Is the Left - Right Paradigm Obsolete?

[RKMBrown]

Reading comprehension's not your strong suit, eh Mr. Brown?



That's o.k.... a bump is a bump and your pointless political labeling has occasional entertainment value.

Yeah well you said fair taxes... and any time someone says "fair" or "affordable" or "comprehensive" my instinct is to hit the red alert alarm. That usually means I'm about to get screwed.

 

[RKMBrown]

Reading comprehension's not your strong suit, eh Mr. Brown?



That's o.k.... a bump is a bump and your pointless political labeling has occasional entertainment value.

Sometimes Brownie has a deep thought. Other times he can be the rhetorical equivalent of the guy at the party with the lampshade on his head.

He's doin' a heckuva job.

Hey! Nvm forgot what I was gonna say.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'd like to launch a campaign to put Joe's post on billboards across the country. It's the single most impactful change we could make to get this nation back on track.

I agree in principle with Joe's comments but need to point out campaign "donations' are only one way to influence the vote of elected officials. There are many ways to bribe a dishonest person, money is one. Others included sexual favors, booze, drugs, jobs for Jr. and wifey, jobs after government 'service' and blackmail.

Elected officials need to go to prison if they accept anything of value from anyone. Period. Those who want to run for office must be limited to X amount of dollars, legally obtained. Earned with records of how; borrowed, with terms of interest clear and no one can buy air or print time for any candidate.

Whoa... hold on. I think you're missing the core of his point. He's talking about addressing the cause, not the symptom. What you quite correctly point out - that there are endless ways to bribe people - is exactly why focusing on what legislators accept in the way of 'gifts' will never work.

Joe's point (and Joe, correct if I'm missing it as well), is that we cut off corruption at the knees by banning their ability to grant favors in the first place. That means cleaning up taxation and returning it to a straightforward means of raising money for government. We ban the practice of using incentives, deductions, rebates, penalties, surcharges, mandates, etc, etc, etc... as a way of currying favor and punishing those who fail to pony up. And it means we don't let Congress parse out special regulatory exemptions and protections to their favorite interest groups. It means doing 'equal protection' and 'rule of law' for realsies.

It will probably take a Constitutional amendment to stick, but honestly we'll need that much consensus from the country before such a thing would work anyway, because it's going to require everyone to commit to the principle enough to give up their own favorite perks.

An end to corporatism? I like it. I'm afraid a vote at the ballot box will never achieve such a thing. The political establishment, the financial establishment, and the commercial establishment are all in the hands of the corporate elite. The way things are done now is in the interest of fascism. What he is suggesting is doing away with the fascist nature of how things are done, it would mean scrapping the ACA, Farms subsidies, and a whole host of other programs that are fascist in nature.

In order to do that, the nation would have to get on board, which would require the media to be on board, and they themselves are fascist in nature. Fox news, MSNBC, Rush, Beck, the Daily Kos, you name it, they control the minds of the unthinking low information voters, they are all corporate owned, and they would all be against this b/c it makes sense.

The only way this would happen is if there was a second Revolution, even if it was a peaceful color Revolution where everyone just refused to work and pay taxes until the elites did the re-write.

 

[MisterBeale]

The left - right paradigm from it's inception has been nothing other than a ploy to make the American people think they took part in some great democratic process to have their say. The truth is that both are one and the same beast. We lose either way. So, the answer to your question is no, not as long as they continue to get away with it.

nope...the truth is you need to look farther to the right....if you look at the continuum of FORCE the true right is where liberty and freedom reside...essentially what the Tea Party is promoting...

Actually, he had the correct answer. So did another poster in the first page when he referred to the first President's speech, you know Washington, who warned the nation about party and faction loyalty tearing the nation apart.

Yes, and it always has been.

In George Washington's exit speech, he warned us about the dangers of partisanship.
That includes any parties that existed.

This is in fact a well known ploy that has been used by rulers and political elites for centuries spanning the history of humankind. It goes back to the Empire of Rome, and is one of many ancient tactics used by the elites to rule; it's called divide et impera.

In politics and sociology, divide and rule (or divide and conquer) (derived from Greek: διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε, diaírei kaì basíleue) is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up.

The maxims divide et impera and divide ut regnes were utilised by the Roman ruler Caesar and the French emperor Napoleon. The example of Gabinius exists, parting the Jewish nation into five conventions, reported by Flavius Josephus in Book I, 169-170 of The Wars of the Jews (De bello Judaico).[1] Strabo also reports in Geography, 8.7.3[2] that the Achaean League was gradually dissolved under the Roman possession of the whole of Macedonia, owing to them not dealing with the several states in the same way, but wishing to preserve some and to destroy others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule#United_States_of_America

 

[MisterBeale]

Basically, it is still the Federalists of New England versus the Jeffersonians in the Heartland.

The Federalists are winning because they understand the tendency toward Decline of Societies.

They have mastered the art of borrowing money to give out free stuff in exchange for votes; and so have gained control of such groups as are happy on the Federal Plantation.

But, they couldn't borrow enough to fully fund ObamaCare, and they wound up sending the Middle Class a bill---due and payable now.

So, the Jeffersonians may do pretty well in the next election.

I found this analysis intriguing and partially cogent. It is especially relevant if you follow crypto-political and trans-global political trends.

I think you might like the following article.

Here is a taste, plus a map, I love maps.

The nations are constituted as follows:

(This social Scientist's analysis was in regards to Gun control, but I still found the cultural delineation to be a useful illustration, particularly in this or any other context.)

YANKEEDOM. Founded on the shores of Massachusetts Bay by radical Calvinists as a new Zion, Yankeedom has, since the outset, put great emphasis on perfecting earthly civilization through social engineering, denial of self for the common good, and assimilation of outsiders. It has prized education, intellectual achievement, communal empowerment, and broad citizen participation in politics and government, the latter seen as the public’s shield against the machinations of grasping aristocrats and other would-be tyrants. Since the early Puritans, it has been more comfortable with government regulation and public-sector social projects than many of the other nations, who regard the Yankee utopian streak with trepidation.

NEW NETHERLAND. Established by the Dutch at a time when the Netherlands was the most sophisticated society in the Western world, New Netherland has always been a global commercial culture—materialistic, with a profound tolerance for ethnic and religious diversity and an unflinching commitment to the freedom of inquiry and conscience. Like seventeenth-century Amsterdam, it emerged as a center of publishing, trade, and finance, a magnet for immigrants, and a refuge for those persecuted by other regional cultures, from Sephardim in the seventeenth century to gays, feminists, and bohemians in the early twentieth. Unconcerned with great moral questions, it nonetheless has found itself in alliance with Yankeedom to defend public institutions and reject evangelical prescriptions for individual behavior.

THE MIDLANDS. America’s great swing region was founded by English Quakers, who believed in humans’ inherent goodness and welcomed people of many nations and creeds to their utopian colonies like Pennsylvania on the shores of Delaware Bay. Pluralistic and organized around the middle class, the Midlands spawned the culture of Middle America and the Heartland, where ethnic and ideological purity have never been a priority, government has been seen as an unwelcome intrusion, and political opinion has been moderate. An ethnic mosaic from the start—it had a German, rather than British, majority at the time of the Revolution—it shares the Yankee belief that society should be organized to benefit ordinary people, though it rejects top-down government intervention.

TIDEWATER. Built by the younger sons of southern English gentry in the Chesapeake country and neighboring sections of Delaware and North Carolina, Tidewater was meant to reproduce the semifeudal society of the countryside they’d left behind. Standing in for the peasantry were indentured servants and, later, slaves. Tidewater places a high value on respect for authority and tradition, and very little on equality or public participation in politics. It was the most powerful of the American nations in the eighteenth century, but today it is in decline, partly because it was cut off from westward expansion by its boisterous Appalachian neighbors and, more recently, because it has been eaten away by the expanding federal halos around D.C. and Norfolk.

GREATER APPALACHIA. Founded in the early eighteenth century by wave upon wave of settlers from the war-ravaged borderlands of Northern Ireland, northern England, and the Scottish lowlands, Appalachia has been lampooned by writers and screenwriters as the home of hillbillies and rednecks. It transplanted a culture formed in a state of near constant danger and upheaval, characterized by a warrior ethic and a commitment to personal sovereignty and individual liberty. Intensely suspicious of lowland aristocrats and Yankee social engineers alike, Greater Appalachia has shifted alliances depending on who appeared to be the greatest threat to their freedom. It was with the Union in the Civil War. Since Reconstruction, and especially since the upheavals of the 1960s, it has joined with Deep South to counter federal overrides of local preference.

DEEP SOUTH. Established by English slave lords from Barbados, Deep South was meant as a West Indies–style slave society. This nation offered a version of classical Republicanism modeled on the slave states of the ancient world, where democracy was the privilege of the few and enslavement the natural lot of the many. Its caste systems smashed by outside intervention, it continues to fight against expanded federal powers, taxes on capital and the wealthy, and environmental, labor, and consumer regulations.

EL NORTE. The oldest of the American nations, El Norte consists of the borderlands of the Spanish American empire, which were so far from the seats of power in Mexico City and Madrid that they evolved their own characteristics. Most Americans are aware of El Norte as a place apart, where Hispanic language, culture, and societal norms dominate. But few realize that among Mexicans, norteños have a reputation for being exceptionally independent, self-sufficient, adaptable, and focused on work. Long a hotbed of democratic reform and revolutionary settlement, the region encompasses parts of Mexico that have tried to secede in order to form independent buffer states between their mother country and the United States.

THE LEFT COAST. A Chile-shaped nation wedged between the Pacific Ocean and the Cascade and Coast mountains, the Left Coast was originally colonized by two groups: New Englanders (merchants, missionaries, and woodsmen who arrived by sea and dominated the towns) and Appalachian midwesterners (farmers, prospectors, and fur traders who generally arrived by wagon and controlled the countryside). Yankee missionaries tried to make it a “New England on the Pacific,” but were only partially successful. Left Coast culture is a hybrid of Yankee utopianism and Appalachian self-expression and exploration—traits recognizable in its cultural production, from the Summer of Love to the iPad. The staunchest ally of Yankeedom, it clashes with Far Western sections in the interior of its home states.

THE FAR WEST. The other “second-generation” nation, the Far West occupies the one part of the continent shaped more by environmental factors than ethnographic ones. High, dry, and remote, the Far West stopped migrating easterners in their tracks, and most of it could be made habitable only with the deployment of vast industrial resources: railroads, heavy mining equipment, ore smelters, dams, and irrigation systems. As a result, settlement was largely directed by corporations headquartered in distant New York, Boston, Chicago, or San Francisco, or by the federal government, which controlled much of the land. The Far West’s people are often resentful of their dependent status, feeling that they have been exploited as an internal colony for the benefit of the seaboard nations. Their senators led the fight against trusts in the mid-twentieth century. Of late, Far Westerners have focused their anger on the federal government, rather than their corporate masters.

NEW FRANCE. Occupying the New Orleans area and southeastern Canada, New France blends the folkways of ancien régime northern French peasantry with the traditions and values of the aboriginal people they encountered in northeastern North America. After a long history of imperial oppression, its people have emerged as down-to-earth, egalitarian, and consensus driven, among the most liberal on the continent, with unusually tolerant attitudes toward gays and people of all races and a ready acceptance of government involvement in the economy. The New French influence is manifest in Canada, where multiculturalism and negotiated consensus are treasured.

FIRST NATION. First Nation is populated by native American groups that generally never gave up their land by treaty and have largely retained cultural practices and knowledge that allow them to survive in this hostile region on their own terms. The nation is now reclaiming its sovereignty, having won considerable autonomy in Alaska and Nunavut and a self-governing nation state in Greenland that stands on the threshold of full independence. Its territory is huge—far larger than the continental United States—but its population is less than 300,000, most of whom live in Canada.

If you understand the United States as a patchwork of separate nations, each with its own origins and prevailing values, you would hardly expect attitudes toward violence to be uniformly distributed. You would instead be prepared to discover that some parts of the country experience more violence, have a greater tolerance for violent solutions to conflict, and are more protective of the instruments of violence than other parts of the country. That is exactly what the data on violence reveal about the modern United States.
- See more at: http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html

 

[Pogo]

I agree in principle with Joe's comments but need to point out campaign "donations' are only one way to influence the vote of elected officials. There are many ways to bribe a dishonest person, money is one. Others included sexual favors, booze, drugs, jobs for Jr. and wifey, jobs after government 'service' and blackmail.

Elected officials need to go to prison if they accept anything of value from anyone. Period. Those who want to run for office must be limited to X amount of dollars, legally obtained. Earned with records of how; borrowed, with terms of interest clear and no one can buy air or print time for any candidate.

Whoa... hold on. I think you're missing the core of his point. He's talking about addressing the cause, not the symptom. What you quite correctly point out - that there are endless ways to bribe people - is exactly why focusing on what legislators accept in the way of 'gifts' will never work.

Joe's point (and Joe, correct if I'm missing it as well), is that we cut off corruption at the knees by banning their ability to grant favors in the first place. That means cleaning up taxation and returning it to a straightforward means of raising money for government. We ban the practice of using incentives, deductions, rebates, penalties, surcharges, mandates, etc, etc, etc... as a way of currying favor and punishing those who fail to pony up. And it means we don't let Congress parse out special regulatory exemptions and protections to their favorite interest groups. It means doing 'equal protection' and 'rule of law' for realsies.

It will probably take a Constitutional amendment to stick, but honestly we'll need that much consensus from the country before such a thing would work anyway, because it's going to require everyone to commit to the principle enough to give up their own favorite perks.

An end to corporatism? I like it. I'm afraid a vote at the ballot box will never achieve such a thing. The political establishment, the financial establishment, and the commercial establishment are all in the hands of the corporate elite. The way things are done now is in the interest of fascism. What he is suggesting is doing away with the fascist nature of how things are done, it would mean scrapping the ACA, Farms subsidies, and a whole host of other programs that are fascist in nature.

In order to do that, the nation would have to get on board, which would require the media to be on board, and they themselves are fascist in nature. Fox news, MSNBC, Rush, Beck, the Daily Kos, you name it, they control the minds of the unthinking low information voters, they are all corporate owned, and they would all be against this b/c it makes sense.

The only way this would happen is if there was a second Revolution, even if it was a peaceful color Revolution where everyone just refused to work and pay taxes until the elites did the re-write.

That. This. Up there. ^^

That chart Screamer posted is truly about the most wacked one I've ever seen.

 

[Pogo]

Basically, it is still the Federalists of New England versus the Jeffersonians in the Heartland.

The Federalists are winning because they understand the tendency toward Decline of Societies.

They have mastered the art of borrowing money to give out free stuff in exchange for votes; and so have gained control of such groups as are happy on the Federal Plantation.

But, they couldn't borrow enough to fully fund ObamaCare, and they wound up sending the Middle Class a bill---due and payable now.

So, the Jeffersonians may do pretty well in the next election.

I found this analysis intriguing and partially cogent. It is especially relevant if you follow crypto-political and trans-global political trends.

I think you might like the following article.

Here is a taste, plus a map, I love maps.

The nations are constituted as follows:

(This social Scientist's analysis was in regards to Gun control, but I still found the cultural delineation to be a useful illustration, particularly in this or any other context.)

YANKEEDOM. Founded on the shores of Massachusetts Bay by radical Calvinists as a new Zion, Yankeedom has, since the outset, put great emphasis on perfecting earthly civilization through social engineering, denial of self for the common good, and assimilation of outsiders. It has prized education, intellectual achievement, communal empowerment, and broad citizen participation in politics and government, the latter seen as the public’s shield against the machinations of grasping aristocrats and other would-be tyrants. Since the early Puritans, it has been more comfortable with government regulation and public-sector social projects than many of the other nations, who regard the Yankee utopian streak with trepidation.

NEW NETHERLAND. Established by the Dutch at a time when the Netherlands was the most sophisticated society in the Western world, New Netherland has always been a global commercial culture—materialistic, with a profound tolerance for ethnic and religious diversity and an unflinching commitment to the freedom of inquiry and conscience. Like seventeenth-century Amsterdam, it emerged as a center of publishing, trade, and finance, a magnet for immigrants, and a refuge for those persecuted by other regional cultures, from Sephardim in the seventeenth century to gays, feminists, and bohemians in the early twentieth. Unconcerned with great moral questions, it nonetheless has found itself in alliance with Yankeedom to defend public institutions and reject evangelical prescriptions for individual behavior.

THE MIDLANDS. America’s great swing region was founded by English Quakers, who believed in humans’ inherent goodness and welcomed people of many nations and creeds to their utopian colonies like Pennsylvania on the shores of Delaware Bay. Pluralistic and organized around the middle class, the Midlands spawned the culture of Middle America and the Heartland, where ethnic and ideological purity have never been a priority, government has been seen as an unwelcome intrusion, and political opinion has been moderate. An ethnic mosaic from the start—it had a German, rather than British, majority at the time of the Revolution—it shares the Yankee belief that society should be organized to benefit ordinary people, though it rejects top-down government intervention.

TIDEWATER. Built by the younger sons of southern English gentry in the Chesapeake country and neighboring sections of Delaware and North Carolina, Tidewater was meant to reproduce the semifeudal society of the countryside they’d left behind. Standing in for the peasantry were indentured servants and, later, slaves. Tidewater places a high value on respect for authority and tradition, and very little on equality or public participation in politics. It was the most powerful of the American nations in the eighteenth century, but today it is in decline, partly because it was cut off from westward expansion by its boisterous Appalachian neighbors and, more recently, because it has been eaten away by the expanding federal halos around D.C. and Norfolk.

GREATER APPALACHIA. Founded in the early eighteenth century by wave upon wave of settlers from the war-ravaged borderlands of Northern Ireland, northern England, and the Scottish lowlands, Appalachia has been lampooned by writers and screenwriters as the home of hillbillies and rednecks. It transplanted a culture formed in a state of near constant danger and upheaval, characterized by a warrior ethic and a commitment to personal sovereignty and individual liberty. Intensely suspicious of lowland aristocrats and Yankee social engineers alike, Greater Appalachia has shifted alliances depending on who appeared to be the greatest threat to their freedom. It was with the Union in the Civil War. Since Reconstruction, and especially since the upheavals of the 1960s, it has joined with Deep South to counter federal overrides of local preference.

DEEP SOUTH. Established by English slave lords from Barbados, Deep South was meant as a West Indies–style slave society. This nation offered a version of classical Republicanism modeled on the slave states of the ancient world, where democracy was the privilege of the few and enslavement the natural lot of the many. Its caste systems smashed by outside intervention, it continues to fight against expanded federal powers, taxes on capital and the wealthy, and environmental, labor, and consumer regulations.

EL NORTE. The oldest of the American nations, El Norte consists of the borderlands of the Spanish American empire, which were so far from the seats of power in Mexico City and Madrid that they evolved their own characteristics. Most Americans are aware of El Norte as a place apart, where Hispanic language, culture, and societal norms dominate. But few realize that among Mexicans, norteños have a reputation for being exceptionally independent, self-sufficient, adaptable, and focused on work. Long a hotbed of democratic reform and revolutionary settlement, the region encompasses parts of Mexico that have tried to secede in order to form independent buffer states between their mother country and the United States.

THE LEFT COAST. A Chile-shaped nation wedged between the Pacific Ocean and the Cascade and Coast mountains, the Left Coast was originally colonized by two groups: New Englanders (merchants, missionaries, and woodsmen who arrived by sea and dominated the towns) and Appalachian midwesterners (farmers, prospectors, and fur traders who generally arrived by wagon and controlled the countryside). Yankee missionaries tried to make it a “New England on the Pacific,” but were only partially successful. Left Coast culture is a hybrid of Yankee utopianism and Appalachian self-expression and exploration—traits recognizable in its cultural production, from the Summer of Love to the iPad. The staunchest ally of Yankeedom, it clashes with Far Western sections in the interior of its home states.

THE FAR WEST. The other “second-generation” nation, the Far West occupies the one part of the continent shaped more by environmental factors than ethnographic ones. High, dry, and remote, the Far West stopped migrating easterners in their tracks, and most of it could be made habitable only with the deployment of vast industrial resources: railroads, heavy mining equipment, ore smelters, dams, and irrigation systems. As a result, settlement was largely directed by corporations headquartered in distant New York, Boston, Chicago, or San Francisco, or by the federal government, which controlled much of the land. The Far West’s people are often resentful of their dependent status, feeling that they have been exploited as an internal colony for the benefit of the seaboard nations. Their senators led the fight against trusts in the mid-twentieth century. Of late, Far Westerners have focused their anger on the federal government, rather than their corporate masters.

NEW FRANCE. Occupying the New Orleans area and southeastern Canada, New France blends the folkways of ancien régime northern French peasantry with the traditions and values of the aboriginal people they encountered in northeastern North America. After a long history of imperial oppression, its people have emerged as down-to-earth, egalitarian, and consensus driven, among the most liberal on the continent, with unusually tolerant attitudes toward gays and people of all races and a ready acceptance of government involvement in the economy. The New French influence is manifest in Canada, where multiculturalism and negotiated consensus are treasured.

FIRST NATION. First Nation is populated by native American groups that generally never gave up their land by treaty and have largely retained cultural practices and knowledge that allow them to survive in this hostile region on their own terms. The nation is now reclaiming its sovereignty, having won considerable autonomy in Alaska and Nunavut and a self-governing nation state in Greenland that stands on the threshold of full independence. Its territory is huge—far larger than the continental United States—but its population is less than 300,000, most of whom live in Canada.

If you understand the United States as a patchwork of separate nations, each with its own origins and prevailing values, you would hardly expect attitudes toward violence to be uniformly distributed. You would instead be prepared to discover that some parts of the country experience more violence, have a greater tolerance for violent solutions to conflict, and are more protective of the instruments of violence than other parts of the country. That is exactly what the data on violence reveal about the modern United States.
- See more at: http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html

WOW. This is golden stuff. Golden.

Howard, you have earned your paycheck many times over here. I caught wind of that article the Nine Nations of North America 30 years ago and appreciated the idea but never kept track of it. Now finally it comes back, with other developments.

Excellent, excellent excellent stuff. Thank you. Great reading.

 

[MarcATL]

I think the left-right paradigm has become obsolete. The lines blur as one moves to the extreme edges of political activism. If you believe they remain instructive, please offer examples of the beliefs of those on the far right and far left.

It's more entrenched now.

It's basically moreso because by default we are against each other.

Look at Congress, The House has sworn not to allow Obama to swear in any more nominees. Not because they have a problem with them, which they don't, but simply because of Obama, he's left, according to them, and they are right, so for that reason alone they won't work with him.

That attitude trickles down.

Dollars to donuts that most USMBers hate Elizabeth Warren, and if you ask them why specifically, you will get some version of "A humina, humina, humina" that basically boils down to, "well she's a Democrat."

The animosity is palpable.

In reality there are many things we have in common, but we are so invested in the things we don't that the chasm is too wide.

We haven't been plunged between the buttocks like Amadou Diallo by our politicians long enough. We have to take a few more plunges before we can figure out that we need to work together.

Obamacare is a prime example, it's a damn RW plan, but to hear the Righties tell it, it's the most Leftist thing since the Left hand was created.

 

[Peterf]

The US needs more than two viable political parties, more than two that have a chance of winning an important political office, including president. The two party system has become something that simply divides the country down the middle and creates all this intense partisanship that is doing nothing but harm to the country.

Imagine the intense partisanship we'd see if we did have at least 3 political parties of near equal strength and the President ended up being picked by the House of Representatives every 4 years.

Look at countries with a multi party system like Israel and then ask if we really want narrowly focused parties making crazy deals to get and keep power.

Indeed. Countries like Israel have a Proportional Representation system. In Israel any party which gets more than 2% of the votes gets seats in parliament. Here in Sweden its 4%. A defect of PR is that it usually leads to compromise governemtns that no individual voters actually chose. But it does mean that new parties have a chance to establish themselves.

A recent addition to the German political scene is Alliance for Germany - a centrist party distrustful of the EU and much needed by voters who had no natural home.

Problems in America stem in part from the delusion that "democracy" is bound to produce good government. Not so. Half the electorate are of below average intelligence. And even the superior half have imperfect knowledge of the issues. Voters are too easily swayed by glib patter or even such superficailities as good looks.

Democracy - not just in the US - would be improved by severely limiting the franchise. But that ain't going to happen so we will live with inferior governments for ever and anon.

 

[MisterBeale]

Democracy - not just in the US - would be improved by severely limiting the franchise. But that ain't going to happen so we will live with inferior governments for ever and anon.

I don't know if you know the history of the US or not, but for many years, conservatives here fought to keep this nation just that way. They wanted to have the franchise limited to just old white men who owned property. Is this who you would like to see restricted to the voting rolls? Would that work for you?

How do you suppose this would improve Democracy?

Well, for one thing, there would be no more arguments about why and how we go to war. Everyone would agree, and all dissent would be quashed. Women would definitely stay home where they belong. Young men would go off to war like they should. Minorities would once again know their place. . . .

Hmmm. . . . yeah, I see you're point, sounds like an ideal situation. . . .







If you are an old white man.

 

[The Rabbi]

Democracy - not just in the US - would be improved by severely limiting the franchise. But that ain't going to happen so we will live with inferior governments for ever and anon.

I don't know if you know the history of the US or not, but for many years, conservatives here fought to keep this nation just that way. They wanted to have the franchise limited to just old white men who owned property. Is this who you would like to see restricted to the voting rolls? Would that work for you?

How do you suppose this would improve Democracy?

Well, for one thing, there would be no more arguments about why and how we go to war. Everyone would agree, and all dissent would be quashed. Women would definitely stay home where they belong. Young men would go off to war like they should. Minorities would once again know their place. . . .

Hmmm. . . . yeah, I see you're point, sounds like an ideal situation. . . .







If you are an old white man.

I never thought of 22 as being "old". I guess we've learned something.
The franchise was restricted to free people over 21 who owned property, whether real estate or chattel over a certain amount.
In those days people who had an actual stake in government voted. They elected fiscally conservative candidates, no matter the party.
Today there are masses of economically deprived, poorly educated people voting for charlatans who promise them more and more free stuff.
You tell me which system is more sustainable.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The left - right paradigm from it's inception has been nothing other than a ploy to make the American people think they took part in some great democratic process to have their say. The truth is that both are one and the same beast. We lose either way. So, the answer to your question is no, not as long as they continue to get away with it.

nope...the truth is you need to look farther to the right....if you look at the continuum of FORCE the true right is where liberty and freedom reside...essentially what the Tea Party is promoting...

Actually, he had the correct answer. So did another poster in the first page when he referred to the first President's speech, you know Washington, who warned the nation about party and faction loyalty tearing the nation apart.

maybe to a different question....i believe the question was whether or not the left-right paradigm was obsolete or not....i contend that it is just as relevant today as it was in the past...if you base it upon a line of force...

as you point out in another post Americans did not just come out of the blue but had roots from other parts of the world.....settlers came from various places and from under other forms of government that experienced various degrees of force.........left-right are terms that i'm not sure where they came from but they are useful in describing the basic continuum from totalitarianism to freedom....America was exceptional because it was formed on the right end of that political spectrum....

the way i see it we here in America have moved to the left and both parties are sitting today somewhere in the middle of the graph....except for some elements which uphold the principles of the right that we started with....

 

[Pogo]

nope...the truth is you need to look farther to the right....if you look at the continuum of FORCE the true right is where liberty and freedom reside...essentially what the Tea Party is promoting...

Actually, he had the correct answer. So did another poster in the first page when he referred to the first President's speech, you know Washington, who warned the nation about party and faction loyalty tearing the nation apart.

maybe to a different question....i believe the question was whether or not the left-right paradigm was obsolete or not....i contend that it is just as relevant today as it was in the past...if you base it upon a line of force...

as you point out in another post Americans did not just come out of the blue but had roots from other parts of the world.....settlers came from various places and from under other forms of government that experienced various degrees of force.........left-right are terms that i'm not sure where they came from but they are useful in describing the basic continuum from totalitarianism to freedom....America was exceptional because it was formed on the right end of that political spectrum....

the way i see it we here in America have moved to the left and both parties are sitting today somewhere in the middle of the graph....except for some elements which uphold the principles of the right that we started with....

The fallacy is, your "lines of force" in that chart bear no relationship with any reality whatsoever. It's a joke. It really is, with no exaggeration, the worst political spectrum chart I've ever seen in my life. Literally.

 

[Edgetho]

Worth watching.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nohEzpbDP-M]ZoNATION: Oprah Orders More Whine On The Race Card - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Peterf]

Democracy - not just in the US - would be improved by severely limiting the franchise. But that ain't going to happen so we will live with inferior governments for ever and anon.

I don't know if you know the history of the US or not, but for many years, conservatives here fought to keep this nation just that way. They wanted to have the franchise limited to just old white men who owned property. Is this who you would like to see restricted to the voting rolls? Would that work for you?

How do you suppose this would improve Democracy?

Well, for one thing, there would be no more arguments about why and how we go to war. Everyone would agree, and all dissent would be quashed. Women would definitely stay home where they belong. Young men would go off to war like they should. Minorities would once again know their place. . . .

Hmmm. . . . yeah, I see you're point, sounds like an ideal situation. . . .







If you are an old white man.

Imo voting should be restricted to men and women of all colours who pay taxes. It is THEIR money that the pols are throwing around.

 

[The Rabbi]

Democracy - not just in the US - would be improved by severely limiting the franchise. But that ain't going to happen so we will live with inferior governments for ever and anon.

I don't know if you know the history of the US or not, but for many years, conservatives here fought to keep this nation just that way. They wanted to have the franchise limited to just old white men who owned property. Is this who you would like to see restricted to the voting rolls? Would that work for you?

How do you suppose this would improve Democracy?

Well, for one thing, there would be no more arguments about why and how we go to war. Everyone would agree, and all dissent would be quashed. Women would definitely stay home where they belong. Young men would go off to war like they should. Minorities would once again know their place. . . .

Hmmm. . . . yeah, I see you're point, sounds like an ideal situation. . . .







If you are an old white man.

Imo voting should be restricted to men and women of all colours who pay taxes. It is THEIR money that the pols are throwing around.

Oh you racist sexist elitist bigoted man, you.

 

[Contumacious]

The House has sworn not to allow Obama to swear in any more nominees.

That's awful.

I sent Sen Reid (D-USSR) a text message suggesting that he refuse to seat the intransigents. The precedence is there from the mid 1860's.

So what if the judges are fascists and socialists ---the Parasitic Faction needs them.

Dollars to donuts that most USMBers hate Elizabeth Warren, and if you ask them why specifically, you will get some version o.

Yeah man, can you believe that. She is a nice lady. The fact that she an avowed socialist should not deter anyone from supporting her candidacy.


.

 

[Pogo]

The House has sworn not to allow Obama to swear in any more nominees.

That's awful.

I sent Sen Reid (D-USSR) a text message suggesting that he refuse to seat the intransigents. The precedence is there from the mid 1860's.

So what if the judges are fascists and socialists ---the Parasitic Faction needs them.

Dollars to donuts that most USMBers hate Elizabeth Warren, and if you ask them why specifically, you will get some version o.

Yeah man, can you believe that. She is a nice lady. The fact that she an avowed socialist should not deter anyone from supporting her candidacy.

What's your point?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Actually, he had the correct answer. So did another poster in the first page when he referred to the first President's speech, you know Washington, who warned the nation about party and faction loyalty tearing the nation apart.

maybe to a different question....i believe the question was whether or not the left-right paradigm was obsolete or not....i contend that it is just as relevant today as it was in the past...if you base it upon a line of force...

as you point out in another post Americans did not just come out of the blue but had roots from other parts of the world.....settlers came from various places and from under other forms of government that experienced various degrees of force.........left-right are terms that i'm not sure where they came from but they are useful in describing the basic continuum from totalitarianism to freedom....America was exceptional because it was formed on the right end of that political spectrum....

the way i see it we here in America have moved to the left and both parties are sitting today somewhere in the middle of the graph....except for some elements which uphold the principles of the right that we started with....

The fallacy is, your "lines of force" in that chart bear no relationship with any reality whatsoever. It's a joke. It really is, with no exaggeration, the worst political spectrum chart I've ever seen in my life. Literally.

on the contrary this is reality because force has everything to do with it.....government = force....you can put any political structure somewhere along that line...

progressives hate this chart because it clearly shows the left for who they actually are in the political spectrum....

one reason the right has such a hard time of it in the battle with the left....it's tough to fight against those who promise (false) 'equality' along with handouts in exchange for fealty to their growing power structure... while all the right can really offer is an equal playing field and the freedom to be responsible for yourself...

 

[dblack]

maybe to a different question....i believe the question was whether or not the left-right paradigm was obsolete or not....i contend that it is just as relevant today as it was in the past...if you base it upon a line of force...

as you point out in another post Americans did not just come out of the blue but had roots from other parts of the world.....settlers came from various places and from under other forms of government that experienced various degrees of force.........left-right are terms that i'm not sure where they came from but they are useful in describing the basic continuum from totalitarianism to freedom....America was exceptional because it was formed on the right end of that political spectrum....

the way i see it we here in America have moved to the left and both parties are sitting today somewhere in the middle of the graph....except for some elements which uphold the principles of the right that we started with....

The fallacy is, your "lines of force" in that chart bear no relationship with any reality whatsoever. It's a joke. It really is, with no exaggeration, the worst political spectrum chart I've ever seen in my life. Literally.

on the contrary this is reality because force has everything to do with it.....government = force....you can put any political structure somewhere along that line...

progressives hate this chart because it clearly shows the left for who they actually are in the political spectrum....

one reason the right has such a hard time of it in the battle with the left....it's tough to fight against those who promise (false) 'equality' along with handouts in exchange for fealty to their growing power structure... while all the right can really offer is an equal playing field and the freedom to be responsible for yourself...

Republicans can be just as authoritarian and force-happy as Democrats. I think you're kidding yourself with that one. Unless you just pretend that the neo-cons and the so-cons aren't part of the mix. But then what's left, constitutionalists and libertarians? That makes up - at best - a quarter of the party. Both mainstream parties are too diverse and to vague ideologically to be mapped usefully'. And both are, for the most part, dominated by authoritarians who are more than happy to use state coercion to push society in their favored direction.