The Ideological Spectrum

[michiganFats]

When I started this thread, the last thing I pictured was DevNell defending Obama. I done a bad thing.

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

Dave, the graph you posted is not 3 dimensional

Quite right. If we were to truly represent the political opinions of individuals, the system would actually need to be n-dimensional. Every issue is an axis.

First of all, some folks don't really have the capacity to understand n-dimensional math. I would, with grave reluctance, have to include Republicans among that group, since their 30-year jihad of deficit spending proves that Republicans can't even understand double-entry accounting.

Second of all, a man is not the sum of his positions on issues. To illustrate: Obama and Hillary are virtually identical on almost all issues. Which one is swearing on the Bible tomorrow?

Politics isn't algebra. It is performing every form of art and philosophy known to man, all at once, while being shot out of a freakin cannon.


Go ahead and neg-rep that, Dave. See if I give a crap. I'm sure I'll weep bitter tears into my pillow.....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yo, DevNell,

My statement regarding politics during the Cold War is perfectly accurate. I worked the Cold War for Reagan and Bush, and helped them win, in a manner which I certainly will not discuss in this nonsecure forum. Did you? Didn’t think so.

actually, I almost jumped ship from the Democratic party to campaign ...early on...for Poppy Bush. The cold war was already frozen by the time Reagan entered the WH. There is no doubt he pushed things, but there was also events in Poland and the Vatican and Charlie Wilson and many Democrats who went along with the arms to teh Mujahadeen thing.

Most of the Dems I admired as a kid were true blue decorated war veterans who were anything but weak on defense. They were tougher than any of the mealy-mouthed GOP isolationists and fear brokers.

Scoop was a conservative, even though he was a Dem.

even though? get a grip.

Nobody gave a crap about party platforms, any more than they do now.

tell that to Phyllis Schlafly and others who were crazed about the ERA or tell that to William H. Loeb and Governor Meldrim Thompson and Jesse Helms and Pat Robertson and Newt Gingrich and others...

Stalin was in every way a totalitarian. Here’s the definition of the term:

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems whereby a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics. The term has been applied to many states, including: the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Socialist Republic of Romania, People's Socialist Republic of Albania, People's Republic of China, Democratic Kampuchea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea).

Meet Mr. Stalin!

Huh? I agreed to that.

The meaning of the spectrum must change, because the meaning of the words which define the spectrum change. There is no political term that hasn’t changed somewhat over the last 40 years – liberal, conservative, all of them.

this is all debatable. opinions do not equal facts no matter hos shrilly you say so.

And the rest of your post is simply juvenile insults, the inevitable sign of someone who knows his argument is shaky.

If you had been paying attention, instead of sitting in the back row chewing gum with your hoodlum friends, you’d know that I’m on your side, Bullwinkle. I’m a Democrat!

The election is over. We won. Relax, for Christ sake.

huh? paying attention to what?

Who gives a fuk if you are a Dem, not me.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When I started this thread, the last thing I pictured was DevNell defending Obama. I done a bad thing.

While I do defend Obama the man, I am also one who will almost always defend a principle regardless of the individual personalities involved.

 

[michiganFats]

Llama, when you say that Obama and Hillary are identical on most issues, I'll go you one further, so is McCain. All a neo-con is is a RINO.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

you are using that stupid tool? for what? jesus, stupid is as stupid does.

The Political Compass

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

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

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

here is where you lose

 

[michiganFats]

DevNell, I already dealt with that.

 

[michiganFats]

I'm no longer going to post here. Not because I don't like anyone here, I just am curious to see what this turns into.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1. Anybody who gives a crap about reputation points is too dumb to be in here. Any argument that's worth a damn is going to piss somebody off.

2. Neg-reps are the work of people who have no hope of actually winning the argument on its merits. Too bad for you....

who neg rep-ed you?




that is pathetic.. who?

 

[DiamondDave]

Quite right. If we were to truly represent the political opinions of individuals, the system would actually need to be n-dimensional. Every issue is an axis.

First of all, some folks don't really have the capacity to understand n-dimensional math. I would, with grave reluctance, have to include Republicans among that group, since their 30-year jihad of deficit spending proves that Republicans can't even understand double-entry accounting.

Second of all, a man is not the sum of his positions on issues. To illustrate: Obama and Hillary are virtually identical on almost all issues. Which one is swearing on the Bible tomorrow?

Politics isn't algebra. It is performing every form of art and philosophy known to man, all at once, while being shot out of a freakin cannon.


Go ahead and neg-rep that, Dave. See if I give a crap. I'm sure I'll weep bitter tears into my pillow.....

And here comes the idiotic and baseless ramblings

Name 1 single time since WWII where there has not been deficit spending, DEM or REP... so don't just put REPs on that label.... and don't think that just because I or any one else voted as a conservative for a REP candidate, that it inherently means that we agree with any REP initiated deficit spending

Next... to have a political compass that expands a bit from right and left, simply brings better insight into a person's stances.... not that any political test of 100 or whatever questions will give you a pinpoint accurate assessment of who that person is politically.... but does MORE ACCURATELY paint the picture

Politics is not algebra... but to most, it is not as simple as your partisan bashing either

Don't frequently give out the neg rep.... and with your obvious ignorant partisanship, it's easy enough to chip away at your posts to expose your bullshit

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Llama, when you say that Obama and Hillary are identical on most issues, I'll go you one further, so is McCain. All a neo-con is is a RINO.

Obama and Hillary Clinton are NOT identical on most issues. There is enough nuance there to drive a fat ass through. Take health care for one issue...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

DevNell, I already dealt with that.

I saw that. I was going through all the posts in between.

 

[DiamondDave]

you are using that stupid tool? for what? jesus, stupid is as stupid does.

Not using the tool for anything... just showing that there is a way to think of things beyond left and right... and using the graph shown on that site as an example

Never took that thing wayy too seriously... as it is hard to nail anything down in some quick test

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm no longer going to post here. Not because I don't like anyone here, I just am curious to see what this turns into.

then there will be no more (or very little) serious discussion on the subject because you started it and without you the interests in it are very broad.

ltr

d.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not using the tool for anything... just showing that there is a way to think of things beyond left and right... and using the graph shown on that site as an example

Never took that thing wayy too seriously... as it is hard to nail anything down in some quick test

sorry. I apologize for shooting from the lip and fingertips.

I see what you were saying.

 

[midcan5]

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.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ideology-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/019280281X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232395385&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Ideology: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Michael Freeden: Books[/ame]

 

[Tech_Esq]

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).

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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Yes it was. I'd heard all of that before though. I'd say it kind of supports my argument.

 

[KittenKoder]

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

Welcome to the modern world ... words have little to no meaning anymore.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.