stalin used a strong nationalism especially during and after WWII. But, you can look at someone who collectivized the farms and sent 20 million people to their deaths in the process as anything less than a left wing communist.
Did you mean can't? I think most communist adherents would beg to differ that Stalin upheld the ideals of Communism.

And the collectivization of things may be an ideal for some leftists...but there have been different types of collectivization... Sending people to their deaths is what despots do and I do not see that as a right wing or left wing value or ideal.

What I read Michigan doing was fretting about how to explain these features of Stalin's policies. That was the only reason I mentioned Stalin. So, for me, the clock face approach seems to explain the spectrum in a superior manner without leaving me hanging on the extreme ends.

I have no model. Trying to fit everyone and everything into a one-dimensional model of absolutes doesn't work. I see no conflict in conservatives like Reagan and W. Bush who campaigned on smaller government expanding government because of events out of their control,.. except that it makes a mockery out of the idea that they were principled conservatives, and thank gawd they weren't. What would've become of the Armed Forces if principle had overridden self interest?

Static models are of no good use. Look what they do to all the people fighting over whether Reagan was a conservative, or whether John F. Kennedy if he were alive today would be liberal or a even Democrat.

I think I better understand where you are coming from with the model thing after you've explained it.
 
Llama, I disagree with you, there was nothing about Stalin's economic policies that could be considered left.

Oh I don't know about that. Kill your enemies and spread the wealth amongst the rest. Oh that's right, Stalin still didn't spread the wealth amongst anyone.
 
You were taught wrong unless you think libertarians are far left people. To the left is ever increasing amounts of government interference in how people live there day to day lives to the right that decreases. Only communists or communist dupes believe that particular line is accurate. Then again you have to remember that your average communist undertands neither human beings or much else about the nature of reality or he'd realize that any government big enough and intrusive enough to make a fair shot at from each according to his means to each according to his needs isn't going to just disappear - ever.
 
Thank You all for responding. This thread got way more replies then I thought it would. Apologies to a couple of you with whom I was arguing yesterday, for a while there I forgot that I was the one who asked for the input. Interesting comments.
 
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".

All economic systems have as their ultimate fulfillment the dissolution of the "state" as it serves no purpose once all people's material needs are met.

Generally, left, in the US, means a belief in government as the best source of societal problem solving, and largely favors a "Robinhood" approach to resource distribution. The right believe most societal problems are best dealt with through the individual and at the local level where government can only be trusted with very limited roles such as national defense. The left usually assumes an individual's failings are the fault of society whereas the right usually believes and individual's failings are their own fault.

Democrats actually came to power in 2006 by lurching rather hard to the right. The overwhelming majority of new congressional Democrats are conservatives from Southern and Western "Red" states that ran on hard right campaigns to beat their Republican incumbents. This is somewhat at odds with the Democratic Congressional leadership that is rather hard left, and does not actually control much of their own party. This will become evident in the coming months and it will be conservative Democrats siding with Republicans to block a lot of the social agenda being pushed by the leadership.
 
Wrong zoomie almost no one believes his needs are fully met and the state can't do it at any reasonable cost in human dignity, freedom, and economic prosperity
 

Forum List

Back
Top