A New Era in TFP Politics - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

jorgelito · 09-03-2006, 10:51 AM

Well, I've just slogged through the "What Happened to TFP" thread and want to do my part. As a moderate, I've been around for awhile but I have noticed that the politics forum has polarized acutely (at least to me). I realize that I must contribute or else be reduced to a moderate by the wayside (no, not that Wayside). So, I want to do my best to help reinvigorate the politics (and TFP in general) forum. I have been gone alot in 2006 - I was in Washington DC at an internship in a think tank (lots to tell there) and this summer I traveled throughout Europe and the Middle East. I was in Egypt and Israel for the war and got alot of 1st hand viewpoints. I have a video of myself in an air raid by Lebanon.

I'm going to be more active now as well as listen. I will use my opinions, backed by facts, sometimes links, other times just my own editorial. A good balance I think. I like hosts posts (hey that rhymes) and I like UsTwo's posts (here and there). I love Pans passion, Charlatan and Ubertuber's reason. I miss Tecoyah's thoughtfulness (someone get him back here) I appreciate everyone's views but we can spreadout more and explore. I know Elph, Will, Politico and the other moderates are around and putting in big effort. You guys are so critical to keeping this joint together (in my opinion) - I love your sincerity and honesty. Seaver, Stevo, I often nod my head along with your posts, and whatever happend to MojoPeiPei? Rb and Smooth, I love the challenges and level of discussion you guys bring and no one can beat host for research.

Thanks for listening.

Elphaba · 09-03-2006, 12:49 PM

Welcome Back!

Your posts have been missed. Maybe we can get this forum rockin' again.

A question asked by roachboy in another topic:

Quote:

on an unrelated matter (feel free to respond in the moderate thread, if you think it a better place): what exactly does being a moderate in the present american political context actually mean?

I believe that this is a very important question in that this forum has devolved to one of two positions; "looney left" or "righteous right" both of which are ideological extremes. I would suggest that many people that visit this forum are not of either extreme, but are certainly judged as one or the other on no basis in fact.

Speaking for myself, I am a fiscal conservative and a social progressive. I do not fit in this imposed dichotomy but rather a political belief structure that I consider crosses both parties. There are several FC/SP's here, but we tire of being labeled and summarily dismissed by the ideological extremists.

I am hopeful in that some of the moderate conservatives are beginning to post here again. A more balanced discussion can only improve this forum.

jorgelito · 09-03-2006, 08:41 PM

Thanks Elph, I also hope that others will emerge and contribute too.

Willravel · 09-03-2006, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I know Elph, Will, Politico and the other moderates are around and putting in big effort. You guys are so critical to keeping this joint together (in my opinion) - I love your sincerity and honesty.

That's me!

Hey welcome back! I'm glad to read that you're alright coming back from a very dangerous place. I'd love to be a part of your proposed reinvigoration. Let me know what I can do to help.

Dilbert1234567 · 09-03-2006, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Speaking for myself, I am a fiscal conservative and a social progressive. I do not fit in this imposed dichotomy but rather a political belief structure that I consider crosses both parties. There are several FC/SP's here, but we tire of being labeled and summarily dismissed by the ideological extremists.

i hear you, i'm very left for social issues, but moderatly right for fiscal policy. many people only see my social side, and lable me as far, far left

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=107908

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanxter

far, far left...
but i remeber this cracked me up...

roachboy · 09-03-2006, 10:26 PM

see this left category doesnt really signify anything.

i come out of marxism but am not a marxist--there are lots of reasons for this, some to do with the datedness of marx's work, some to do with the history associated with that work. i do not particularly identify with any organization: i see myself as being to some extent caught in the vacuum created by the implosion of the old-school left (which still twitches, but which in the main was finished by the mid 1980s in most places) and trying to figure out how to talk about that vacuum and being caught in it while still remaining engaged in the world, in critique of that world.

old school conservative ideology is imploding all over the world--what you have trying to move in to protect radical nationalism is variants of the french front nationale--and the bush administration, along with the whole of the populist right in the states, is among these. the bush administration is VERY far to the right--the democrats are at best centrist--they would be moderates if the americans had anything like a wide political spectrum. but it doesnt. it has THIS spectrum, which is very very narrow and very very conservative.

the idea that the american democratic party is a leftist organization strikes me as hilarious. it is so deeply, thoroughly wrong that it is difficult to know where to even start taking it apart. there is a "progressive" element within the democratic party. but they are not the main power either within the party apparatus nor insofar as the party's lines are concerned. personally, i think the democrats take these folk for granted. i think that is a mistake, but whatever.

these "progressives" are---AT THEIR MOST RADICAL---weak social democrats. social democrats are perfectly happy within the existing order, but they have views concerning issues like the distribution of wealth and power that are quite different from those you see floating about in neoliberaland, but they are not wholly exclusive of them either, nor are they interested in blowing up the capitalist order itself--they in the main see addressing questions of social justice as better for business.

so i really have no idea what you are talking about--if you are talking about anything at all--when you repeat the view of the american political spectrum particular to rush limbaugh and speak in terms of an actual left. it is crazy... there is no left in the united states...not at the mass political level. the "looney left" is entirely in your imagination. from idiots like limbaugh, it is nothing more and nothing less than updated redbait-speak, the primary function of which is to conceal the extent to which the republicans had been dominated by an extreme, fringe type of radical conservatism.

(i use the past tense in a moment of optimism for all of us)

the situation is quite different at the grassroots level, particularly in the cities, but you would never know that by looking at the main parties.

so i see nothing at all in the notion of the "left" as you describe it, and so the notion of "moderate" seems meaningless to me. it is not surprising that the closest thing you get to a definition is social liberal fiscal conservative--which is hardly wrong as a position--but it shows how close the parties really are.

Ustwo · 09-03-2006, 10:41 PM

roachboy your hate and venom fill me with warmth lately.

Welcome back jorgelito, I'm sure you can add some new perspectives.

powerclown · 09-03-2006, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

roachboy your hate and venom fill me with warmth lately.

ROFL
ROFL
ROFL

roachboy · 09-04-2006, 06:46 AM

in terms of the problems of debate here, the last two posts are a good example of the way in which things tank.

i meant nothing sarcastic in the post above: i wanted to pose a real question. so i talked a bit about how the american political spectrum looks from my perspective. i understand that this perspective is not shared here, but i wanted to outline it a bit anyway, to change the framework a little to open things up more.

i did this in order to encoruage the direction the thread was heading in, to contribute to a discussion about a category that i genuinely do not understand.

and you see what followed.

i'll address ustwo and powerclown in contexts where substantive issues are involved. to do so here would be little more than legitmating an attempt to reduce political differences to personality conflict. this as a way of evacuating the content from these political differences.

nice try, lads.

jorgelito · 09-04-2006, 09:05 AM

Thanks guys, I look forward to lively discussions (oh and congratulations on your magazine write-up UsTwo).

RB, I think I can see where you're getting at. So basically you feel there has been a major shift to the right where 'moderate' is actually right due to the paucity of a real left.

I would actually agree with you that the spectrum has shrunk though it may not have been significantly broad in the first place. My American Government prof used to do a cool illustration of this. Essentially, we have been reduced to the Dems and Rep. In theory, we have a range of interests and representation and affiliation, but in reality, in practice, it's a two-party system where they beging to 'lookalike'. The outliers, like the American Cumminists (if they are even still around), or extreme right-wing groups (can't think of the name off the top of my head) don't have a real effect in American politics at the moment and there isn;t any "left" movement that I can think of. I would consider the Greens and Libertarians to be moderate (that's my opinion). The LaRouchians don't factor in much.

I do think that there are swings and shifts in the normal ebb and flow of politics. Perhaps the current state of right will force a left to emerge to counter balance it? I don't know, maybe there is a historical example or precedent for this?

Oh, maybe the period of WWI & WWII where much of Europe shifted left.

I still believe in a silent majority of moderates. Maybe they will awaken soon.

docbungle · 09-04-2006, 09:16 AM

A new era?

Hardly. I don't see that happening until we see some sort of signifigant change in real-world politics. This type of change would, you'd think, require everyone to stop "taking sides" for just a moment and actually involve themselves in some real talk. Throw "talking points" and sloganesque dialogue out the window and actually TALK about a few things. But the back & forth you see above is usually what we get here. As in the real world, substance just doesn't matter anymore. It does not get addressed; it gets avoided and made fun of. It is much more satisfying to simly be on a team, and to do and say whatever they do and say.

It gets worse every day. It has long since passed the point of no return. A new ara of political thinking (on a mass scale) is going to need a new era of people to make it happen. Because the current bunch seem content on floating dead in the water, while watching all the ships sail by.

host · 09-04-2006, 09:26 AM

jorgelito....nice to see you here again! There are a thousand questions for you...beginning with why you did not post here during the time that you spent in DC....at aei...??? Just 2 other questions for now:

Were you convinced that the AEI is "non-partisan"....as it advertises itself and how many of it's 'fellows' or principle financial benefactors are outside of what are considered partisan republicans of the non Sen. Lncoln Chafee or CT congressman Chris Shays "varety"?

Did you return from the middle east with an impression that the US news media can reasonably be described as anti israel or anti idf or pro hezbollah/pro palestinian....in it's reporting?

roachboy.....your post prompted me to recall reading the following....just yesterday:

Quote:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article...thread&order=0

Joe Bageant: 'Roy's people'

.........The fiction is that we are all individuals and not part of a common human fate, that we are separate from each other. That we make our choices in solitary thought, uninfluenced by the machinery of the corporate state, uninfluenced while in the aisles of the big box stores and the voting booth. Every waking moment in our society reinforces these illusions to the point that the citizen-as-consumer is convinced of the most important fiction of all — that American-style capitalism is the natural progressive order of the world.

Like all great fiction, it provides moments of comic relief, typically through irony. Thus, we watch the development of liberal political "strategy." One has to laugh. Laugh first at the notion that the Hamptons Country Club leadership now designing "national strategy" could ever make working people getting poorer by the day ever believe in them for Christ sake. The people sitting around the Shenandoah this morning will never believe that a gaggle of cagey, sophisticated multi-millionaire party leaders being limoed from the Ritz Carlton to their appearance on Jon Stewart are somehow going to look out for the blood-smeared guys and gals down at the chicken plant. Or the blood-smeared guys in Iraq for that matter. It's too late for that. They cannot raise the already dead. They are complicit in the same power poker game as the Republicans and they will remain that way, as my neighbor puts it: "Until the dumb motherfucking voters can see beyond the price of a gallon of gas." Or the office basketball pool or the next staged election year non-issue. The real issues are always moral, usually involving purposeful neglect of some portion of society, which is supposed to be the Democratic arena.

Yet every honest candidate who dares mention such issues is deemed "too far left to be workable." Then they are squashed like Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich, or the notion of kicking the insurance companies entirely out of our health care system and declaring universal health care as a citizen right like most civilized nations have done. And then, after having killed everyone around them but members of their country club, the national leadership comes back to us talking about "renewal." And offers us brilliant ideas such as pulling out of Iraq three years and thousands of corpses too late.

Even being aware of the process is not much help. What can we do personally that would make the slightest difference? So we continue to let a political managerial expert class advise and run the only game in town, and contribute time and money to the very people who engineered liberal failure for the past 30 years. Academic "framers," wonks and just plain bullshit artists hawking out-of-touch candidates — though there small signs of hope as we enjoy watching Joe the ho' Lieberman finally strangle in his own stench. Nowhere was it more savored than amid the drooling political junkies of the blogosphere, that cyber-fiction of freedom where unhappy minions of the Empire rant about "strategies" instead of taking to the streets where the voters and potential voters are, particularly those very voters who damned well need what the Democrats once offered. Time was, when Democrats used to put money in the budget for older Americans and others for social programs — at least enough for some goddamned bingo games and an occasional dance for the widowed and the lonely. Maybe we need to kidnap the leadership and force them to listen to Roy's songs for twenty-four hours straight.

Then too, how can well meaning Democratic voters do anything, even if they were inclined to action? They are trapped in their cubicles doing the Empire's most mundane tasks. So they settle for blogger world. (Ever notice how all the forums go completely dead at 5 PM?) None of which currently matters because neither the bloggers nor the candidates are going to shake the dirty hands they most need to become politically relevant again. First they would have to convince some very fucked over people in this country who gave up long ago on politicians that they are sincere.

To even begin doing that they will need to be in neighborhoods like this one year round, year after year, and be there even when there is NOT an election coming up. Fuck the last-minute "canvassing" and the highly paid liberal influencers' advice. Personally go help somebody Like Pauline or one of her grandkids. Then the people will understand. That is reality-based politics. The kind that puts real people together face to face with feet planted in the same dirt.

The Republicans don't do that. They don't need to because they have assets that are very attractive to working people. Apparent passion, and a rootedness in the world of family, church and business. Call it a crock if you want, but conservatives, especially at the local level, can still talk to ordinary Americans. Some of them are lying like hell, even to themselves. Many of them are hateful too. But at least they can get the ear of, and still understand, ordinary people (and their leadership sure as hell exploits it.) But let's at least acknowledge that they have it. Let's even put aside the fact that Karl Rove is one evil fucking toad. He UNDERSTANDS PEOPLE, albeit at the most reptilian level. Most technocratic, rational, urbanized/suburbanized liberal leadership, not to mention half of their constituency don't and never will. The Democratic Party and its movers and shakers at the local level have self-selected themselves out of existence as viable option.

Liberals, ever rational, attribute too much of Republican success to effective strategies. Sure, there are some involved. But they have also been successful because so many working people like Republicans as people better than they like Democrats. American elections being mere televised popularity contests, that's one hell of an advantage.

And what about that strategic masterpiece which brought so many Christian fundamentalists to the polls? Was that a masterpiece of networking and strategy? Hell no. Not that the Republicans aren't good strategists, but the fundies had church membership lists and the people like Karl Rove had sense enough to ask for them. And the local level Republicans were well liked enough that church leadership did not mind providing them, if for no other reason than, by damned, someone showed interest in them as a group. The churches, which liberals shave always snickered at and now, since the elections, downright despise, are, regardless of the tragic magical thinking of religious fundamentalism, an organic, human community which responds to signs of respect for their group. But, once again it seems, the Democrats, already running second in a two-horse race, have decided to mount their own saddle backwards and hope the stench of Iraq and Katrina will bring down the GOP. Only Barack Obama gets it about churches, and tried to spell it out to Democrats recently. As near as I can tell, he got rotten-egged off the stage. Haven't heard much about it since. There seems to be no language left in the liberal political lexicon with which to address Christian faith. Just as there is no language in the conservative lexicon to address Islam.

That does not change the fact that about a third of Americans are moreover fundamentalist Christian people with very real problems no one is addressing. For them, the church is the only functioning institution left that reaches out to help, offering working families support of a kind no political party offers these days. Offer these people something they can see and feel happen to them, and you'd be pleasantly shocked at how many would have a change of heart. A sense of community and real support in the practical world brings far more folks to the church pews than the apocalyptic ranting of their preacher. And this can be done face to face. Go save a fundie. Or a Wilf or a Pauline or some of their families. Beer joints and fundamentalist churches, along with places such as temp labor offices, are among the roughest seams of American society, places were we can see not only how our society is rent, but also what it takes to be fixed.

Here's a proposition that will get me egged, so I can go sit, in spirit at least with Obama (though I'm not entirely convinced he can remain the alternative he appears to be, after running the Democratic Party leadership gantlet.) The proposition is this:

Band together and raise a million dollars or two and put some deserving fundie kids thorough college. I know there are professional fundraisers among readers, a couple of them big-timers in the national non-profit and university rackets, because I've received emails from them over then years. As to which kids to help, you'll know the right ones when you see them. And believe me, their working class parents will not say no. Watch what happens. For an example, go to my website and read the letter from M.

I used to be one of those kids, and I know for sure the effect it would have on most families, and its ripple effect on entire communities. We are talking hearts and minds here. People who grew up taking higher education for granted — that 20% of Americans who graduate from a college or university — underestimate the impact of the experience on people from families who've never even hoped to attend. (The truly educated also ignore the tools higher education gave them to rationalize their own participation in the Empire's crimes, but that is another matter.)

Now I'm sure middle class liberals and their strategists have plenty of rational arguments why that cannot be done. Such as "Not an efficient use of funds regarding outcome" What could be a better outcome than to free hundreds of young people from ignorance? Far better, they say, is to donate to larger, more effective organizations and liberal feel-good non-profits. Screw the feel-good stuff (such as the Heifer organization to which I contribute, but with increasing hesitation as I watch their magazine grow slicker and filled with more celebrities). Send a white trash kid to college, or at least community college. And when they get there, maybe sponsor a brave Oaxacan school teacher to come up here and teach 'em to organize toward the best interests of their class. We have forgotten how to do it on this side of the maquiladora belt.

Or how about this? Take out a second mortgage on your own house to lift a kid out of ignorance. Or of you are too far in hock to the credit card companies to unass any green at all, then use a few vacation days and sick leave to help someone directly. Laugh. Now laugh some more. All we have at stake here is an emerging fascist state. It's time to bleed. On the other hand, we could cook up some risotto while listening to NPR. But then there would be that terribly difficult decision, regarding the organic vegetable course. Life is a bitch for those upscale Americans who can possibly affect the national leadership.

Kindness and generosity do more than help people materially; they also stand in refutation of what beaten-down people expect to receive from their fellow man. It is experience, not talk or strategy that changes hearts and minds. We are not unchangeably hard-wired for greed and self-centeredness. Look around us at the cultures that are so much less self-centered, starting with all those Buddhist communities across the world and indigenous peoples. The American "take care of yourself first" attitude is simply a programmed message to convince us that we are alone, unconnected, and that it is every man for himself. There is no such thing as every man for himself. Everything we possess, right down to our names and very breath has been given to us by others or with the assistance of others. Every penny we earn and every ease we enjoy has been with the unacknowledged assistance of others, a Pauline who once stood on a cannery line packing your applesauce, or a Wilf who hung the drywall in your new home, or someone like them.

Does American liberalism/progressivism have a moral core? A heart? A kingdom within? Time will tell. But the time is past for sympathy toward those who sleep with the Democratic party in that two-bed brothel called American party politics, then claim there were no other options but the party of least betrayal. Personally, I feel betrayed by the only party we ever had that reached out (even when it had to be dragged kicking and screaming by blacks and unions) to the kind of folks in the Shenandoah, the kind who raised me the best way they knew how — those poor beaten down, ill-educated, preyed upon Americans who find little community but that of churches and beer joints, and have resigned themselves to little or no justice on this earth, save that promised by God............

Do you think that Joe Bageant has a handle, via the excerpt above, on some of what you were trying to convey, and maybe even a stab at a feeblee, or a first step, "solution"....for a change in direction in this effed up country of darwinian, crony capitalism, masquerading as a constituional republic?

ubertuber · 09-04-2006, 09:44 AM

Roachboy,

There's a "looney left" all right, but it's not what anyone here talks about. I see them on the streets in Manhattan all the time, accosting people and displaying bizarre caricatures and even stranger slogans.

In terms of your characterization of the American political spectrum, you're probably correct. But I don't know how much it matters - citizens of this country only vote in elections in this country, so how far left people are in South America or Eastern Europe or whatever doesn't have too much of an effect on our discourse. Maybe someday the political scene will globalize and we'll see workable branches of international parties in individual nations, but we're not really there yet. So while the range in American politics may be relatively narrow, it's altogether relevant that people here feel that there is a deep chasm between ideologies.

Along those same lines, I don't know that I even think the Bush administration is some sort of radical extreme right wing expression of politics. Sure they wear that mask, but they're either not very good at being an evil extremist administration or they're not trying very hard. Many of this administration's most extreme positions are just that - positions. We've yet to see social security reform, the Supreme Court seems to be challenging some of the new executive-cenetered policies, and I truly don't think we'll see a gay marriage amendment any time soon. Where the Bush administration has had success is in strange things that aren't necessarily right-wing (unless you start using GWB as the measuring stick of all things right in this country). Our foreign policies aren't even really neo-conservative (according to Francis Fukuyama in America at the Crossroads, they're just particular and peculiar. Bush's White House is a moderate distance away from electable democrats. But I can imagine a much more right-wing administration, and some republicans are even starting to distance themselves from Bush/Rove. I get the international perspective thing, but I don't always think it is very useful in evaluating/predicting domestic politics.

And ustwo, I'm not sure what you're getting at, unless you are thinking of completely different threads.

Nice to hear from you Jorgelito.

jorgelito · 09-04-2006, 09:47 AM

Hi doc,

I see what you are saying, I too am a bit dismayed at the one-on-one style of one-offs engaged that devolve into "everyone's talking, no one is listening" type rants (at least that's how I see it).

But, I don't see why we can't try and have a cup of coffee and have a good ol' conversation. Or, would you prefer a few pints? I am listening and ready to 'talk'. I think others are too. We probably have to be more thick skinned and patient - also, not let certain externalities affect or bother too much the conversation at hand eh? And it wouldn't hurt to inject the occassional humor in it. We already have a 'powerclown' (get it, get it, clown! Hahaha!) and host has shown his funny side. Even Roachboy has made an attempt in another thread to open up and share his humor side with us.

Doc, I am gonna have to say, substance does matter, it just sometimes gets lost or overlooked underneath the temporary gloss of "media", propaganda, etc. It's up to us to either dig it out, or insist on making it relevant.

Host, I will open up another thread to address your questions.

Well, I just put on a pot of coffee. Someone bring the donuts.

roachboy · 09-04-2006, 10:11 AM

jorgelito:

it seems to me that there are no automatic political movements, no underlying dynamic that would bring a left movement into existence in response to the drift into radical nationalism of the populist right. if there was such a dynamic (where would it unfold? what would drive it? god? History or geist in hegel's sense?) you would no doubt already be seeing the results.

on the other hand, i could see sustained public pressure from a range of groups who oppose--say--the war in iraq as having the potential to shift the terms of debate away from their current idiotic state--but where is that sustained pressure? during the vietnam period, it appears that the great mobilizer was the introduction of the draft more than it was principled opposition to the war---the direct repression carried out by state authorities functioned to widen and radicalize the movement. so far, the draft has been avoided (a function of fear of consequences no doubt) and the militarization of the police has been carried out smoothly--perhaps with the way paved by the deluge of sycophantic television programs like "cops" or "america's most wanted"--who knows.

sometimes i wonder if there is another explanation: the vietnam period unfolded within a context of overall economic expansion (tipping into stagnation near the end) in a period before you had the fundamental problems of the status of nation-states that subsequent phases of capitalist development have posed---in a political environment shaped by the "new left" reappropriation of traditional marxian discourse----so opposition could take place against a relatively stable framework and within a relatively stable tradition. all this is gone now. i sometimes wonder if people have retreated to the private sphere because they are fundamentally afraid of what is happening around them--and their education and the ideological system that take that education as its basis, provides them with neither a coherent view of what is unfolding at the structural level nor a discourse that would enable them to make sense of it. as for the first factor, this seems to me one of the few areas where the concentration of ownership of mass media outlets is a direct factor: why would major corporations have any interest in enabling a critical view of the system that they rely upon to extract profits to originate with media they control?

as for the second: reflexivity is easy if the frames of reference that shape it are given in advance. it is a much more complex and difficult process when you have to fashion the frame and perform the action. in the former case, reflexivity opens onto critique within the purview of conventional politics. in the latter, it is a philosophical problem.

i have been teaching at the university level for about 10 years: one overwelming and sad fact that i have run into is that students coming out of high school are not equipped--at all--to deal with philosophy. and this from a context of very good schools, which draw what you would think are elite students. they do not have the training, they do not have the background, they are not exposed to it. it is not that students are stupid--quite the contrary--but they are not being introduced to independent thinking at the high school level. they simply are not. what they are trained in is the copying of Authorities. philosophy is in general understood as a type of textual commentary--the authorities do the work, the commentaries tweak implications.

this seems to me a choice made at the level of cirriculum design. in this pathetic neoliberal world, thinking for yourself is not functional. so there is no reason to give students the tools to do it. better to copy. better to repeat.

so it seems to me that in a context shaped by vertigo, they are totally powerless. this can change over the course of a university education--but university functions as the only space within which that is going to happen (in the main--there are exceptions) and even there, one is under no particular compulsion to get this kind of training.

if this is accurate in a more general sense (that is, if the information i presented based on my experience is more than anecdotal), the general problem would explain something of the rise of the contemporary populist right: it provides the illusion of stability by trafficking in self-evidently problematic categories (nationalism, chauvinism, etc.) and uses these categories as devices to present a radically simplified world to its demographic. part of the emotional attachment to the ideology of the extreme right comes i think from this basically therapeutic function: simplification of a complex world anchored in the repetition of familiar categories. that this is worthless if the idea is to take account of complexity is apparently secondary--simplification and repetition and reassurance are apparently primary.

i think this gets to the article that you posted as well, host.

jorgelito · 09-04-2006, 10:35 AM

Maybe the old adage, "It has to get worse before it gets better" applies a bit. Revolutions don't occur in a vaccuum right? Social, political, violent - all require some catalyst, fuel, and leadership for movement. The eras of Vietnam and WWI/WWII were ones of great upheaval and turmoil(?). THere were lots of movements. But here, at least in the US, we haven't budged from our couches or computers...yet.

Do you remember when people thought that $3.00 gas would be the great "last straw" for the American people? Well, it came and went. Nothing. BUt perhaps there is something, something more latent, stewing beneath the surface. Maybe something else will trigger it. EX: Prolonged war in Iraq, a recession, idunno. Calm seas above, boiling waters beneath.

Perhaps we have "media fatigue" which contributes to our collective ADD or desensitization. Think Rwanda, Darfur....

Or maybe even complacency - There's nuthin' I can do about it so why bother.

And then there is the "my vote doesn't matter anyways" or the "I don't like either guy" (which may be more problematic).

Moderates, I think, by definition do not stand out, do not rock the boat, and do not attract attention. But I believe there are times and circumstances when the moderates may be pushed to action.

I don;t know man, but I think the upcoming elections should be interesting. I only wish more independent candidates were running. My district, once again, has poor choices.

I agree that students are ill-quipped today in the matter of basics even, let alone philsophical discourse. The curriculum needs stimulus. However, I am not sure I would pin it on neoliberalism.

Your protrayal of the right can also cover others as well. I think it's the way that they can attain, and maintain power. The type of oversimplification combined with media scare tactics has become commonplace.

RB, your post was very thoughtful and thought provoking, I need more time to think about it. Maybe a day or two, so I can respond better. It is also possible I may not as well.

Elphaba · 09-04-2006, 03:07 PM

There is a small movement among Democrats to retake the party from the DNC and return to it's original principles. The problem reduces itself to the sources of campaign financing. With union membership declining and with it the political clout that benefited the democratic party, the DNC moved the party further to the right and is now beholden to large corporations just as the Republicans are. I believe we are now in a purer form of Capitalism than at anytime in the past and I view that as a great blow to our Republic. I view one of the roles of government to check the excesses of corporations, and I have seen instead the steady erosion of the checks we once had.

But I honestly do not see the sufficient will within the democratic party to get off the corporate teat. Both parties consist of professional politicians whose one priority is to get reelected. I believe that true campaign finance reform is the answer, but the fox is in charge of that chicken coop.

roachboy · 09-04-2006, 04:57 PM

uber: i missed your post somehow...i am not sure that the antiwar left is particularly "loony" (unless you support the iraq adventure and think all opposition the same) nor do i think it singular.
that last seems to me a real problem: the antiwar movement is a loose collection of tons of small groups that appeals to a still-wider constituency which is not organized and not represented in any detail.

personally, i have been in a number of demos against the iraq war and understand then to be in general pretty blunt instruments during which all kinds of ancillary issues are brought up (by speakers, by groups) because i think the vast majority of those who do participate in such actions do not feel themselves represented AT ALL by the current political spectrum.

as for the international perspective on the american system: in a way i agree with you, in a way i dont. maybe i'll say more on this once i am not in the middle of cooking....

Elphaba · 09-04-2006, 07:35 PM

roachboy, I think one of the "clever" things that the Bush admin has done is to not require any sort of direct sacrifice from the public. A tax increase to pay for Desert Storm cost his father a second term. I have far more respect for the reality based #41, than what #43 is doing to the economy.

pan6467 · 09-05-2006, 10:52 PM

welcome back Jorgelito and thank you for the kind words.

ubertuber · 09-06-2006, 02:40 PM

Roachboy - I certainly agree that there is nothing loony per se about any anti-war movement. And you make a good point, that political expression of the masses (demonstrations, petitions, etc.) are pretty blunt in that the give the impression that all those involved have the same piont of view - not much nuance there.

Elphaba, your point about campaign finance reminds me of a couple of years ago. I was fortunate enough to get hired to play some fundraising gigs (high-powered dinners with multi-thousand dollar plates) for a couple of Democratic presidential hopefuls. The same year, a friend of mine working for Disney's government lobbying arm got me into a bunch of events associated with the Republican convention here in NYC. I was shocked at how many companies and organizations were actually supporting BOTH parties! Apparently they see it as hedging their bets. The only bad outcame is an electable candidate that doesn't owe them something. It is nearly inconceivable that this phenomenon doesn't contribute to the percieved similarities between the Dems and Reps. It's also thoroughly predictable behavior on the part of entities that are sturctured purely around ensuring maximum profit.

politicophile · 09-07-2006, 04:30 PM

Welcome, jorgelito. Your portrait of me is... rosy, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

Ah, frames of reference... Leftists are liable see the entire political spectrum as right of center, right-wingers as left of center. Might the truth lie somewhere in between?

Paradise Lost · 09-09-2006, 09:28 PM

My friend and I are under the same impression that the nonsensical labelling of a person's political views is a bad (or at least an unproductive) thing and should either be viewed differently or removed from discussion totally, it serves no real purpose. No more of this left or right nonsense, conservative/liberal. And I find it hard for anyone to actually BE a Republican or Democrat, namely because how does one define them? Parties don't seem to run under one complete and total, one size fits all platform. If this was the case then any partisan vote in Congress would be an exercise in futility, since the dominate party would win. It's also silly because no one has ever really given us a less-than-totally-vague/ambiguous definition as what it means to be a conservative or liberal. Conservative or liberal to what? Where's the standard, and those who deviate one way or another are labelled appropriately? I can come up with the stand point that it's wrong to eat babies, and so a liberal would want to advance it so you can eat babies, while a conservative would always want to keep it so that you can't eat babies, or perhaps make it even harder to eat babies. It doesn't make any sense to come up with these types of labels since they automatically stick a person in a category they may not want to be in (the eating babies category), even though setting up a policy making it ok to eat babies would seem to fit their particular viewscape.

I will thoroughly agree though that a place like the TFP, a place renowned (at least amongst its own members) as being a place of total thought, should always be moderated by its fellow denizens so that both sides can have their bad agruments exposed even if those doing the moderating do agree with the general concept.

I'm not sure if that first paragraph made any sense, but hopefully it starts to bring me back into this community (even though I'm sure no one knows I was around for my first 500 posts anyway

) since it's a place I know that has generally level-headed and intelligent members.

Elphaba · 09-12-2006, 12:12 PM

I remember, and welcome back!

09-03-2006, 10:51 AM	#1 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	A New Era in TFP Politics Well, I've just slogged through the "What Happened to TFP" thread and want to do my part. As a moderate, I've been around for awhile but I have noticed that the politics forum has polarized acutely (at least to me). I realize that I must contribute or else be reduced to a moderate by the wayside (no, not that Wayside). So, I want to do my best to help reinvigorate the politics (and TFP in general) forum. I have been gone alot in 2006 - I was in Washington DC at an internship in a think tank (lots to tell there) and this summer I traveled throughout Europe and the Middle East. I was in Egypt and Israel for the war and got alot of 1st hand viewpoints. I have a video of myself in an air raid by Lebanon. I'm going to be more active now as well as listen. I will use my opinions, backed by facts, sometimes links, other times just my own editorial. A good balance I think. I like hosts posts (hey that rhymes) and I like UsTwo's posts (here and there). I love Pans passion, Charlatan and Ubertuber's reason. I miss Tecoyah's thoughtfulness (someone get him back here) I appreciate everyone's views but we can spreadout more and explore. I know Elph, Will, Politico and the other moderates are around and putting in big effort. You guys are so critical to keeping this joint together (in my opinion) - I love your sincerity and honesty. Seaver, Stevo, I often nod my head along with your posts, and whatever happend to MojoPeiPei? Rb and Smooth, I love the challenges and level of discussion you guys bring and no one can beat host for research. Thanks for listening.

09-03-2006, 10:26 PM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	see this left category doesnt really signify anything. i come out of marxism but am not a marxist--there are lots of reasons for this, some to do with the datedness of marx's work, some to do with the history associated with that work. i do not particularly identify with any organization: i see myself as being to some extent caught in the vacuum created by the implosion of the old-school left (which still twitches, but which in the main was finished by the mid 1980s in most places) and trying to figure out how to talk about that vacuum and being caught in it while still remaining engaged in the world, in critique of that world. old school conservative ideology is imploding all over the world--what you have trying to move in to protect radical nationalism is variants of the french front nationale--and the bush administration, along with the whole of the populist right in the states, is among these. the bush administration is VERY far to the right--the democrats are at best centrist--they would be moderates if the americans had anything like a wide political spectrum. but it doesnt. it has THIS spectrum, which is very very narrow and very very conservative. the idea that the american democratic party is a leftist organization strikes me as hilarious. it is so deeply, thoroughly wrong that it is difficult to know where to even start taking it apart. there is a "progressive" element within the democratic party. but they are not the main power either within the party apparatus nor insofar as the party's lines are concerned. personally, i think the democrats take these folk for granted. i think that is a mistake, but whatever. these "progressives" are---AT THEIR MOST RADICAL---weak social democrats. social democrats are perfectly happy within the existing order, but they have views concerning issues like the distribution of wealth and power that are quite different from those you see floating about in neoliberaland, but they are not wholly exclusive of them either, nor are they interested in blowing up the capitalist order itself--they in the main see addressing questions of social justice as better for business. so i really have no idea what you are talking about--if you are talking about anything at all--when you repeat the view of the american political spectrum particular to rush limbaugh and speak in terms of an actual left. it is crazy... there is no left in the united states...not at the mass political level. the "looney left" is entirely in your imagination. from idiots like limbaugh, it is nothing more and nothing less than updated redbait-speak, the primary function of which is to conceal the extent to which the republicans had been dominated by an extreme, fringe type of radical conservatism. (i use the past tense in a moment of optimism for all of us) the situation is quite different at the grassroots level, particularly in the cities, but you would never know that by looking at the main parties. so i see nothing at all in the notion of the "left" as you describe it, and so the notion of "moderate" seems meaningless to me. it is not surprising that the closest thing you get to a definition is social liberal fiscal conservative--which is hardly wrong as a position--but it shows how close the parties really are. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-03-2006, 10:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	roachboy your hate and venom fill me with warmth lately. Welcome back jorgelito, I'm sure you can add some new perspectives. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-04-2006, 06:46 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	in terms of the problems of debate here, the last two posts are a good example of the way in which things tank. i meant nothing sarcastic in the post above: i wanted to pose a real question. so i talked a bit about how the american political spectrum looks from my perspective. i understand that this perspective is not shared here, but i wanted to outline it a bit anyway, to change the framework a little to open things up more. i did this in order to encoruage the direction the thread was heading in, to contribute to a discussion about a category that i genuinely do not understand. and you see what followed. i'll address ustwo and powerclown in contexts where substantive issues are involved. to do so here would be little more than legitmating an attempt to reduce political differences to personality conflict. this as a way of evacuating the content from these political differences. nice try, lads. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-04-2006, 09:16 AM	#11 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	A new era? Hardly. I don't see that happening until we see some sort of signifigant change in real-world politics. This type of change would, you'd think, require everyone to stop "taking sides" for just a moment and actually involve themselves in some real talk. Throw "talking points" and sloganesque dialogue out the window and actually TALK about a few things. But the back & forth you see above is usually what we get here. As in the real world, substance just doesn't matter anymore. It does not get addressed; it gets avoided and made fun of. It is much more satisfying to simly be on a team, and to do and say whatever they do and say. It gets worse every day. It has long since passed the point of no return. A new ara of political thinking (on a mass scale) is going to need a new era of people to make it happen. Because the current bunch seem content on floating dead in the water, while watching all the ships sail by. __________________ Bad Luck City

09-03-2006, 08:41 PM	#3 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Thanks Elph, I also hope that others will emerge and contribute too.

09-04-2006, 09:05 AM	#10 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Thanks guys, I look forward to lively discussions (oh and congratulations on your magazine write-up UsTwo). RB, I think I can see where you're getting at. So basically you feel there has been a major shift to the right where 'moderate' is actually right due to the paucity of a real left. I would actually agree with you that the spectrum has shrunk though it may not have been significantly broad in the first place. My American Government prof used to do a cool illustration of this. Essentially, we have been reduced to the Dems and Rep. In theory, we have a range of interests and representation and affiliation, but in reality, in practice, it's a two-party system where they beging to 'lookalike'. The outliers, like the American Cumminists (if they are even still around), or extreme right-wing groups (can't think of the name off the top of my head) don't have a real effect in American politics at the moment and there isn;t any "left" movement that I can think of. I would consider the Greens and Libertarians to be moderate (that's my opinion). The LaRouchians don't factor in much. I do think that there are swings and shifts in the normal ebb and flow of politics. Perhaps the current state of right will force a left to emerge to counter balance it? I don't know, maybe there is a historical example or precedent for this? Oh, maybe the period of WWI & WWII where much of Europe shifted left. I still believe in a silent majority of moderates. Maybe they will awaken soon.

09-04-2006, 09:44 AM	#13 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Roachboy, There's a "looney left" all right, but it's not what anyone here talks about. I see them on the streets in Manhattan all the time, accosting people and displaying bizarre caricatures and even stranger slogans. In terms of your characterization of the American political spectrum, you're probably correct. But I don't know how much it matters - citizens of this country only vote in elections in this country, so how far left people are in South America or Eastern Europe or whatever doesn't have too much of an effect on our discourse. Maybe someday the political scene will globalize and we'll see workable branches of international parties in individual nations, but we're not really there yet. So while the range in American politics may be relatively narrow, it's altogether relevant that people here feel that there is a deep chasm between ideologies. Along those same lines, I don't know that I even think the Bush administration is some sort of radical extreme right wing expression of politics. Sure they wear that mask, but they're either not very good at being an evil extremist administration or they're not trying very hard. Many of this administration's most extreme positions are just that - positions. We've yet to see social security reform, the Supreme Court seems to be challenging some of the new executive-cenetered policies, and I truly don't think we'll see a gay marriage amendment any time soon. Where the Bush administration has had success is in strange things that aren't necessarily right-wing (unless you start using GWB as the measuring stick of all things right in this country). Our foreign policies aren't even really neo-conservative (according to Francis Fukuyama in America at the Crossroads, they're just particular and peculiar. Bush's White House is a moderate distance away from electable democrats. But I can imagine a much more right-wing administration, and some republicans are even starting to distance themselves from Bush/Rove. I get the international perspective thing, but I don't always think it is very useful in evaluating/predicting domestic politics. And ustwo, I'm not sure what you're getting at, unless you are thinking of completely different threads. Nice to hear from you Jorgelito. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam Last edited by ubertuber; 09-04-2006 at 09:48 AM..

09-04-2006, 09:47 AM	#14 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Hi doc, I see what you are saying, I too am a bit dismayed at the one-on-one style of one-offs engaged that devolve into "everyone's talking, no one is listening" type rants (at least that's how I see it). But, I don't see why we can't try and have a cup of coffee and have a good ol' conversation. Or, would you prefer a few pints? I am listening and ready to 'talk'. I think others are too. We probably have to be more thick skinned and patient - also, not let certain externalities affect or bother too much the conversation at hand eh? And it wouldn't hurt to inject the occassional humor in it. We already have a 'powerclown' (get it, get it, clown! Hahaha!) and host has shown his funny side. Even Roachboy has made an attempt in another thread to open up and share his humor side with us. Doc, I am gonna have to say, substance does matter, it just sometimes gets lost or overlooked underneath the temporary gloss of "media", propaganda, etc. It's up to us to either dig it out, or insist on making it relevant. Host, I will open up another thread to address your questions. Well, I just put on a pot of coffee. Someone bring the donuts.

09-04-2006, 10:11 AM	#15 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	jorgelito: it seems to me that there are no automatic political movements, no underlying dynamic that would bring a left movement into existence in response to the drift into radical nationalism of the populist right. if there was such a dynamic (where would it unfold? what would drive it? god? History or geist in hegel's sense?) you would no doubt already be seeing the results. on the other hand, i could see sustained public pressure from a range of groups who oppose--say--the war in iraq as having the potential to shift the terms of debate away from their current idiotic state--but where is that sustained pressure? during the vietnam period, it appears that the great mobilizer was the introduction of the draft more than it was principled opposition to the war---the direct repression carried out by state authorities functioned to widen and radicalize the movement. so far, the draft has been avoided (a function of fear of consequences no doubt) and the militarization of the police has been carried out smoothly--perhaps with the way paved by the deluge of sycophantic television programs like "cops" or "america's most wanted"--who knows. sometimes i wonder if there is another explanation: the vietnam period unfolded within a context of overall economic expansion (tipping into stagnation near the end) in a period before you had the fundamental problems of the status of nation-states that subsequent phases of capitalist development have posed---in a political environment shaped by the "new left" reappropriation of traditional marxian discourse----so opposition could take place against a relatively stable framework and within a relatively stable tradition. all this is gone now. i sometimes wonder if people have retreated to the private sphere because they are fundamentally afraid of what is happening around them--and their education and the ideological system that take that education as its basis, provides them with neither a coherent view of what is unfolding at the structural level nor a discourse that would enable them to make sense of it. as for the first factor, this seems to me one of the few areas where the concentration of ownership of mass media outlets is a direct factor: why would major corporations have any interest in enabling a critical view of the system that they rely upon to extract profits to originate with media they control? as for the second: reflexivity is easy if the frames of reference that shape it are given in advance. it is a much more complex and difficult process when you have to fashion the frame and perform the action. in the former case, reflexivity opens onto critique within the purview of conventional politics. in the latter, it is a philosophical problem. i have been teaching at the university level for about 10 years: one overwelming and sad fact that i have run into is that students coming out of high school are not equipped--at all--to deal with philosophy. and this from a context of very good schools, which draw what you would think are elite students. they do not have the training, they do not have the background, they are not exposed to it. it is not that students are stupid--quite the contrary--but they are not being introduced to independent thinking at the high school level. they simply are not. what they are trained in is the copying of Authorities. philosophy is in general understood as a type of textual commentary--the authorities do the work, the commentaries tweak implications. this seems to me a choice made at the level of cirriculum design. in this pathetic neoliberal world, thinking for yourself is not functional. so there is no reason to give students the tools to do it. better to copy. better to repeat. so it seems to me that in a context shaped by vertigo, they are totally powerless. this can change over the course of a university education--but university functions as the only space within which that is going to happen (in the main--there are exceptions) and even there, one is under no particular compulsion to get this kind of training. if this is accurate in a more general sense (that is, if the information i presented based on my experience is more than anecdotal), the general problem would explain something of the rise of the contemporary populist right: it provides the illusion of stability by trafficking in self-evidently problematic categories (nationalism, chauvinism, etc.) and uses these categories as devices to present a radically simplified world to its demographic. part of the emotional attachment to the ideology of the extreme right comes i think from this basically therapeutic function: simplification of a complex world anchored in the repetition of familiar categories. that this is worthless if the idea is to take account of complexity is apparently secondary--simplification and repetition and reassurance are apparently primary. i think this gets to the article that you posted as well, host. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-04-2006, 10:35 AM	#16 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Maybe the old adage, "It has to get worse before it gets better" applies a bit. Revolutions don't occur in a vaccuum right? Social, political, violent - all require some catalyst, fuel, and leadership for movement. The eras of Vietnam and WWI/WWII were ones of great upheaval and turmoil(?). THere were lots of movements. But here, at least in the US, we haven't budged from our couches or computers...yet. Do you remember when people thought that $3.00 gas would be the great "last straw" for the American people? Well, it came and went. Nothing. BUt perhaps there is something, something more latent, stewing beneath the surface. Maybe something else will trigger it. EX: Prolonged war in Iraq, a recession, idunno. Calm seas above, boiling waters beneath. Perhaps we have "media fatigue" which contributes to our collective ADD or desensitization. Think Rwanda, Darfur.... Or maybe even complacency - There's nuthin' I can do about it so why bother. And then there is the "my vote doesn't matter anyways" or the "I don't like either guy" (which may be more problematic). Moderates, I think, by definition do not stand out, do not rock the boat, and do not attract attention. But I believe there are times and circumstances when the moderates may be pushed to action. I don;t know man, but I think the upcoming elections should be interesting. I only wish more independent candidates were running. My district, once again, has poor choices. I agree that students are ill-quipped today in the matter of basics even, let alone philsophical discourse. The curriculum needs stimulus. However, I am not sure I would pin it on neoliberalism. Your protrayal of the right can also cover others as well. I think it's the way that they can attain, and maintain power. The type of oversimplification combined with media scare tactics has become commonplace. RB, your post was very thoughtful and thought provoking, I need more time to think about it. Maybe a day or two, so I can respond better. It is also possible I may not as well.

09-04-2006, 03:07 PM	#17 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	There is a small movement among Democrats to retake the party from the DNC and return to it's original principles. The problem reduces itself to the sources of campaign financing. With union membership declining and with it the political clout that benefited the democratic party, the DNC moved the party further to the right and is now beholden to large corporations just as the Republicans are. I believe we are now in a purer form of Capitalism than at anytime in the past and I view that as a great blow to our Republic. I view one of the roles of government to check the excesses of corporations, and I have seen instead the steady erosion of the checks we once had. But I honestly do not see the sufficient will within the democratic party to get off the corporate teat. Both parties consist of professional politicians whose one priority is to get reelected. I believe that true campaign finance reform is the answer, but the fox is in charge of that chicken coop.

09-04-2006, 04:57 PM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	uber: i missed your post somehow...i am not sure that the antiwar left is particularly "loony" (unless you support the iraq adventure and think all opposition the same) nor do i think it singular. that last seems to me a real problem: the antiwar movement is a loose collection of tons of small groups that appeals to a still-wider constituency which is not organized and not represented in any detail. personally, i have been in a number of demos against the iraq war and understand then to be in general pretty blunt instruments during which all kinds of ancillary issues are brought up (by speakers, by groups) because i think the vast majority of those who do participate in such actions do not feel themselves represented AT ALL by the current political spectrum. as for the international perspective on the american system: in a way i agree with you, in a way i dont. maybe i'll say more on this once i am not in the middle of cooking.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-04-2006, 07:35 PM	#19 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	roachboy, I think one of the "clever" things that the Bush admin has done is to not require any sort of direct sacrifice from the public. A tax increase to pay for Desert Storm cost his father a second term. I have far more respect for the reality based #41, than what #43 is doing to the economy.

09-05-2006, 10:52 PM	#20 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	welcome back Jorgelito and thank you for the kind words. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

09-06-2006, 02:40 PM	#21 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Roachboy - I certainly agree that there is nothing loony per se about any anti-war movement. And you make a good point, that political expression of the masses (demonstrations, petitions, etc.) are pretty blunt in that the give the impression that all those involved have the same piont of view - not much nuance there. Elphaba, your point about campaign finance reminds me of a couple of years ago. I was fortunate enough to get hired to play some fundraising gigs (high-powered dinners with multi-thousand dollar plates) for a couple of Democratic presidential hopefuls. The same year, a friend of mine working for Disney's government lobbying arm got me into a bunch of events associated with the Republican convention here in NYC. I was shocked at how many companies and organizations were actually supporting BOTH parties! Apparently they see it as hedging their bets. The only bad outcame is an electable candidate that doesn't owe them something. It is nearly inconceivable that this phenomenon doesn't contribute to the percieved similarities between the Dems and Reps. It's also thoroughly predictable behavior on the part of entities that are sturctured purely around ensuring maximum profit. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

09-07-2006, 04:30 PM	#22 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	Welcome, jorgelito. Your portrait of me is... rosy, but I appreciate it nonetheless. Ah, frames of reference... Leftists are liable see the entire political spectrum as right of center, right-wingers as left of center. Might the truth lie somewhere in between? __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

09-09-2006, 09:28 PM	#23 (permalink)
Paradise Lost "Afternoon everybody." "NORM!" Location: Poland, Ohio // Clarion University of PA.	My friend and I are under the same impression that the nonsensical labelling of a person's political views is a bad (or at least an unproductive) thing and should either be viewed differently or removed from discussion totally, it serves no real purpose. No more of this left or right nonsense, conservative/liberal. And I find it hard for anyone to actually BE a Republican or Democrat, namely because how does one define them? Parties don't seem to run under one complete and total, one size fits all platform. If this was the case then any partisan vote in Congress would be an exercise in futility, since the dominate party would win. It's also silly because no one has ever really given us a less-than-totally-vague/ambiguous definition as what it means to be a conservative or liberal. Conservative or liberal to what? Where's the standard, and those who deviate one way or another are labelled appropriately? I can come up with the stand point that it's wrong to eat babies, and so a liberal would want to advance it so you can eat babies, while a conservative would always want to keep it so that you can't eat babies, or perhaps make it even harder to eat babies. It doesn't make any sense to come up with these types of labels since they automatically stick a person in a category they may not want to be in (the eating babies category), even though setting up a policy making it ok to eat babies would seem to fit their particular viewscape. I will thoroughly agree though that a place like the TFP, a place renowned (at least amongst its own members) as being a place of total thought, should always be moderated by its fellow denizens so that both sides can have their bad agruments exposed even if those doing the moderating do agree with the general concept. I'm not sure if that first paragraph made any sense, but hopefully it starts to bring me back into this community (even though I'm sure no one knows I was around for my first 500 posts anyway ) since it's a place I know that has generally level-headed and intelligent members. __________________ "Marino could do it."

09-12-2006, 12:12 PM	#24 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I remember, and welcome back!