There ARE honest people on the Left.

[PeterPilot]

Except for your choice of vocabulary -- "traitors" -- I agree with you. We're stuck with a one-dimensional axis, when in fact we need half a dozen or more dimensions to properly characterize social/political reality. Not the mention the fact that it's always changing, in response to underlying changes in the economy, plus reactions to random events.

I love Libertarians, who are the Right with a human face. But I can't agree with their desire to auction off the National Parks. And their more consistent adherents believe we could get along without taxation, funding the state via voluntary contributions. (There used to be a slogan popular with Bay Area Lefties, "Wouldn't it be great if our schools had all the money they needed, and the Navy had to have a bake sale to buy a new carrier?" Consistent Libertarians would make both schools and the military support themselves through bake sales. Bless their hearts.)

Don't get caught up in trivial pursuits like selling off the national parks. LP prevails in many local races, but cannot overcome the duopoly's grip on the national scene. With the way the 2020 election was stolen so blatantly, it doesn't even matter.

Any politician that enabled or supports the Kangaroo Court headed by Liz Cheney is a traitor. Traitors are very common in the DC Swamp, among all 3 branches of the federal government.

 

[Doug1943]

Don't get caught up in trivial pursuits like selling off the national parks. LP prevails in many local races, but cannot overcome the duopoly's grip on the national scene. With the way the 2020 election was stolen so blatantly, it doesn't even matter.

Any politician that enabled or supports the Kangaroo Court headed by Liz Cheney is a traitor. Traitors are very common in the DC Swamp, among all 3 branches of the federal government.

I don't think selling off the National Parks is a trivial pursuit. Nor would privatizing the Navy be one. And I don't say this just because I spent many happy days fifty years ago backpacking in the Los Padres National Forest.

We mainly think with words. That means we should use words very carefully. The Left -- okay, not all of them, just a lot of them -- calls everyone on the Right 'fascists', and a lot of people on the Right repay the compliment by calling all Lefties 'commies'. Neither of them have any real knowledge about the origins of communism and fascism, and their histories as actual movements. And this casual misuse degrades thought.

For instance, it's important for those on the Right to understand the different currents of thought within the Left, some of whom are in tension with each other, even actively hostile to each other.

There are people on the Left who are hostile to globalization, others on the Left who are happy with it. Some people on the Left are ardent supporters of our growing military confrontation with the Russians. Others are strong opponents of it. Some people on the Left are happy with, or indifferent to, the physical attacks on conservative speakers on campuses. Others strongly oppose it.

We need to be aware of these differences, because we should take them into account in our political work. Leftists who support Free Speech, for example, should be active sought ought and invited to join an organization dedicated to supporting academic freedom and free speech.

And there's the rub. A lot of people on the Right don't do any 'political work'. They're happy to sit at their computer screens and express themselves, in a kind of intellectual self-stimulation. Calling everyone on the Left a 'commie' and a 'traitor' is emotionally satisfying -- you're really expressing yourself.

A favorite eructation is to call for these traitors to be hanged or shot. Of course, almost always it's all a lot of hot air. Until it isn't, when some unstable lunatic take sit seriously, or a bunch of charged-up patriots walks into a trap, as they did on Jan 6.

If we cannot distinguish between Liz Cheney and Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden on the one hand, and Ethel Rosenberg or Robert Hanssen on the other, we're fighting with a paper bag over our heads.

 

[leftwinger]

Close the thread. It was answered up above by other brilliant poster.

”NO, NONE ON THIS SITE”

 

[PeterPilot]

I don't think selling off the National Parks is a trivial pursuit. Nor would privatizing the Navy be one. And I don't say this just because I spent many happy days fifty years ago backpacking in the Los Padres National Forest.

We mainly think with words. That means we should use words very carefully. The Left -- okay, not all of them, just a lot of them -- calls everyone on the Right 'fascists', and a lot of people on the Right repay the compliment by calling all Lefties 'commies'. Neither of them have any real knowledge about the origins of communism and fascism, and their histories as actual movements. And this casual misuse degrades thought.

For instance, it's important for those on the Right to understand the different currents of thought within the Left, some of whom are in tension with each other, even actively hostile to each other.

There are people on the Left who are hostile to globalization, others on the Left who are happy with it. Some people on the Left are ardent supporters of our growing military confrontation with the Russians. Others are strong opponents of it. Some people on the Left are happy with, or indifferent to, the physical attacks on conservative speakers on campuses. Others strongly oppose it.

We need to be aware of these differences, because we should take them into account in our political work. Leftists who support Free Speech, for example, should be active sought ought and invited to join an organization dedicated to supporting academic freedom and free speech.

And there's the rub. A lot of people on the Right don't do any 'political work'. They're happy to sit at their computer screens and express themselves, in a kind of intellectual self-stimulation. Calling everyone on the Left a 'commie' and a 'traitor' is emotionally satisfying -- you're really expressing yourself.

A favorite eructation is to call for these traitors to be hanged or shot. Of course, almost always it's all a lot of hot air. Until it isn't, when some unstable lunatic take sit seriously, or a bunch of charged-up patriots walks into a trap, as they did on Jan 6.

If we cannot distinguish between Liz Cheney and Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden on the one hand, and Ethel Rosenberg or Robert Hanssen on the other, we're fighting with a paper bag over our heads.

I agree on the importance of words, but equally or more important are actions.

You missed my point about the National Parks question, and that's likely because I phrased it poorly. The point is the LP would not have the political capital to sell the parks, EVEN IF they had a candidate elected to POTUS. Being concerned about such an incredibly long shot seems silly to me.

Yes I agree this country is as polarized as it ever has been, and a discussion of the reasons for that could go on for years. I prefer to discuss fundamental problems, for example the complete absence of the rule of law in this country and the endless undeclared wars our elected officials keep us in. The Scamdemic that we have all just lived through is another fundamental topic, way more important than selling off national parks.

 

[Doug1943]

I agree on the importance of words, but equally or more important are actions.

You missed my point about the National Parks question, and that's likely because I phrased it poorly. The point is the LP would not have the political capital to sell the parks, EVEN IF they had a candidate elected to POTUS. Being concerned about such an incredibly long shot seems silly to me.

Yes I agree this country is as polarized as it ever has been, and a discussion of the reasons for that could go on for years. I prefer to discuss fundamental problems, for example the complete absence of the rule of law in this country and the endless undeclared wars our elected officials keep us in. The Scamdemic that we have all just lived through is another fundamental topic, way more important than selling off national parks.

Okay, that's a reasonable position: we can safely vote Libertarian because the crazier (sorry!) Libertarian policies would never be carried out.

However, I would hesitate to put in power people who would like to sell off all the National Parks if they could, not just because I think we need National Parks, but because I don't trust people with that underlying mentality. I suppose that's why a lot of people in Louisiana voted for David Duke (the KKK leader) at one point: he said some good things, along with some evil things, and they assumed he wouldn't be able to do the evil things.

Then there's a different issue: Third Party voting. I would happily vote Libertarian in the circumstances where I knew the Republican was going to lose anyway. It would be a way of saying a lot of us are very unhappy with the system. But if I thought there was any chance that splitting the anti-Leftist vote would let the Leftist in .... no thanks!

Remember that Hitler got power because his party had a plurality, not a majority, in the Reichstagg ... the non-Nazi parties couldn't agree on a coalition, so he got made Chancellor, and -- unlike our spineless leaders -- knew how to use power once he had it. (In particular, the insane German Communists, who were a significant force at that time, spent most of their time attacking, even physically, the German Socialists, even though both of them were hardcore anti-Nazis, and together -- in the last free election Germany ever had until the war was over -- got over 37% of the vote, in contrast to the Nazis' 32%. More importantly, their streetfighting groups, together, would have been a match for the Nazis'. So I'm bit on patriotic/democratic unity against the Enemy.)

What we ought to have, and ought to campaign for, is some system of two-round voting (top two candidates go to the second round), or instant-runoff voting, or even a single-transferrable-vote system.

 

[PeterPilot]

Okay, that's a reasonable position: we can safely vote Libertarian because the crazier (sorry!) Libertarian policies would never be carried out.

However, I would hesitate to put in power people who would like to sell off all the National Parks if they could, not just because I think we need National Parks, but because I don't trust people with that underlying mentality. I suppose that's why a lot of people in Louisiana voted for David Duke (the KKK leader) at one point: he said some good things, along with some evil things, and they assumed he wouldn't be able to do the evil things.

Then there's a different issue: Third Party voting. I would happily vote Libertarian in the circumstances where I knew the Republican was going to lose anyway. It would be a way of saying a lot of us are very unhappy with the system. But if I thought there was any chance that splitting the anti-Leftist vote would let the Leftist in .... no thanks!

Remember that Hitler got power because his party had a plurality, not a majority, in the Reichstagg ... the non-Nazi parties couldn't agree on a coalition, so he got made Chancellor, and -- unlike our spineless leaders -- knew how to use power once he had it. (In particular, the insane German Communists, who were a significant force at that time, spent most of their time attacking, even physically, the German Socialists, even though both of them were hardcore anti-Nazis, and together -- in the last free election Germany ever had until the war was over -- got over 37% of the vote, in contrast to the Nazis' 32%. More importantly, their streetfighting groups, together, would have been a match for the Nazis'. So I'm bit on patriotic/democratic unity against the Enemy.)

What we ought to have, and ought to campaign for, is some system of two-round voting (top two candidates go to the second round), or instant-runoff voting, or even a single-transferrable-vote system.

I like the two round method, but have understood for decades that in reality we do not have a democracy. I'm defining democracy as a system whereby the people through their elected representatives actually control the government.

We have an oligarchy with strong fascist overtones, whereby special interests control the government. Basically what Eisenhower warned against in 1961

 

[dblack]

I like the two round method, but have understood for decades that in reality we do not have a democracy. I'm defining democracy as a system whereby the people through their elected representatives actually control the government.

The common liberal myth that, in an ideal democracy, "the people" control the government falls apart under inspection. In reality, democracy only attends to the preferences of the majority, usually forcing them on everyone else.

 

[PeterPilot]

The common liberal myth that, in an ideal democracy, "the people" control the government falls apart under inspection. In reality, democracy only attends to the preferences of the majority, usually forcing them on everyone else.

Yes, it falls apart under inspection here in the US. The tyranny of the majority has existed for a very long time. In our case we have devolved into a fascist system in which government and industry work hand-in-glove to eliminate individual rights and democratic principles. The Twitter Files showed that in detail, greatly assisted by events such as 911 and the Patriot Act.

 

[dblack]

Yes, it falls apart under inspection here in the US. The tyranny of the majority has existed for a very long time. In our case we have devolved into a fascist system in which government and industry work hand-in-glove to eliminate individual rights and democratic principles. The Twitter Files showed that in detail, greatly assisted by events such as 911 and the Patriot Act.

Twitter has the right to do business however they like. And I have the right to continue ignoring them. Those if you who want government to take over are straight up fascists.

 

[Doug1943]

I like the two round method, but have understood for decades that in reality we do not have a democracy. I'm defining democracy as a system whereby the people through their elected representatives actually control the government.

We have an oligarchy with strong fascist overtones, whereby special interests control the government. Basically what Eisenhower warned against in 1961

I think the phrase 'the people control the government' is too vague. How about this as a paraphrase for what people are thinking about when they talk about a 'democracy' (or, as some people want to insist, 'Republic'.
A [_______________________________](fill in your chosen word(s) here) is one where

(1) there is wide freedom of expression, even for those expressing views that the dominant powers don't like.
(2) the power of the government is limited in many ways, and these ways are written down in a Constitution. For example, even if there is an overwhelming vote, both by popular referendum and by elected representatives, to execute all left-handed redheads, this would violate some section of the Constitution.
(3) the people running the government have to submit themselves to periodic elections.

There may be other desiderata. These are just off the top of my head. Note that (2) is not logically required for their to be 'democracy', and in fact limits the power of the 'demos' in a democracy.

Note: a 'good society' will have many other characteristics. These are just the bare-bones minimum.

 

[PeterPilot]

I think the phrase 'the people control the government' is too vague. How about this as a paraphrase for what people are thinking about when they talk about a 'democracy' (or, as some people want to insist, 'Republic'.
A [_______________________________](fill in your chosen word(s) here) is one where

(1) there is wide freedom of expression, even for those expressing views that the dominant powers don't like.
(2) the power of the government is limited in many ways, and these ways are written down in a Constitution. For example, even if there is an overwhelming vote, both by popular referendum and by elected representatives, to execute all left-handed redheads, this would violate some section of the Constitution.
(3) the people running the government have to submit themselves to periodic elections.

There may be other desiderata. These are just off the top of my head. Note that (2) is not logically required for their to be 'democracy', and in fact limits the power of the 'demos' in a democracy.

Note: a 'good society' will have many other characteristics. These are just the bare-bones minimum.

The bare-bones minimum which do not exist in this country today, have not for quite some time now.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I’m wondering …

How many ‘honest people” are there on the right?

How many cult followers of Trump, or Republican voters who soak up his “Big Lie” & conman act are … “honest”?

How about among all those who want to end all abortion because it’s “baby killing” and “God” is against it?

Don’t get me wrong…

I know there are many who honestly believe in the radical right’s party line MAGA propaganda, just as there are Democrats who believe in their party’s often risible Liberal “party line.”

My point is that ordinary rightwingers — indeed anyone — can be batshit crazy, deluded, and part of a basically dishonest and dangerous reactionary political movement … and yet be “personally honest” and more or less decent at the same time.

 

[Doug1943]

The bare-bones minimum which do not exist in this country today, have not for quite some time now.

I don't think what has happened to the US, in terms of its move away from the sort of democratic republic we began with, is some sort of plot.

There are four things, so far as I can see, which were key in moving us in the direction we've gone:

(1) Sheer geographic size. A nation which sits in a small area can be more directly democratic than one which spans three thousand miles. Nothing we can do about that, and in fact, our giant size, plus two oceans either side, also worked FOR our remaining democratic, since it meant we had no ready-to-invade us enemies on our borders. (A nation which must remain constantly on military alert is one which naturally moves towards centralized, secretive power.)

(2) Sheer numbers: a nation of three million can be more democratic than one of three hundred million..

(3) Urbanization. A lot of the functions which were done by families and local churches in the 19th Century -- care of the elderly, for example -- became the responsibility of the federal government.

(4) The Cold War. Containing Communism after WWII led inevitably to the 'Warfare State'. You had to have the CIA, you had to have a huge peacetime military. You had to let the President by-pass Congress in making war. We had no choice. Now militant Islam, Russia, China have taken the place of 'Communism'. With what genuine justification is another matter.

 

[ActionJackson]

Cool, I triggered a Nazi. That makes me the good guy, and means I'll get a nicer cloud in heaven.

The really scary part is how we know that every Republican accusation is a confession, and that so many Republicans are now raging about imaginary leftist pedophiles. The projection is beyond obvious.

Yeah ... "imaginary":

 

[PeterPilot]

I don't think what has happened to the US, in terms of its move away from the sort of democratic republic we began with, is some sort of plot.

There are four things, so far as I can see, which were key in moving us in the direction we've gone:

(1) Sheer geographic size. A nation which sits in a small area can be more directly democratic than one which spans three thousand miles. Nothing we can do about that, and in fact, our giant size, plus two oceans either side, also worked FOR our remaining democratic, since it meant we had no ready-to-invade us enemies on our borders. (A nation which must remain constantly on military alert is one which naturally moves towards centralized, secretive power.)

(2) Sheer numbers: a nation of three million can be more democratic than one of three hundred million..

(3) Urbanization. A lot of the functions which were done by families and local churches in the 19th Century -- care of the elderly, for example -- became the responsibility of the federal government.

(4) The Cold War. Containing Communism after WWII led inevitably to the 'Warfare State'. You had to have the CIA, you had to have a huge peacetime military. You had to let the President by-pass Congress in making war. We had no choice. Now militant Islam, Russia, China have taken the place of 'Communism'. With what genuine justification is another matter.

That's a fair assessment. What has happened to the US moving away from democratic principles has also happened to virtually every such nation in the history of mankind. Though the time frame may vary, basically we follow the trajectory of Rome, the British Empire and so many others. C'est la vie.

 

[konradv]

There are very few 60’ s liberals remaining and the majority of those religiously pull the D lever on every vote from county to federal elections. They’re the ones that lead to where we are now. Naomi Wolf might have actually had a rare rational thought but don’t be fooled.

The overwhelming majority of Zoomers are also pulling the D lever. If Rs want to save the party, they need to stop looking to the past and find out why their future looks so bleak.

 

[easyt65]

'Honest people on the Left' are anomolies, aberrations, unwanted exceptions to Liberal rules, unwanted black sheep.

Look at how Democrats treated Sinema for not conforming.

In the last month 3 state legislative Democrats across the country have woken up to this and have switched to the GOP.

 

[marvin martian]

Antivaxxer kook Naomi Wolf? Dang, the righties keep getting more desperate.

Not that Naomi Wolf's kookery is new. Even back in her feminist days, she just made everything up. That's why she's now a perfect fit for conservatism and its "IF I FEEL IT'S TRUE, THEN IT'S TRUE" philosophy.

Oh, did I interrupt the delusional self-pity party here? My bad. By all means, return to crying about how reality is all a big plot against conservatives, and how you HATEHATEHATEHATE the left for being attached to reality. That will really draw in the moderate voters.

^^^Keep in mind, the dolt calling other people "anti-vaxx" fell for every one of these lies:

 

[Mac1958]

I’m wondering …

How many ‘honest people” are there on the right?

How many cult followers of Trump, or Republican voters who soak up his “Big Lie” & conman act are … “honest”?

How about among all those who want to end all abortion because it’s “baby killing” and “God” is against it?

Don’t get me wrong…

I know there are many who honestly believe in the radical right’s party line MAGA propaganda, just as there are Democrats who believe in their party’s often risible Liberal “party line.”

My point is that ordinary rightwingers — indeed anyone — can be batshit crazy, deluded, and part of a basically dishonest and dangerous reactionary political movement … and yet be “personally honest” and more or less decent at the same time.

I really don't think that honesty is a Left vs. Right issue.

I think the line is actually drawn between ideologues -- who regularly leverage spin, hyperbole, straw man arguments, distortions and outright lies to gain some perceived advantage -- and non-ideologues.

 

[pknopp]

'Honest people on the Left' are anomolies, aberrations, unwanted exceptions to Liberal rules, unwanted black sheep.

Look at how Democrats treated Sinema for not conforming.

The same way Republicans treated Cheney.