The Fictitious Left-Right Paradigm

[Malcom X]

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

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

I hear this argument a lot. Yet I've never seen a single example, in any Democracy (past or present), of this type of ultra-moderation in governance. Polarization is the natural tendency of all STATES.

 

[Flopper]

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

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

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

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

I agree Congress would work best when each party has a significant representation of conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Congressman would be much freer to vote their conscience or to vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. It's absurd for a congressman to have to get permission from the party leadership to break ranks and vote in accordance with the desires of the voters in their district.

Why do we have to sacrifice good programs and legislation on the alter of ideology? Head Start, a program for low income children 3-5 has a proven track record of results and is one of the best of the social programs, yet the Republican House voted to cut funding 75%. Obama has acknowledge that corporate taxes are too high and rates need to come down, something republicans have been preaching for years. Reducing corporate taxes will be a hard sell in the Democratic Senate. Legislation should be passed based on it's value to the country, not the party.

 

[teapartysamurai]

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, what's the middle point view between say the Nazis and the Americans?

Between slavery and abolition?

Between civil rights and segregation?

Between peforming an abortion and letting the kid live?

In other words your talk of being so above the rest of us is just a load of self-delusional BS.

Nice deflating your self absorbed ego. That was fun!

 

[Malcom X]

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, what's the middle point view between say the Nazis and the Americans?

Between slavery and abolition?

Between civil rights and segregation?

Between peforming an abortion and letting the kid live?

In other words your talk of being so above the rest of us is just a load of self-delusional BS.

Nice deflating your self absorbed ego. That was fun!

If the left and right wing did not both promote enslavement you would have a point.

You are just as blinded as any idiotic American into your arrogant point of view. "I am right, everyone else is wrong. That's the end of it! Vote Right, Vote Left! There are no other ideas but the one I hold and the one's "they" hold!"

You cannot be helped.

 

[teapartysamurai]

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, what's the middle point view between say the Nazis and the Americans?

Between slavery and abolition?

Between civil rights and segregation?

Between peforming an abortion and letting the kid live?

In other words your talk of being so above the rest of us is just a load of self-delusional BS.

Nice deflating your self absorbed ego. That was fun!

If the left and right wing did not both promote enslavement you would have a point.

You are just as blinded as any idiotic American into your arrogant point of view. "I am right, everyone else is wrong. That's the end of it! Vote Right, Vote Left! There are no other ideas but the one I hold and the one's "they" hold!"

You cannot be helped.

Nice attempt to dance around it, but all you did was try to prevaricate and then claim you are far above us anyway.

But you didn't answer the question.

What IS the middle ground between slavery and abolition.

I didn't say what side either was on. I didn't say whether slavery was left or right. I didn't say whether abolition was left or right.

I SIMPLY ASKED WHAT IS THE MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THEM.

The fact is, there isn't a middle ground, and you know it.

Nice try, but that's the point.

You aren't being above anyone with your "elevated view" of the middle. You are just a coward, who doesn't have the back bone to take a side.

As with my example of the Nazis and the Americans, there were "third way" people in those days as well. They were called "appeasers" and they tried appeasing Hitler until he was so powerful, Germany went on to kill 50 million.

Like I said. It was fun exposing your BS.

 

[Imma B Me]

Yeah, what's the middle point view between say the Nazis and the Americans?

Between slavery and abolition?

Between civil rights and segregation?

Between peforming an abortion and letting the kid live?

In other words your talk of being so above the rest of us is just a load of self-delusional BS.

Nice deflating your self absorbed ego. That was fun!

If the left and right wing did not both promote enslavement you would have a point.

You are just as blinded as any idiotic American into your arrogant point of view. "I am right, everyone else is wrong. That's the end of it! Vote Right, Vote Left! There are no other ideas but the one I hold and the one's "they" hold!"

You cannot be helped.

Nice attempt to dance around it, but all you did was try to prevaricate and then claim you are far above us anyway.

But you didn't answer the question.

What IS the middle ground between slavery and abolition.

I didn't say what side either was on. I didn't say whether slavery was left or right. I didn't say whether abolition was left or right.

I SIMPLY ASKED WHAT IS THE MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THEM.

The fact is, there isn't a middle ground, and you know it.

Nice try, but that's the point.

You aren't being above anyone with your "elevated view" of the middle. You are just a coward, who doesn't have the back bone to take a side.

As with my example of the Nazis and the Americans, there were "third way" people in those days as well. They were called "appeasers" and they tried appeasing Hitler until he was so powerful, Germany went on to kill 50 million.

Like I said. It was fun exposing your BS.

I can't speak for Malcom, only myself but you asked about the "middle ground" on clearly right or wrong issues but the political issue is people stating their "ground" before even knowing the questions. To me, the biggest problem with political identity labels is, even when they actually pay attention to the policy questions, their decision is very seldom about what an individual thinks is right or wrong for the nation but mostly about which view their identity label supports.

I am advocating for a non labeled, specific issue by issue discussion based on what each person thinks is right or wrong for our nation, not which is right or left. If our political discourse about US policy was handled similar to how you laid out each specific topic on it's own merit for a decision, instead of each topic being followed by political labels and talking points, we as a nation would be better off.

 

[Malcom X]

Yeah, what's the middle point view between say the Nazis and the Americans?

Between slavery and abolition?

Between civil rights and segregation?

Between peforming an abortion and letting the kid live?

In other words your talk of being so above the rest of us is just a load of self-delusional BS.

Nice deflating your self absorbed ego. That was fun!

If the left and right wing did not both promote enslavement you would have a point.

You are just as blinded as any idiotic American into your arrogant point of view. "I am right, everyone else is wrong. That's the end of it! Vote Right, Vote Left! There are no other ideas but the one I hold and the one's "they" hold!"

You cannot be helped.

Nice attempt to dance around it, but all you did was try to prevaricate and then claim you are far above us anyway.

But you didn't answer the question.

What IS the middle ground between slavery and abolition.

I didn't say what side either was on. I didn't say whether slavery was left or right. I didn't say whether abolition was left or right.

I SIMPLY ASKED WHAT IS THE MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THEM.

The fact is, there isn't a middle ground, and you know it.

Nice try, but that's the point.

You aren't being above anyone with your "elevated view" of the middle. You are just a coward, who doesn't have the back bone to take a side.

As with my example of the Nazis and the Americans, there were "third way" people in those days as well. They were called "appeasers" and they tried appeasing Hitler until he was so powerful, Germany went on to kill 50 million.

Like I said. It was fun exposing your BS.

You are partially right. There is no middle-ground between two artificial ideologies. The only ground to take is against the entire spectrum.

I am not advocating a third way, I'm advocating the way not numbered. The only way not tied to your wretched political system.

 

[American Horse]

If the left and right wing did not both promote enslavement you would have a point.

You are just as blinded as any idiotic American into your arrogant point of view. "I am right, everyone else is wrong. That's the end of it! Vote Right, Vote Left! There are no other ideas but the one I hold and the one's "they" hold!"

You cannot be helped.

Nice attempt to dance around it, but all you did was try to prevaricate and then claim you are far above us anyway.

But you didn't answer the question.

What IS the middle ground between slavery and abolition.

I didn't say what side either was on. I didn't say whether slavery was left or right. I didn't say whether abolition was left or right.

I SIMPLY ASKED WHAT IS THE MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THEM.

The fact is, there isn't a middle ground, and you know it.

Nice try, but that's the point.

You aren't being above anyone with your "elevated view" of the middle. You are just a coward, who doesn't have the back bone to take a side.

As with my example of the Nazis and the Americans, there were "third way" people in those days as well. They were called "appeasers" and they tried appeasing Hitler until he was so powerful, Germany went on to kill 50 million.

Like I said. It was fun exposing your BS.

You are partially right. There is no middle-ground between two artificial ideologies. The only ground to take is against the entire spectrum.

I am not advocating a third way, I'm advocating the way not numbered. The only way not tied to your wretched political system.

The degree to which our political system has devolved into inane and meaningess arguments can be laid at the feet of our mainstream media, which exploits semantics and ducks debate based on logic. It is not the natural schism between conservative and liberal, which as I pointed out, goes back to the first great republic more than two millenia ago. Left and right debates are normal for republics and debates about (cults of) personalities are far more normal for democracies.

Nothing could be more natural than for each philosophy to overreach before the public perceives that happening and draws back to the center between the two, and that be reflected by elections; but the balance can never be perfect.

It's the media that needs to be reformed not our political system. That is happening at the present moment, and one of the first manifestations of that reform is the political movement of the T-Party. Note that the T-party is about ideas (L & C) not about personalities. Note too, that a big complaint of their critics is that they have no leader, which would give them someone to attack and demonize on a personal level; ideas harder and more durable stuff to deal with by attack when the public is fully informed and engaged.

Think about the great debates of the nineteenth century which took place in public places, even in the streets. I refer to the Lincoln/Douglas debates about the great issue of that century, the abolition of as opposed to the sanctity of slavery, for that is what it was about. Then the Republicans were the liberals (all about change) and the Democrats were the conservatives (all about preserving the status quo).

Middle ground is much easier to find when the arguments do not descend so quickly into semantics. No one who is sophisticated beyond a junior high school mentality believes that conservatives want to cut the salaries of teachers, or harm women's health or poison the water. But demonizations like those enable people to stop the debate, and limit it to catch phrases and personalities instead of looking at the greater public policy issues.

And that kind of semantic argument exacerbates the pendulum swings most people abhor. If a large part of our mainstream media did its work instead of condensing it down into a few caustic biased and less than honest ideas, a lot of the bumps would be smoothed out and middle ground would be realized more often than not.

 

[Malcom X]

Nice attempt to dance around it, but all you did was try to prevaricate and then claim you are far above us anyway.

But you didn't answer the question.

What IS the middle ground between slavery and abolition.

I didn't say what side either was on. I didn't say whether slavery was left or right. I didn't say whether abolition was left or right.

I SIMPLY ASKED WHAT IS THE MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THEM.

The fact is, there isn't a middle ground, and you know it.

Nice try, but that's the point.

You aren't being above anyone with your "elevated view" of the middle. You are just a coward, who doesn't have the back bone to take a side.

As with my example of the Nazis and the Americans, there were "third way" people in those days as well. They were called "appeasers" and they tried appeasing Hitler until he was so powerful, Germany went on to kill 50 million.

Like I said. It was fun exposing your BS.

You are partially right. There is no middle-ground between two artificial ideologies. The only ground to take is against the entire spectrum.

I am not advocating a third way, I'm advocating the way not numbered. The only way not tied to your wretched political system.

The degree to which our political system has devolved into inane and meaningess arguments can be laid at the feet of our mainstream media, which exploits semantics and ducks debate based on logic. It is not the natural schism between conservative and liberal, which as I pointed out, goes back to the first great republic more than two millenia ago. Left and right debates are normal for republics and debates about (cults of) personalities are far more normal for democracies.

Nothing could be more natural than for each philosophy to overreach before the public perceives that happening and draws back to the center between the two, and that be reflected by elections; but the balance can never be perfect.

It's the media that needs to be reformed not our political system. That is happening at the present moment, and one of the first manifestations of that reform is the political movement of the T-Party. Note that the T-party is about ideas (L & C) not about personalities. Note too, that a big complaint of their critics is that they have no leader, which would give them someone to attack and demonize on a personal level; ideas harder and more durable stuff to deal with by attack when the public is fully informed and engaged.

Think about the great debates of the nineteenth century which took place in public places, even in the streets. I refer to the Lincoln/Douglas debates about the great issue of that century, the abolition of as opposed to the sanctity of slavery, for that is what it was about. Then the Republicans were the liberals (all about change) and the Democrats were the conservatives (all about preserving the status quo).

Middle ground is much easier to find when the arguments do not descend so quickly into semantics. No one who is sophisticated beyond a junior high school mentality believes that conservatives want to cut the salaries of teachers, or harm women's health or poison the water. But demonizations like those enable people to stop the debate, and limit it to catch phrases and personalities instead of looking at the greater public policy issues.

And that kind of semantic argument exacerbates the pendulum swings most people abhor. If a large part of our mainstream media did its work instead of condensing it down into a few caustic biased and less than honest ideas, a lot of the bumps would be smoothed out and middle ground would be realized more often than not.

But Why? Why are the only options left, right, or the center of both. There is more to ideology than a single line.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah it's a fictitious paradign. Politics is nothing but fictitious paradigns created to divide people into groups that make it easier to control.

The groups only exist when we accept their existance.