ideologies. welcome. i open the floor to those who will pioneer the one thread to rule them all...the one thread to find them...the one thread to bring them all...and in the darkness bind them.
2. robertjayb - 6/25/2002 9:41:11 PM
I go Pogo!
3. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/25/2002 9:59:55 PM
4. RickNelson - 6/25/2002 11:27:57 PM
Does the "golden rule" give more people reason to walk all over you, or does it actually keep those important to you, feeling just that, important (to you).
5. RickNelson - 6/25/2002 11:29:14 PM
Those bobbles are pretty funny. It's just those heads need some alteration. Like different ones. Or maybe something stupid happening to them. Maybe something sadistic, eh?
6. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2002 10:15:29 AM
Looks like this thread is dying before it started. Let me throw something to the sharks:
Leaving extremist views aside where is the ideological fault line in today's politics?
7. ivan osokin - 6/26/2002 10:48:23 AM
PelleNilsson:
i think the fault line is the submerging of Class as the major factor in the socio-political climate. it seems like only marxists use "class" in political analysis these days.
8. ivan osokin - 6/26/2002 10:49:00 AM
and Pelle...in regards to your post in RP regarding Europe: i can only hope you are right.
9. CalGal - 6/26/2002 11:10:20 AM
Pelle,
What do you mean by ideological fault line? The issue on which "left" and "right" break?
10. Indiana Jones - 6/26/2002 11:13:36 AM
In domestic American politics, IMO the fault line is tax policy.
11. CalGal - 6/26/2002 11:18:18 AM
No, tax policy is just the symptom. The fault line is the purpose of government.
12. glendajean - 6/26/2002 11:25:05 AM
My feeling is that ideology means less and less to people at large, and that changes in society and the economy make the old labels less and less applicable. Two examples tht come to mind are welfare and budget deficits.
Ideological warfare is a very real presence in American politics, but it is played by a very narrow band of folk. I don't think voters as a whole care very much about the insider "baseball" struggles that take on an ideological slant (such as on presidential appointments).
American ideological politics has a feel that its proponents are always saying that if you support this issue or position or person, you are actually supporting x, y or z, items that may have no actual relationship to the initial problem.
Ideology cries for a unity of world view that isn't very sceptical about itself.
13. CalGal - 6/26/2002 11:38:54 AM
GJ, that's very true. I think most Americans have lost any underlying ideology. I'm not convinced that's a good thing, though. It's one of the reasons that Dem and Republican parties are more than a bit out of date.
14. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 11:40:02 AM
I agree with Cal... almost all of my idealogic differences with both parties is how much should gov't interfere with/manipulate an individual's rights.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
- Social Security vs. Managing one's own financial future.
- Gun control vs. personal responsibility and self determination.
- Pro choice vs. anti abortion.
-Anti-discrimination vs. reverse discrimination.
- Drug war vs. personal responsibility.
- Anti-terrorism vs. privacy.
etc.
etc.
We all have opinions about how much active control the government should take over any issue.
15. glendajean - 6/26/2002 11:40:47 AM
I think that ideology can provide for useful criticism of other p.o.v.'s. This probably comes from my American sense that somebody ought to raise hell and question whatever is the prevailing wisdom or power.
The older I get, the less ideological I am. OTH, I still have an affiliation to certain sentiments and a revulsion of others. I think it was Ace who said in this forum that this drives a lot of political points of view. In his case, he supported people at times who were more liberal than he because they (I think the example was Guilianni or Bloomberg) drove liberals crazy (I hope that was an accurate description).
Clinton at times was easier to support because he drove the American Spectator crowd up the wall.
For many liberals in the 70s, a good part of their politics was based on being against Nixon. The same happened in the 80s with Reagan. Obviously many on the right felt that way about Clinton.
The one person who has that affect on liberals now is John Ashcroft. He opens his mouth and you can feel the anxiety of those who may not like Bush but don't feel all that emotional about him.
16. PelleNilsson - 6/27/2002 2:01:32 AM
ivan
This thread is not taking off. We'd better drop it.
17. betty - 6/27/2002 8:19:18 AM
Pelle,
it's had 16 posts in less than 24 hours, perhaps you should give it some time to find it's feet.
18. betty - 6/27/2002 8:30:15 AM
Cal,
I could agree with the purpose of government being the fault line in the US except so many people on the right encourage moral legislation...anti-choice, criminal drug laws, criminal prostitution, decency laws, etc. What's most annoying about this is that they are making laws which are fiscally unhealthy, unhealthy for the citizens and personally intrusive.
Let's not even get into all the recent legislation which threatens free speech, right to assembly and the very essential to democracy-- dissent.
Mind you i don't think the left is any better but i think they are somewhat consistent and they tend not to infringe on personal rights. though they do often infringe on corporate rights, but that doesn't really bother me.
If we are going to have forced capitalism (which we do have here because of the system of taxation), then corporations should, at the very least, pay for their share.
19. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 8:42:23 AM
It's not just the right that forces morals on us. Stereotyping the left you will find that they want to force morals and on us
Anti gun laws-
Discriminatory, Anti-discriminatory legislation-
Socialist ideals-
and you can't convince me that Liberals hold any moral high ground on free speech. They're just as bad at stifiling ideas... particularly in academics. Politically correct speech is definitely the child of the left. The bru-ha-ha over censoring lebowitz's anti-reparations ad is a good example.
I also hold them principly responsible for the litigatiousness of this country. The left when it fails in congress, tries to get de-facto laws through the courts.
20. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 9:47:35 AM
iiibbb:
i disagree that anti-gun laws are forcing morality on us. i didn't realize guns were moral things.
as for discriminatory anti-discriminatory legislation, i think that's an extreme exagerration and typical of american politics: when those in control (i.e., the bullies in the playground) are finally made to see the point of view of those who've been bullied, they cry foul. i don't feel sorry for a majority that remains a majority, retains its power, but has to give a little more of the playground than it's used to. if anything, the "gov" has done a lot to do quite the opposite...or do you not realize that strict segregation laws were in place even in many of our lifetimes in parts of the US? the very notion of discriminatory laws was invented by the right and happily maintained by it.
as for socialist ideals, i didn't realize economics was a moral issue either. if so, then i'd find it hard to see socialism as immoral.
and finally, as for the litigiousness...please. the courts are not leftist, not all lawyers are leftist, and the government sure isn't leftist. when the left fails in congress (because dem or repub, most are not left at all) it has no other choice (in other countries, they resort to desperate violence...in the US, they don't usually). again, until you are in that minority (true left) you will not be able to see just how ostracized you are. the government is the government of the winners (the right), not the losers...the left lost and will continue to lose in the US beause the center has shifted and those who are even moderately left are ignored and those on the extreme left are victims of smear campaign and hateful, ignorant rhetoric and often victims of overzealous, right-leaning gestapos (hell, does anyone remember kent state? chicago dem convention? the RNC protests in philly recently?).
21. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:14:21 AM
The anti-gun policies have a complete moral slant to them.
-the general populace isn't responsible.
-self-defense isn't a legitimate reason.
-it's morally wrong to defend yourself with a gun.
-a million moms no best.
Gun owners are often painted as morally inferior by the left... and I know this from my first days at the mote when I took the plunge in a gun debate that lasted weeks. My moral character and my idealology were challenged more than anything.
22. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:17:23 AM
often victims of overzealous, right-leaning gestapos (hell, does anyone remember kent state? chicago dem convention? the RNC protests in philly recently?).
Remember- Ruby Ridge... Waco...
tell me those weren't handled inappropriately.
23. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:28:55 AM
The left turns those issues into moral ones simply by looking down on people who hold oposite viewpoints.
In my experience with professed socialists... they adopt this economic viewpoint on moral grounds.
24. Daniel Sickles - 6/27/2002 10:29:04 AM
Apropos of nothing, my mother recently visited my brother and his wife in San Francisco. They went to see a movie. Prior to the film, there was an ad for the Marines. My mother said she heard boos and hisses; not the majority, but she figured about 25 out of 100 to 150 people. Then, there was a corporate remembrance for the victims of 9/11. More boos and hisses, but less so. No one responded. My brother whispered to my mother (who was shocked), "Relax. Remember where you are."
I presume this is ideological and it fascinates me. I'm pretty usre that of someone booed or hissed at the first ad in a theater in Virginia, there would be some public rebuke. I am positive that if someone booed and hissed a 9/11 remembrance, there would be a melee' of fists and Jujifruit.
25. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:33:16 AM
Anti discriminatory laws are starting to go beyond just getting after the bullies.
Infact with this reparations movement you combine to litigation with the discrimination... all based on white's obiligation to make financial restitution to blacks for slavery.
You can't tell me that don't apply moral overtones to these issues.
26. sakonige - 6/27/2002 10:35:55 AM
Don't worry about it. You will have your Judeo-Christian police state.
27. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 10:36:58 AM
iiibbb:
it's simple. a gun is a machine designed to kill. morality doesn't matter here. when your children are killed by guns, morality is not the issue.
Ruby Ridge and Waco...i didn't know the FBI and BATF were liberals or lefties, nor did i know randy weaver and the branch davidians were lefties either. i'm not sure why you brought them up. that's just an example of...oh, wait...guns and the righties who wield them.
and as for the left turning things to moral issues...how many righties have you heard called "promiscuous, satanists, commies (used perjoratively), perverts, corrupters, drug addicts, deviants, murderers (for abortions), etc." by members of the mainstream media? shit, when rudy giuliani (former mayor of NY) commits blatant adultery, he's practically fellated by the press...i guess his stellar performance of...oh, doing his job...during 9/11 absolves him of being immoral.
the term "moral majority" has never applied to the left, has it?
28. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:37:54 AM
Message # 24
My older brother went through college on an ROTC scolarship. His two best friends are intense liberals, one was even a registered conscientious objector.
They gave him holy hell for taking military money and considering a military career. It was morally wrong.
He trumped them by asking if they would prefer that the military be filled with warmongers or include a few peacemongers like himself.
29. sakonige - 6/27/2002 10:38:22 AM
Where is that often promised terrorist strike? I'm tired of waiting and I'm bored.
30. Daniel Sickles - 6/27/2002 10:38:27 AM
Isn't the gun only as moral as the one wielding it?
31. Daniel Sickles - 6/27/2002 10:39:06 AM
Or is the gun inherently immoral?
32. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:39:44 AM
ivan... I'm saying both sides are guilty of turning things into moral issues.
.. re guns...
it's gun ownership... not the guns.
33. CalGal - 6/27/2002 10:41:11 AM
I'm pretty usre that of someone booed or hissed at the first ad in a theater in Virginia, there would be some public rebuke.
And yet neither your brother or your mother issued a public rebuke. Were they expecting someone else to do it? If so, why was your mother shocked? If she didn't act, why should she expect it of anyone else?
I go to movies all the time in San Francisco; more than any other city and I've never seen that. If I did, I wouldn't hesitate to tell someone to fuck off, and loudly. I am quite sure this doesn't surprise you.
I wouldn't deny that there are more people in San Francisco who would boo than in Virginia. But the reaction, or lack thereof, is due far more to the fact that most people are afraid of seeming....weird than the possibility that people are more patriotic in Virginia than SF.
Your mother and brother are, presumably, patriotic. And yet they said nothing. Had you been there, would you? It seems odd to observe anything about other people there that doesn't include your mother and brother.
I'm not trying to make this about you and your family--although it's pretty clear you are trying to make this about California. (g) But the issue isn't ideology, it's willingness to go against what is perceived to be the norm.
Had anyone said, "Shut up, assholes!", I bet there would have been more than a smattering of applause.
34. Daniel Sickles - 6/27/2002 10:44:10 AM
Thanks for telling us what you would do.
I'm off.
35. Edmund Dantes - 6/27/2002 10:44:20 AM
What was the movie?
36. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 10:44:24 AM
dansickles:
that's really interesting. what movie was it? i think that if the film were something like the recent military or intelligence-based movies, that would be even more surprising!
maybe they just were getting impatient with the movie (homer simpson reference: "Just show the movie! just show the movie!)
seriously...i bet that happens often. the backlash has come since the initial sting of 9/11 has started to soften a bit, because a lot of things happened so quickly, people haven't adjusted. maybe they just found it reprehensible to play on the fears and feelings of patriotic americans by using 9/11 as an inducement to join the military. i mean, i see it here in NY state a lot...campaigners use 9/11 as a tool to get support...advertizers join in...it's residual effect is that people who can benefit from it, will use it. before 9/11, how many theatres had ads for marines? probbly not nearly as many, if any.
37. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:46:34 AM
Yeah in SF... why not an ad for the Navy ;)
38. CalGal - 6/27/2002 10:56:39 AM
Thanks for telling us what you would do.
Your reading comprehension is rather bizarrely selective. My post was an observation about group behaviors, not an announcement of what I would do.
39. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 12:10:13 PM
I think it would take a certain amount of courage to admonish a random crowd... but you're right... that would have been a rightious thing to do.
40. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 2:03:29 PM
Here's an interesting idealogical puzzle from Germany
41. CalGal - 6/27/2002 2:20:28 PM
That cinches it. Germans are just nutty people.
42. betty - 6/27/2002 2:29:27 PM
I think it would take a certain amount of courage to admonish a random crowd
it's funny that you think that. It takes way more for me to be clear and assertive with the people I love (other than ivan who is my designated whipping boy) than to admonish a random crowd or stranger.
43. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 2:32:05 PM
I am the opposite... I am much more likely to say something to friends or family.
44. betty - 6/27/2002 2:38:08 PM
i tend to get much more emotionally involved with the idiocy of my close friends and family and easily alienate them...i don't worry about that with strangers.
45. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 2:48:14 PM
I don't like dealing with the random response you get with strangers. I guess I've been threatened too many times. I also get the sense that admonishing strangers does little to correct their attitudes and behaivior. Usually they blow you off... whereas one can actually influence your friends.
46. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 2:49:52 PM
My family is emotional... but arguments are very transient and we don't hold grudges.
My dad for instance, really gets on my nerves sometimes and I have a very short fuse with him... but I know that 5 minutes after even an intense scrap I can ask him for help and it's like nothing happened.
47. KuligintheHooligan - 6/27/2002 2:50:14 PM
"and you can't convince me that Liberals hold any moral high ground on free speech. They're just as bad at stifiling ideas... particularly in academics."
A very hardy and hearty "Amen!"
48. CalGal - 6/27/2002 2:50:59 PM
I don't know that it's courageous. It requires a high degree of "don't give a fuck".
49. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 3:59:40 PM
and you can't convince me that Liberals hold any moral high ground on free speech. They're just as bad at stifiling ideas... particularly in academics. Politically correct speech is definitely the child of the left. The bru-ha-ha over censoring lebowitz's anti-reparations ad is a good example.
oh please. the left is not where "book burning" comes from. nor is it the place that censors radical ideas. the FCC (rather conservative, i'd say) has successfully silenced radical and dissenting voices from getting on the air by making it almost impossible for community-run radio stations. independent media websites are often targets of legal harassment and bullying by law enforcement for presenting leftie ideas. during the RNC, tom ridge happily allowed the massive arrests of protestors who were making puppets and banners (forms of communication) before they were even used and so, were not allowed to demonstrate as they were incarcerated during the RNC. small, lefty presses are almost always ignored by large book chains...who gladly feature books by the right. the so-called "liberal" media has never been...what you call "liberal" media is really just the center. there is virtually NO media representation by anything to the left of al gore. moving the center is a way to increase the degree of conservatism and decrease the presence of the real left. there are no lefty politicians who have any power above the level of congressman. sure, they may be left compared to stalin, but that doesn't mean anything is really liberal.
as to the imaginary "PC Menace", that is an overblown myth by the conservative spin doctors. where has this "PC-ness" changed anything?
and now, under the guise of national security, the right has all but destroyed the right to free speech and assembly (so who is supressing who?)
50. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 4:20:49 PM
oh please. the left is not where "book burning" comes from.
They don't burn books... they use other tactics such as threat of lawsuit... or screeching to the higher powers for censorship.
Lebowitz is a great example. At brown university they were demanding the editor step down and stole all the copies of the paper. At the University of California they threatened the editor.
The left also spawns extremeists like Earth First who think nothing of spiking trees to kill blue collar loggers... and spawned riots in Seattle.
The left is as guilty of wrongs as the right... and I am no defender of the right...
51. alistairConnor - 6/27/2002 4:21:53 PM
Given that it's the US you're talking about, I find somewhat surrealist that the Right is presented as the champion of less government, hands off, personal responsibility...
Are you folks aware that your government is leading you back to the age of protectionism? Steel subsidies, farm subsidies, corporate welfare. Also, driving the dollar down, to dumb down the economy - enough of this "new economy" stuff, let's create a bunch of low-wage factory jobs.
The Clinton era looks retrospectively like a golden age of individual responsibility and innovative free enterprise.
52. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 4:27:30 PM
Yes... a golden age where corporations like Enron and WorldCom flourished...
Now is just an extention of then...
53. CalGal - 6/27/2002 4:30:05 PM
I agree, Alistair, but in fairness to the GOP, Bush's trade policies have received a great deal of criticism precisely because it was pure vote whoring.
54. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 4:31:20 PM
I hate subsidies... bad accounting...
Of course this whole concept of subsidizing industries has it's roots in FDR's 'New Deal'.
55. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 4:36:53 PM
Meanswhile GDP up about 6%.
Although I'd worry that these recent accounting scandals could pull it back.
56. betty - 6/27/2002 4:39:40 PM
ib3,
The left also spawns extremeists like Earth First who think nothing of spiking trees to kill blue collar loggers... and spawned riots in Seattle.
No, inappropriate environmental policies (ie, excessive logging) spawned earth first! and cops trying to interfere with peaceful assembly caused riots in Seattle.
57. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 4:45:51 PM
Earth first targetting loggers are no better than terrorists.
I saw a show on CSPAN about how the 'peaceful' protestors organized their protests in Seattle and the Rep. Natl Convention. They went in there specifically to cause problems... blocking traffic etc. and they fully sought confrontations with police.
58. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 4:48:55 PM
I'm sure our WTO protestors could get Chris Rock to make them a video too.
59. betty - 6/27/2002 4:55:36 PM
iiibbb,
how about this, all of my best friends were thrown into jails because they were making puppets in a warehouse...you may have been working class college boy, but I am working class. You know how the agents busted my friends for MAKING PUPPETS (none of the charges have stood i might add, and the city is expected to pay out millions of dollars in wrongful arrest cases), they busted my friends by posing as union carpenters. specifically designed to divide and conquer the working class. And i didn't learn that on CSPAN, information distributed by the right to smear the (almost dead) left...I was involved with my community where this shit was actually happening. The police rioted and the lefties got arrested.
that's the way it went down.
60. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 5:05:12 PM
Dunno... I can't help what I saw on video.
I also can't help what I know about Earth Firsters I've met (who didn't know my vocation)... and as someone who works in forestry I can't help how I feel about someone who had no qualms about doing people like me physical harm and didn't mind saying so.
I am pretty concerned about environmental issues, and the subject of my research revolves around sustainability... but I guess I chose to work from inside the system.
61. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 5:07:49 PM
I can absolutely concieve a scenario where some protestors or cops allowed the situation to escalate to where all hell broke loose...
62. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 5:18:54 PM
Indeed Betty, you may be more right than me on this one... so I apologize... still if you scroll down you will see that there were instigators in the crowd.
So hopefully you can see where I got my impression from, and the CSPAN video was definitely of people out to cause a disturbance, and were hopeful for a confrontation with police.
I haven't read anything about this for a while. So the lawsuits are news to me.
63. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 5:25:11 PM
x posted from the wrong thread... but...
And all this was under Clinton and Janet Reno's watch... thus my original statement that no side (republican or democrat... 'right' or 'left') has the lion's share of blame for trying establish some kind of dominance consistant with their ideals.
64. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 5:44:52 PM
i've been thinking about definitions...what we consider to be "left", "liberal", "moderate", "conservative", "right", etc..
i think we probably have many different takes on these terms. for instance, i have noticed very few...and i mean very few people i consider "left" having any voice in any relatively large media. i hear the term "liberal" applied to people that, for much of the "left", would be considered moderately conservative.
i think if you are in the trenches of the left, you have seen more and more push to the right so that people like al gore and bill clinton are considered liberal.
but then, what is "liberal"? i know some people who are liberal, but i wouldn't call them "left". i also know some people who are conservative, but ally themselves with lefty causes. i also think that many people on the right have never actually seen or experienced any interaction with a true lefty. during the last prez election here, the left had come closest to having some form of representation by a public figure in Nader, though i'm not sure i accept nader as truly left.
i think that "liberal" and "conservatives" refer to different things than "left" and "right".
anyone wanna chime in? i'm curious to see how y'all feel about it.
65. sakonige - 6/27/2002 5:56:22 PM
President Bush today said that Americans had "received our rights from God."
Hilarious, in a sick way.
66. judithathome - 6/27/2002 6:10:33 PM
I just commented on that in Politics. Very hilarious.
67. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 6:14:10 PM
y'know, when i say that the US is a christian theocracy disguised as a gang of murderous conservatives, i get scoffed at ;)
but seriously...it was ironic to hear bush declare that america is only about one religion yet again.
68. judithathome - 6/27/2002 6:15:33 PM
I just don't get it...why aren't we hearing more outrage over this type of thing?
69. msivorytower - 6/27/2002 6:17:56 PM
Of course this whole concept of subsidizing industries has it's roots in FDR's 'New Deal'.
I couldn't let this pass by....
Absolute rubbish. Favoritism for various business interests heralds back to the latter part of the 19th century. The railroad barons are simply the most obvious example of federal patronage and wealth transfers.
70. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 6:19:53 PM
an even better example...
... I was thinking about ag subsidies... which were right around the dust bowl.
71. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 6:24:39 PM
The controversies with land management in the NW has some roots in those railroad lands. It created a checkerboard of public and private land, so rather than being able to manage based on natural boundaries... you have these artificial devisions.
Forces conflicting land uses to exist in a constrained landscape.
72. Raskolnikov - 6/27/2002 6:25:20 PM
"i think that "liberal" and "conservatives" refer to different things than "left" and "right". "
They do mean different things to different people. From original usage, conservatives favored keeping existing social and political structures, while liberals favored greater democracy and personal and economic freedom.
But somewhere along the line that changed, at least in the US. Here, the terms are generally synomymous, except that "left" and "right" tend to refer to the more extreme ends of the perspective.
The terms have also become proxies for the current US party structure, but historically the ideological beliefs of both major parties have no permanent relationship to either the classic or the modern definitions of the terms. It simply doesn't make much sense to talk about major party figures like Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Jackson, Wilson, and Bryan as "liberals", or "conservatives".
73. sakonige - 6/27/2002 6:48:18 PM
judithathome -
Manifest Destiny lives.
74. betty - 6/27/2002 6:52:43 PM
ibcubed
Clinton and Reno are not left in my book. In fact Reno is the devil. She and Scalia obstructed justice and democracy in Florida (long before this recent round) and supressed evidence that there was rampant vote fraud and tampering.
Read Vote Scam.
Janet Reno is EVIL, EVIL, EVIL!!!
Janet Reno is evil.
75. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 6:59:20 PM
on that we can agree betty.
76. PincherMartin - 6/27/2002 7:03:05 PM
As much as I hate to admit it, Alistair's Message # 51 is right on the money.
Bush hasn't been in office two years and we are back to the era of massive budget deficits, trade protectionism, and, now, new government bureaucracies (for Homeland Security).
There are two reasons I've been a dedicated Republican at the polls for the last decade: I believe Republicans are more willing to protect and expand U.S. interests abroad and, much more importantly, I believe they are more fiscally responsible than Democrats. (I could give a shit about Republican social policies.) But recently I've come to doubt that Bush has anything other than his own political well-being in mind when he makes economic and fiscal policy.
77. judithathome - 6/27/2002 7:08:38 PM
You'd have decided that much sooner, Pincher, had you lived in Texas while he was Governor.
I tried to tell you guys!
78. Rama - 6/27/2002 7:11:31 PM
But recently I've come to doubt that Bush has anything other than his own political well-being in mind when he makes economic and fiscal policy.
Perhaps true, but what are your options?
79. Raskolnikov - 6/27/2002 7:18:09 PM
I don't think the GOP has really been the party of fiscal responsibility since 1980. Which worries me, as the Dems are ideologically ill-suited for the role.
80. CalGal - 6/27/2002 7:26:52 PM
Clinton's decisions on free trade were due to his own priorities, not Dem ideology so yes, it is worrisome.
I've read a great deal of unhappiness among conservatives at Bush's decisions, but it's not going to cost him anything meaningful.
81. PincherMartin - 6/27/2002 7:34:12 PM
Judith --
I've always been far too timid than has been good for me in taking your political advice.
Rama --
The best politicians are able to find the right combination of policies that both enhance their own political survival and advance the country's interests as a whole. I don't expect Bush to fall on his sword, politically, in order to advance some dreamy notion of the common good.
But the president is a Republican who states he's for free trade and smaller government, is he not? He's also an incumbent president, which gives him a great deal of leeway for the next election. (Only two incumbent Presidents have lost their re-election bids in the last seventy years -- Carter and Bush Sr.)
That means short of the national economy tanking, what does he have to fear? And yet, Bush has been operating on the narrowest band of political self-interest. Ironically, it won't save him if the economy tanks, and on the other hand, he won't lose by not implementing these narrow policies, if the economy does well. So, the question is, why do it?
82. CalGal - 6/27/2002 7:37:06 PM
Only two incumbent Presidents have lost their re-election bids in the last seventy years -- Carter and Bush Sr
Analysts on both the right and the left agree that the loss of that second incumbent had a profound impact on Bush Jr., who is determined not to be the third name on that list. Re-election has always been Bush's first goal.
83. PincherMartin - 6/27/2002 7:41:09 PM
I don't think the GOP has really been the party of fiscal responsibility since 1980. Which worries me, as the Dems are ideologically ill-suited for the role.
I should have said "fiscal and economic responsiblity." Reagan was fiscally irresponsible, but there was a far better argument in 1980 for both immediately reducing taxes and building up the military than there was in 2000.
84. PincherMartin - 6/27/2002 7:43:23 PM
CalGal --
I agree with you. But Bush Senior's loss had too much of an impact on him, in my opinion, and he's taken away the wrong lessons from it.
85. PincherMartin - 6/27/2002 7:45:22 PM
It occurs to me that this argument should probably be continued in the American Politics thread.
86. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 10:15:32 PM
Rask:
excellent analysis. i think i prefer "right and left" to "liberal and conservative" because the latter have, as you point out, been contradictory in current and historic usage. left and right are easier to make into a spectrum.
on the left side, there are some interesting dynamics in terms of social perception and what the left considers left or liberal.
the most extreme left is the most hidden from view by the media until they can be used for propaganda purposes (i.e., "those violent anarchists destroyed a starbucks!"). this extreme left is completely misunderstood...even by many other lefties.
then there's the next increment of the left, which is the radical left. the public gets to see this left in dribs and drabs, but despite the intelligent commentary and literature they produce, they are usually portrayed as kooks by the conservative media (if people got wind of their ideas they might realize just how bad this system stinks) and so they are not taken seriously (i.e., nader supporters).
then you get the moderate left...this is more like what the US might consider extreme liberals. they recycle, read the utne reader, listen to NPR (despite its statistically conservative stance), cry foul at racism, and tend to be easy neighbors...generally, these are middle or upper class folks with college educations but with no desire to do anything other than make their money and portray themselves as ethical whenever possible. these are the people who think porn is okay if the woman is not being coerced, but they would never watch it themselves.
(continued)
87. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 10:15:42 PM
other than that, the left considers pretty much on the right. i think the next increment, the so-called center, includes the "liberal politicians" conservatives complain about...like gore, for example. these are the ones who champion the environment by dry humping the sierra club while simultaneously fellating big corporations.
as it heads towards the right...from this lefty's perspective...it's all pretty much the same :)
so really, the shift to the right has blinded the public to the larger left and convinced it that the left is something it isn't.
88. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 10:32:55 PM
and while i'm filibustering (or filiblustering)...
class is also interesting among the left. in my experience, the extreme left is almost exclusively from the upper middle/wealthy class...mostly young kids whose parents are the captains of industry. it makes sense as working class folks can't afford to perform all those actions that require lots of time and money.
among the radical left, however, you find more working class folks...even poor folks in groups like the kensignton welfare rights union.
and then in that moderate left, you see virtually no working class folks, but you do see middle class highly represented.
one of the reasons i do not engage in protests is that i cannot afford the time off from work. another reason is that they don't work...and when they do work, the left takes a big hit and really only succeeds in teaching the next city how to get away with enforcing "public order" by more force, brutality and ignorance of constitutionality.
89. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:47:41 PM
well... since I am obviously confused about what is the 'real' left...
what are their central tenants?
90. OhioSTOPAS - 6/27/2002 10:55:28 PM
One of our central tenets is an unyielding opposition to Malapropisms.
91. robertjayb - 6/27/2002 11:14:53 PM
Ba-da-boom!
92. Raskolnikov - 6/28/2002 12:01:05 AM
However, I don't think there really is a consistent ideology to the left, any more than there is a consistent ideology to the right. Instead, what you have are a hodge podge of different ideological systems, or just policy preferences, that happen to coincide. The left is a mix of Marxists, anarchists, feminists, socialists, communists, greens, pacifists, poststructuralists, and radical race thinkers. What unifies them is the set of policy preferences including things like social justice, a dislike of racism, environmentalism, anti-imperialism, and the like. But the ideological reasons for these positions can be quite diverse.
Then you have your bleeding heart liberals, who don't have an ideology so much as a set of emotional responses to things like discrimination, war, and poverty.
The right has equivalents in almost every area, but again, there isn't much ideological consistency between anarcho-capitalists and religious fundamentalists.
But most Americans don't have an ideology, per se, aside from a very loose one that says democracy+some basic rights = good. Overall, they tend to pragmatic, and support the political party that best matches their preferred basket of economic and social policies.
93. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 12:20:22 AM
tenets then... sorry...
hooked on phonics worked for me...
94. concerned - 6/28/2002 12:44:24 AM
Don't worry about it. You will have your Judeo-Christian police state.
Posted by somebody who likes police states just fine, but prefers that they get rid of all the Jews and Christians.
95. concerned - 6/28/2002 12:45:53 AM
"and you can't convince me that Liberals hold any moral high ground on free speech. They're just as bad at stifiling ideas... particularly in academics."
Just let a conservative try to get a professorship at most universities. Hah!
96. concerned - 6/28/2002 12:55:30 AM
I don't think the GOP has really been the party of fiscal responsibility since 1980. Which worries me, as the Dems are ideologically ill-suited for the role.
Despite increases in the SS tax later on, the Reagan years saw a net decrease in overall income taxes. This was followed by two huge tax increases driven by a Democrat Congress in 1990 and 1993. Fiscal constraint by the Republican Congress and conservative monetary policy by Alan Greenspan allowed a budget surplus to develop for several years despite x42.
You may feel that Republican fiscal and monetary policy has fallen short throughout all of this. However, as a whole, they are much preferable to the Democrats here.
97. concerned - 6/28/2002 1:10:26 AM
what are their central tenants?
One may well be gaining the complicity of a central authority to cozen the support of special interest groups through social 'experimentation', at least when they have to contend with political opposition. However, when the Left has gained more or less complete control in countries such as the USSR, they have tended to become much more socially repressive than their RW opposition would be if they were in a similar situation.
98. concerned - 6/28/2002 1:27:28 AM
I find it very significant that the beliefs of modern day big government Leftists, such as they are, are generally opposed to those which were held by classical liberals, of whose ideological stances many have been adopted by US conservatives and libertarians (I won't speak so much for Europeans here).
99. concerned - 6/28/2002 3:24:44 AM
Despite increases in the SS tax later on, the Reagan years saw a net decrease in overall income taxes.
The above applies to inflation adjusted tax rates, to be more specific.
100. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 7:14:49 AM
However, when the Left has gained more or less complete control in countries such as the USSR, they have tended to become much more socially repressive than their RW opposition would be if they were in a similar situation.
see here's the thing. one "tenet" of the radical and extreme lefts is that governmental systems that are centralized and designed to govern extremely large amounts of people, are problemmatic. in the USSR, this "left" (i wouldn't call them left, i'd call them non-capitalists...the anarchists didn't come into power, after all) was essentially a different structure to do the same thing...create and maintain a state. it is in fact the "state" which is a problem for the real left.
101. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 7:27:46 AM
ib3x and rask:
i guess i should clarify. to me, the left and the right are perspectives...not ideologies, per se.
liberal would be an ideology, as would be conservative.
left and right, being perspectives, are different mainly because the right seeks to fit everything within it's preconceived perspective and what doesn't fit becomes an enemy. if you're not on the right, you're not right. if you are on the left, your perspective is to see what's going on first, then build a reaction accordingly. this is why, as rask points out, there is no consistent ideology to the left.
the extreme left, for instance, looks at the environment through movements like deep ecology and earth first! the radical left looks at things like sustainable communities alternative energy as being necessary to save the environment. the moderate left looks to better manage what's already there through democratic means.
on the right, you have the same doctrine throughout the spectrum: corporations know best.
so if we deal with these terms as perpsectives, we find that the actions of one side are going to be misunderstood perpetually by the other side.
i've always advocated that lefty's work "real" jobs for a while, that they live in the "real" world for a while, that they read things like the economist, wall street journal, washington post, current books on corporate management strategies, etc., and that they understand how the right manipulates the majority through media. i always cringe when i see knee-jerk people on the extreme left talk about evil corporations (which is accurate) and how they want to take them down without any understanding of how they work.
102. arkymalarky - 6/28/2002 7:36:51 AM
These court decisions have really brought the question of ideologies back to the question of basic values shared for me. What are the fundamentals that a system with a foundation on an ideology must protect, regardless of the circumstances of individual cases, in order to live up to its own established principles?
103. arkymalarky - 6/28/2002 7:37:42 AM
1st "question"="issue"
104. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 8:23:47 AM
ark:
that's a great question! i think that it reflects the reason why the right tends to stay in power and the left looks scattered and incoherent.
the ideologies of the right operate under the assumption that dissent should be discouraged, because quantitative unity is more important. the ideologies of the left operate under the assumption that dissent should be enocouraged, and this applies even to itself...hence, you get a lot more upheaval and disagreement because dissent is such a basic part of the fabric.
105. arkymalarky - 6/28/2002 8:41:42 AM
Message # 104
I've often considered that, and it makes the Left easier to divide and conquer and harder to manage a political coalition that will hold unless they hold to the most basic shared principles in politics and figure on hashing out the details of where they differ once there. It also makes Left extremists stand out much more than Right ones, because Right ones get thrown bones to keep them quiet such as the recent court decisions, lip service on abortion, taxes, big government, etc etc (which seems to have been enough without actually promoting any specifics), while on the Left you have a more varied set of interests which discourage unified support of the party that supposedly represents them. So you have significant votes for Nader on principle.
Of course that's bitten the GOP as well in past elections, usually having to do with economic issues, it seems, in addition to occasional efforts from the Right to wrench the party that way; and they've learned something from Clinton, who imo is a political genius. The way he reined the Democratic party into the middle is evidence of that.
106. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 8:53:03 AM
ark:
excellent observations!
many lefties want smaller regional government...independent and sustainable communities...less centralization, etc..
none of these structures require large scale majority mobilization...and so, the left has a hard time mobilizing for national power because such a mobilization is exactly what they're fighting AGAINST!
it's essentially a game where the rules are written by the right...whenever the left tries to play, they lose the overall game.
my suggestion has been that the left engage in its own game and ignore the system where possible. there are numerous alternative communities, alternative currency systems, food co-ops, etc...things to do under the radar, and just as many intelligent treatises of how these things can work.
one can be "in the world", but "not of it" (to coin a sufi phrase).
107. arkymalarky - 6/28/2002 9:11:40 AM
I think where they fail is that it's essential they unite behind one presidential candidate and it is usually important to do so in congressional elections as well.
Where I think Lefties do tend to unite more is in basic socio-economic principles. But they consider their own individual pet interests more important and their votes can easily be lost based on the candidates' views wrt that particular interest, be it Gay Rights, environmentalism, or whatever.
Interestingly, though, a lot of conservative Americans feel the same way the liberal ones do locally--and we all know what Tip O'Neil said.
I think that's why in the South voters shifted to Republicans for national offices long before they began to shift to them for local ones. In fact, it's still best to be a registered Democrat to run for state and local offices in much of the South.
108. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 9:27:27 AM
create and maintain a state. it is in fact the "state" which is a problem for the real left.
by holding this 'perspective' doesn't that immediately render them irrelevant given this is the United States?... or are these the type of people that set up their own commune somewhere?
right seeks to fit everything within it's preconceived perspective and what doesn't fit becomes an enemy.
This seems a little harsh and Jaded.
if you are on the left, your perspective is to see what's going on first, then build a reaction accordingly.
This seems a little generous... unless I'm still lumping people in the left that you don't consider to be the true 'left'. Basically you are declaring a monopoly on reasonable thinkers.
the extreme left, for instance, looks at the environment through movements like deep ecology and earth first! the radical left looks at things like sustainable communities alternative energy as being necessary to save the environment. the moderate left looks to better manage what's already there through democratic means.
That puts me in with radical left, moderate left, and right all at the same time. I am a huge proponent of alternative energy, and energy conservation...
Deep Ecology in my opinion is flaky... and makes no real attempt to integrate humans with the environment.
But, given your examples... I actually can't see where I fit in your definitions of the 'perspectives'.
109. Raskolnikov - 6/28/2002 9:29:36 AM
"the ideologies of the right operate under the assumption that dissent should be discouraged, because quantitative unity is more important. the ideologies of the left operate under the assumption that dissent should be enocouraged, and this applies even to itself...hence, you get a lot more upheaval and disagreement because dissent is such a basic part of the fabric."
I think this a huge overstatement, for several reasons:
1) The left can be quite good at suppressing dissent. See any Communist regime, such as Castro's Cuba. Lenin had a specific doctrine where dissent was allowed in private meetings, but you toed the party line in public. Other leftists have resorted to advocacy of censorship to accomplish their goals.
2) Meanwhile, the right isn't some monolithic group of Neandrathal greedheads. Libertarians take belief in free speech to almost religious extremes, for instance, and modern versions of Burkian conservatives (such as George Will) aren't all that big on suppressing dissent either.
I think you get more dissent on the left because they are more idelogical and utopian. They are extremely dissatisified with the current social and political structure, and want radical change. You just can't get two of them to agree on what the best structure should be.
The right, however, tends to be pretty happy with things they way they are. Yeah, they will bitch about big gummint and the like, but they don't really have a Utopian vision or a belief that things should be radically different. They are tweakers. This wasn't always the case, however. When the right *has* been lead by utopian zealots, such as Hitler, schisms and internicene conflict were common. The biggest exception to this in the US is the religious right.
110. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 9:37:45 AM
Here is where I feel I am 'left' by your definitions so far
-reasoned analysis willing to change for new information
-more power to communities for self determination
-alternative and sustainable energy and natural resources
Here is where I fall short of the left:
-Immediate assumption that big=bad
Here is where I am more or kess with the right(thusfar poorly defined except to say they're closeminded):
-Lower taxes
-Federal funding of things that should be local, such as schools
-National defense (my perception of the majority of the left is that war is bad, therefore military is bad)
-Gun rights
111. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 9:38:24 AM
It also occurs to me that there must not be that many people who are truly 'left' by your standards.
112. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 9:42:09 AM
rask:
i agree with what you say, except the part about communists. there are many lefties who are socialists or communists, but not all. the idea that communism is THE left is a bit of a myth, based on the fact that the right sees communism as its antithesis, and dismisses any other lefty ideology as unreasonable or unrealistic. communism gets so much attention because it is, essentially, the ONLY left-leaning ideology that can and does espouse a large-scale state system. the right uses "commies" as examples why the left doesn't work...but that's not a representative of the left, it's a representative of an alternate form of statism assigned by people who were more aligned with the left than the right.
communism can't work, to me, because it is inconceivable that a large-scale system could work without either a tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority. it's the size and scope that is the problem, not the ideology. for instance, consensus can work on a small scale, but not on a large scale. where the line between small and large scale lies, however, is a good question.
113. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 9:51:53 AM
iiibbb:
you are correct...many people on the left espouse a variety of these perspectives. i mean, do you stand still? of course not.
it seems that i am minimizing the intellect of the right. i'm not. i'm talking perspective. the perspective of the "right" doesn't change all that much...and its difference with the left lies in the fact that it takes a solid, unified hard-line stance with less schism than the left (as has been pointed out). to take such a solid view, one often has to sacrifice a level of flexibility and adaptability to change in order to keep the party line clear. when something isn't working, the solution is not to question the ideologies of the right, it's to assume the fault is that people aren't "right enough."
this happens to the left too...but since it's not as united, it happens locally and on a scale that is too small to affect the larger population or be noticed by it.
your stance on deep ecology is pretty much what most people think of it...as i said, radical or extreme ideas on the left are usually portrayed as kooky by the media. you said:Deep Ecology in my opinion is flaky... and makes no real attempt to integrate humans with the environment.
i agree there is a degree of flakiness, but i think that what you said about integrating humans with the environment is off the mark completely. if you consider the environment to be asphalt pavement and concrete and automobiles and factories, then sure...it doesn't help to integerate people into the environment. but it's all about assimilation with nature.
114. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 9:53:49 AM
from "The Basic Points of the Platform of Deep Ecology"...
III. Humanity is part of nature, but our potential of power means that our responsibility towards the Earth is greater than that of any other species.
IV. We feel estranged from the Earth because we have imposed complication upon the complexity of nature.
VII. New kinds of communication should be found that encourage greater identification with nature. Only then will we see our part in it again.
115. judithathome - 6/28/2002 9:53:59 AM
Ivan, are you aware of what iiibbb does for a living? I don't think his idea of nature is asphalt and concrete....
116. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 9:58:32 AM
i am aware. which is why i posted the parts from deep ecology. it is, truthfully, a more extreme left position and one that requires a massive reversal of much that the right has set in place. but, ideologically, it has merit.
and i don't think it's contrary to our nature because it's only in recent history of homo sapiens that we've actually altered the large scale biosystem for our benefit. local clearing of forests by indigenous people has been going on for as long as we can tell, but it never lead to the crises we see now.
117. arkymalarky - 6/28/2002 10:03:03 AM
My brain keeps defaulting to American Left and Right.
118. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 10:29:26 AM
Message # 114
III That is a essentially a statement of land ethic that is not much different than held by mainstream players... take SAF's code. We have an ethical responsibility as well as a practical interest in long term sustainability.
IV You can't make decisions just because the feel. I'm not saying all gut feelings are worthless, but if you paroose the scientific literature you'll find that many management practices that have been labled as 'bad' by whoever... aren't as bad as we thought. Certainly disturbance impacts vary widely by region. The tropics are different than the artic, and you can't just assume what happens here happens there.
VII I don't know if they hold the monopoly on this viewpoint. My major prof and I have talked many times about how the general populace are wholy disconnected from their place in the food chain, or the energy chain. It's a real trick to connect them.
However... I think I can safely say that most Deep Ecologists are no better connected (in my experience), and are only operating from the perspective that management is all bad, consumption is all bad, business is all bad. They pretty much consume like the rest of us.
It'd be great if all of us could go back to living off the land as organic vegan farmers... but that is an impractical world view.
119. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 10:31:55 AM
IV You can't make decisions just because the feel.
=
IV You can't make decisions just because of how they feel.
----
it is really wierd when I do that typing... I start thinking of my next sentence before I'm done typing the one I'm on, and whole ends of sentences disappear or fall apart. Very odd.
120. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 10:33:00 AM
check that... you can make decisions just because of how they feel.
You can't expect everyone else to follow your lead.
121. concerned - 6/28/2002 10:59:32 AM
The problem I have with the concept that the Left, once in power, discards what makes it ideologically distinct because it now needs to 'conserve' its power base is that its basic rhetoric and ideology do not change. For instance, the nature of international revolutionary communism didn't really change much once the USSR and China became 'socialist republics'.
It's important to point this out, because otherwise the inherent defects of the 'utopian' socialist state, as envisioned by the left wing, can be glossed over with the excuse that they are due to Leftists adopting 'conservative' policies to run the state when that is not at all the cause of these problems per se.
122. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 11:28:36 AM
Does Concerned even acknowledge distinctions among (what in the USA are called) "liberals", European-style social democrats, and Soviet-style socialists? He seems to use the word "Left" (with a capital L) for all these groups.
The USA doesn't have a left. The Republicans are the right, and the Democrats are the centre-right with some centre-left.
123. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 11:31:25 AM
"I find it very significant that the beliefs of modern day big government Leftists....are generally opposed to those which were held by classical liberals...."
I find it significant that Concerned reiterates a very hackneyed view -- modern "liberalism" is not the same as "classical" liberalism -- and thinks it "significant".
By the way, since this is the ideologies thread -- which presumably is to have a deeper and less parochial atmosphere than the American politics -- can we use the term "liberalism" in its normal sense?
124. concerned - 6/28/2002 11:36:33 AM
Re. 122 -
PE is being deliberately obtuse here. Or he's just plain dense.
125. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 11:48:15 AM
The USA doesn't have a left. The Republicans are the right, and the Democrats are the centre-right with some centre-left.
well said! there is no left because it is unrecognized and ignored and shunned and censored.
126. marjoribanks - 6/28/2002 11:53:17 AM
The rump of the American Left is also a total minority, probably negligible in real terms. In effect, the Left in this country is completely dead.
127. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 12:30:22 PM
From the way I read your descriptions of why they can't organize, they're dead because of their own inability to communicate whatever message they have to people so that it seems doable or palletable.
A quote I read today... "you don't see the world as it is... you see the world as you are".
Perhaps the left isn't getting their message across because they're not connecting with the mainstream. Not even in little ways. Without finding common ground they're perspective isn't considered. Perhaps they're ot as effective at seeing what's going on first... because if they were they would adjust their strategies whith the goal of wider acceptance of their viewpoint.
128. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 12:33:43 PM
well said! there is no left because it is unrecognized and ignored and shunned and censored.
so the left believes that they have no control over thier own message? The fact that whatever they have to say may have as much to do with the packaging as it does with those in the media.
129. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 12:40:34 PM
An interesting paper from a group of economists at Harvard:
"Why Doesn't the US have a European-Style Welfare State?"
Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser, Bruce Sacerdote National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 8524 October 2001
[ The question in the title of the paper should be understood to mean "why haven't US voters chosen to have a European-style welfare state?"]
From the introduction:
European governments redistribute income amongst their citizens on a much larger scale than does the United States government. European social programs are more generous and reach a larger share of citizens. European tax systems are more progressive. Europe has more intrusive regulations that are often meant to protect the poor. In this paper we try to understand why.
The literature on "the size of government" is rich and varied... We consider economic, political and behavioral explanations for the differences between the US and Europe....
Economic explanations [ in the existing literature ] focus on the variance and the skewness of the pre-tax, pre-transfer income distribution, the social costs of taxation, the volatility of income, and the expected income changes for the median voter....130. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 12:41:05 PM
We conclude that most of these theories cannot explain the US-Europe differences. Pre-tax income in the US has both more variance and is more skewed. There is no evidence that the deadweight losses from taxation are lower in Europe. The volatility of income in Europe appears to be lower than in the US. There is some possibility that the middle class in the US has a greater chance of moving up in the income distribution, a feature that would make the median voter more averse to redistribution.
Political explanations [ in the existing literature ] for the level of redistribution focus on institutions that prevent minorities from gaining political power or strictly protect individuals' private property. Cross-country comparisons indicate the importance of these institutions in limiting redistribution. For instance, America does not have proportional representation, which played an important role in facilitating the growth of socialist parties in many European countries. America has strong courts that have routinely rejected popular attempts at redistribution, such as the income tax or labor regulation. The European equivalents of these courts were swept away as democracy replaced monarchy and aristocracy. The federal structure of the US may have also contributed to constrain the role of the central government in the redistributive arena.
The political institutions result from particular features of US history. The formation of the US as a federation of independent territories led to a federal structure that often creates obstacles to centralized redistributive policies. The relative stability of the US means that it is still governed by an 18 th century constitution designed to protect property. As world war and revolution swept away the old European monarchies, the 20 th century European constitutions that replaced the old regimes were more oriented towards majority-rule, and less towards protection of private property.131. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 12:41:22 PM
Moreover, the spatial organization of the U. S.— in particular, its low density— meant that the US government was much less threatened by a socialist revolution. Many of the European institutions were either directly implemented by revolutionary groups, or a response by elites to the threat of violence.
Finally, we discuss reciprocal altruism and redistribution. Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor, if the poor are perceived as lazy, which they are in the US. In contrast, Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the poor are unfortunate. This difference in views is part of what is sometimes refereed to as "American exceptionalism" (Lipset (1996)
132. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 12:42:18 PM
Racial discord plays a critical role in determining beliefs about the poor. Since minorities are highly over-represented amongst the poorest Americans, any income-based redistribution measures will redistribute particularly to minorities. The opponents of redistribution have regularly used race based rhetoric to fight left-wing policies.
Across countries, racial fragmentation is a powerful predictor of redistribution. Within the US, race is the single most important predictor of support for welfare. America's troubled race relations are clearly a major reason for the absence of an American welfare state.
The last two paragraphs --the role of racial fragmentation in minimising income redistribution -- are the real focus of the paper.
I myself would probably add that the high level of immigration into the USA for long periods is what might have retarded trades unionism and syndicalism in the USA, because the presence of an ethnolinguistically and racially diverse working class probably kept them fragmented and divided.133. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 12:42:49 PM
134. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 12:58:14 PM
For example one of my pet interests is Agroforestry. It is a management paradigm for farming which specifically seeks to combine crops, trees, and animals in a way that they mutually benefit each other, by stratifying resources. The idea is that if you combine these things in the right way you can actually get more yield than if you were to do any one thing alone and create a system that is both environmentally and economically sustainable.
It is really hard to sell today's farmers on this concept. It is complicated both ecologicaly and economically. Human nature is human nature, and like anyone these people look at cash flow and tradition. You need a hook.
Now... take the issue of water quality. Everyone agrees that it's important to preserve water quality. Streams flow through farms so we want to do things that protect streams.
What the government does is create BMP (best management practices) guidlines which primarily consist of the creation of streamside mamagement zones (buffers) that filter out pollutants and avoid direct imputs of sediments or pollution into the stream. They try to entice farmers to create these SMZ's by cost sharing.
To get the cost-share money you need to enter a contract with the government. The government has pretty tight limits on what you can, and can't do with that land once you've entered the agreement.
135. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 12:58:28 PM
BUT
Farmers don't trust the government. They would rather maintain full control over that land. If they take the money they are locked in. They are also not allowed to do anything production-oriented. If their land goes to some natural state (meaning wooded), they are also worried that a law might get passed down the road that prevents them from doing anything with that land ever again. I think this is an absolutely legitimate concern.
But here's an example of how I would approach the problem.
Design an SMZ that encorporates many of the same features that the gov't one does. Usually this involves plants that stabalize banks etc. Allow farmers utilize that land for farm-forestry applications such as growing berries, or nuts, or mushrooms or whatever.
If you design an SMZ that not only protects water quality, but also gives economic benefit to the farmer... then you have something.
But the problem is that so many 'environmentalists' think that environmental protection is not compatible with production.
136. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 1:05:36 PM
I can see taxes for public works... but I find myself not likeing the idea of large scale redistribution of income controlled by the government particularly through taxation.
137. marjoribanks - 6/28/2002 1:07:15 PM
I myself would probably add that the high level of immigration into the USA for long periods is what might have retarded trades unionism and syndicalism in the USA, because the presence of an ethnolinguistically and racially diverse working class probably kept them fragmented and divided.
Interesting speculation. If true, the situation is likely to remain unchanged as the newer significant waves of migrants in this country are either illegal (so can't change policy) or even better-off economically than previous migrant groups (so have less reason to support income redistribution).
138. marjoribanks - 6/28/2002 1:11:12 PM
iiibbb,
You will probably find much to agree with in this article from The Sierra's Club's magazine.
139. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 1:22:55 PM
The only thing that I don't agree with is that it appeals to our 'duty' to conserve as much as anything. While this works for some of us (either in-whole or in-part... because I'm not perfect by any stretch)
My viewpoint is that you need to appeal to people's greed. Everyone wants to better themselves. If you come up with systems that integrate conservation and production and make more money.
Then you're going to get somewhere.
140. betty - 6/28/2002 1:49:04 PM
ib,
as Leonard Cohen said I've been sentenced to twenty years of boredom for trying to change the system from within
what you describe in your 134 on is really a step toward deep ecology, or at least the way i understand it. Try to restate a more natural environment, minimize factory farming and increase "productivity". In Philly our friends and ivan and I went foraging in a small city park and found more than enough food to eat for a week...this wasn't a land specifically designed for that purpose and it wasn't in any way managed...but it was fruitful and diverse and it was an afternoon spent really understanding what we eat and how it all works.
It was an amazing experience.
I grew up in farm country and though there is a growing green awareness there, trying to get those small family farmers to switch to more efficient production is impossible. They wouldn't be competitive anymore...but they are already not competitive...are dieing in debt and the quality of the food, not to mention their profit is suffering. WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT TAKE TO ADAPT?
I'm annoyed by this as a green, as a consumer and as someone who grew up with these guys and doesn't want to see that land become more track housing or even worse, be bought by factory farmers. I want it to be family (or community) farmed and frankly I'd even hate for it to be taken over by nice lefty farmers with an ultra ethical way of doing everything...but that's mostly because I know that once the nice lefties come in very soon the yuppies follow. It takes a certain amount of yokelism to keep the pretty people out...I've made my piece with that.
141. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 2:18:10 PM
The factory farm model is a tough one to compete against because in the short term it can be so lucrative... but what seemed to screw the small farmers is that they were convinced/persuaded or otherwise tried to compete with factory farms.
I think factory farms potentially have their place (and perhaps regulatory laws are best applied to them because they are more formula driven).
Small farmers are better off by diversifying. Multiple crops, multiple practices. It may not be a lucrative, and is more sensitive to interest rates... but it is also less senitive to volatile markets. If you are doing 5 major practices, and the market sucks in 1 or 2 of them for a few years, you have the other or 4 to keep you in business.
142. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 2:23:51 PM
Your friends' experiment living off a park is pretty cool, but it wouldn't work if everyone were doing it...
...I think for new ideas to be effective they need to be demonstrated far more effectively.
On top of that it's got to be easily integrated into the way people already do things. One doesn't just up and change a whole paradigm. You work in things.
With agroforestry... generally the advice given to those who might try it is to work stuff in gradually. It takes way too much capital to adapt in the short term.
I guess that's the biggest problem is getting people to think in the long term. Foresters are more capable of this than most land managers because our resource is so long lived, and the investment is inherently long term.
Farmers work with perinials, and are definitely more apt to look at cash flow.
143. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 2:33:18 PM
re:Leonard Cohen said I've been sentenced to twenty years of boredom for trying to change the system from within.
This kind of change takes a *really* long time. I have no idea what kind of contribution I will make or how particularly satisfying it will be when all is said and done. It's taken about 40-70 years to get small farmers in this mess. It's going to take a while to get them out of it
One step would be to completely rethink farm subsidies... although the depth of my understanding of agricultural politics pretty much ends where agroforestry begins. I don't know a whole lot about traditional farming, or have much experience with traditional farmers.
Diversification and agroforestry principles certainly seems to be one way to improve things... but there has been almost no work with agroforestry in this country, so even though it would be a good model to work from... it would take much more proof about it's viability to get farmers who are already struggling to try something unproven.
144. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 2:50:16 PM
Well... I'm not a green either...
If this is the true 'left' no wonder it can't get anywhere. I feel I am a pretty reasonable guy, but I wouldn't support the majority of this platform...
145. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 3:57:18 PM
My viewpoint is that you need to appeal to people's greed. Everyone wants to better themselves. If you come up with systems that integrate conservation and production and make more money.
this statement reflects what i think is the line between the extreme left and everyone else: the extreme left finds "people's greed" to be the model that needs alteration. the idea of compromise through the incentive of more money is just as short term as anything else...it only leads to more greed. you can only sweep real problems under the rug for so long...eventually, greed needs to be drained (wars, corporate downsizing, taxation, etc.).
this is why the extreme left is usually shunned...it questions the nature of greed and capitalism and believes that humans are not inherently greedy, but that they can develop habits of greed just like they can develop habits of anything else. if you assume greed as "natural", then you can't help but try to change the system by using that motivator. the extreme left thinks that the motivation of greed is something to which we are trained by educational systems, governments, corporations, etc., who convince us that it is the only way people operate (because it benefits them more than us).
and we accept that greed is a de facto instinct, but the extreme left thinks we are brainwashed into it. i'm oversimplifying the position, but it's just the perspective...i don't claim to speak for the extreme left.
146. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 3:59:58 PM
you've probably seen this site already, but it's a good example of the gamut of left perspectives...especially the extreme and radical left.
Indy Media
147. Wombat - 6/28/2002 4:04:00 PM
Don't call it greed, call it "enlightened self-interest."
148. betty - 6/28/2002 4:07:36 PM
call it what ever you want, hippy girls still won't fuck you if yer down with it ;-)
149. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 4:28:17 PM
Greed is perhaps a strong term...
I think greed, or self interest, or competative self-interest or whatever you want to call it is an absolute natural attribute of human beings or any living being.
It's rare to find anyone who isn't acting with some self interest. A legitimate approach is to promoting alternatives that appeal just as much or more to peoples' self interest.
A good title for a book... Save the planet, and make moeny doing it.
and I'd be willing to bet there are even guys out there who don't eat meat more because they want to fuck hippy chicks than any other reason.
150. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 4:29:56 PM
iiibbb:
that's why i first became a vegetarian 10 years ago...i was dating this chick and she didn't date non-vegetarians. so i became a vegetarian. quickly, i learned to like being a vegetarian and to despise my now ex-girlfriend.
151. betty - 6/28/2002 4:31:20 PM
ib,
I have a strict policy of not sucking cock unless it belongs to a vegetarian...they just taste better.
152. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 4:31:43 PM
she must have found out you were greedy :)
153. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 4:34:41 PM
where did you do the taste test?
154. betty - 6/28/2002 4:38:32 PM
ib,
it was a controlled experiment, I assure you.
155. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 4:39:43 PM
I more or less will eat anything. I like vegetarian cooking though.
It always amuses me the way some of my meat-centric friends cringe at vegetarian meals as much as a vegetarian cringes at a hamburger.
I wish I weren't so busy these days... I get very lazy about what I eat. Before I came back to school I pretty much was avoiding fast food and was adopting a more vegecentric eating habits.
I'll never dump meat althogether though. Tastes too good.
156. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 4:40:40 PM
I don't know what I'd do without sushi too.
157. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 4:41:45 PM
so you're into control eh?
158. betty - 6/28/2002 4:42:09 PM
it always amazes me when people say that about meat...I've never known anyone to cook meat without some kind of marinade or sauce or even just some onions...but to each their own.
159. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 4:44:30 PM
yes, betty's a great scientist...she's like the stephen hawking of fucking. she has forumlated the string theory of oral sex in both light AND wave form ;)
160. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 4:52:15 PM
Ever just crave? something?
Animal protein and vegetable protein are just different.
161. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 5:12:07 PM
What is the real story behind agricultural Cooperatives and watermelons?
162. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:21:21 PM
Re. 125 -
Of course there is a strong, vibrant Lefty contingent in America. Some of their wit and wisdom is included in the excerpts below. (Franky, a lot of it is pretty bizarre, scary stuff):
"We already have too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure."
-Paul Elrich, Stanford University biologist and Advisor to Vice President Albert Gore
"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism."
[Judi Barri of Earth First? quoted by Walter Williams, cloumnists with Heritage Features][Syndicate, State Journal Register, June 25, 1992]
"The immediate source of ecological crisis is capitalism."
"Capitalism is a cancer in the biosphere."
"I believe the color of radicalism today is not red, but green."
[Steve Chase,ed., Defending the Earth: A Dialogue Between Murray Bookchin and Dave Foreman] (Boston South End Press, 1991, p 57-59)
"The northern spotted owl is the wildlife species of choice to act as a surrogate for old-growth forest protection," explained Andy Stahl, staff forester for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, at a 1988 law clinic for other environmentalists. "Thank goodness the spotted owl evolved in the Pacific Northwest," he joked, "for if it hadn't, we'd have to genetically engineer it."
-Andy Stahl at a 1988 law clinic for environmentalists, staff forester, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
163. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:21:57 PM
"Now, in a widening sphere of decisions, the costs of error are so exorbitant that we need to act on theory alone, which is to say on prediction alone. It follows that the reputation of scientific prediction needs to be enhanced. But that can happen, paradoxically, only if scientists disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist on. Above all, we need to learn to act decisively to forestall predicted perils, even while knowing that they may never materialize. We must take action, in a manner of speaking, to preserve our ignorance. There are perils that we can be certain of avoiding only at the cost of never knowing with certainty that they were real."
-Jonathan Shell, author of Our Fragile Earth
"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
-Richard Benedict, an employee for the State Department working on assignment for the Conservation Foundation
"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
-Stephen Schneider, proponent of the theory that CFCs are depleting the ozone
"The Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club regional reps were at the Northeast Earth First Rendevouz last year. We all work very well together. Dale Turner, who is the assistant editor of the Earth First Journal, was conservation chair of the Sierra Club in Arizona at the same time. I'm a member of the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society and the Nature Conservancy."
-Dave Foreman, Earth First? Founder, in an interview in E Magazine Sept/Oct 93
Update: Dave Foreman was recently elected to the Sierra Club Board of Directors
164. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:22:23 PM
"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
-David Brower, Friends of the Earth
"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state."
-Keith Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."
-Earth First! newsletter
"I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
-Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd
"The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles."
-Thomas Lovejoy, tropical biologist and assistant secretary of the Smithsonian Institution
"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
Dave Forman, founder of Earth First, and presently a member of the Board of Directors for the Sierra Club
165. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:22:33 PM
Ideological Ties to other Movements
In the 1930s the ecologists "Green Revolution" reached full flower in Germany...In the political sphere, ecologists lobbied successfully, for antivivisection laws,..implementation of organic farming,..and the redistribution of large land holdings to the German peasants (Back-to- the-Land movement)...These laws became the policies of a political party that incorporated a major portion of the ecologists political agenda. This party also believed in the "Blood and Soil" ethic, and was known as the National Socialist Party. Its leader was Adolf Hitler.
-M.Gemmell & J.Lehr
166. stostosto - 6/28/2002 5:26:27 PM
conc:
why don't you ever give the source for such copy-pastes? Just curious.
167. stostosto - 6/28/2002 5:27:08 PM
untag.
168. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:27:48 PM
concerned:
if i were to fill the next 20 posts with equivalently stupid things said by the right, and also finding the more obvious parallels with nazis, i suppose i would be saying just as little about their perspectives as you are about the left.
large corporations have a lot more connections with nazism. i mean, it wasn't the environmentalists who sponsored companies like I.G. Farben. i do recall that many american "captains of industry" were very cozy to hitler and crew, however.
169. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:28:01 PM
Today I had a vegetarian lunch. Yesterday, I had two burgers. So, what?
170. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:32:42 PM
Re. 168 -
Did you note that several of these people are (or were) in high profile positions and that they are talking about their professional policies and goals here?
Planning the extinction of the human race or the end of capitalism is a bit beyond anything I've heard any right winger propose.
171. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:33:09 PM
oops. sorry about html booboo above.
172. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:34:31 PM
conc:
why don't you ever give the source for such copy-pastes? Just curious.
But I have. Each and every cite I gave above includes a specific source.
173. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 5:35:55 PM
I actually like the Nature Conservancy. From my dealings with them, and from the things I have gotten in the mail from them... they are relatively straight shooters. Basically, if they want something done, ore want to protect some piece of land... they buy it, and they do it with pretty low overhead. They are also reasonably cosignant of the idea that people will manage land.
In fact a swamp preserve they own down in Charleston, SC is partially supported by pine plantations they mananage in the same watershed.
174. stostosto - 6/28/2002 5:36:13 PM
But from where did you copy-paste them?
175. stostosto - 6/28/2002 5:37:09 PM
#174 was to co'd's #172.
176. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:39:34 PM
perhaps there is another reflection of the spectrum...the degree of homocentrism that is present. for instance, the extreme left sees humans as being a cancer or virus on the planet. the extreme right sees humans as the pinnacle of god's creations and by right the most important.
it is easy to see why people fear the extreme left ideas on humans' place in the world...such a perspective would mean that we fucked up. and nobody wants to hear that. much easier to say, 'oh well...we're here. get used to it.' and go about bashing the planet in the process.
in the meantime, thanks to the right, the ability to actually diminish the human presence on the planet is only a button away.
177. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:40:22 PM
I don't think it really makes any difference, in the final analysis, from where I got them. These people said what they said for reasons that they must have felt were sufficiently good, and it is to be presumed that they are responsible for their statements.
I will say that the site I got these quotes is not politically oriented, nor is it affiliated with hunting.
178. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:40:42 PM
...I got these quotes from....
179. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:41:06 PM
you may have never heard a right winger say they are for the destruction of humanity, but you've never seen a lefty build a nuclear warhead either.
180. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 5:41:55 PM
The Merry Minuet
They're rioting in Africa
They're starving in Spain
There's hurricanes in Florida
And Texas needs rain
the Whole world is festering iwht unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch
And I don't like Anybody very much.
But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud
For man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lucky day
Someone will set the spark off and we will all be blown away
They're rioting in Africa
There's strife in Iran
What nature doesn't do to us
Will be done by our fellow Man
-- Sheldon Harnick @1958
181. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:42:29 PM
Re. 179 -
That's probably because I haven't lived in the Soviet Union or China.
182. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:46:38 PM
by bringing up extreme sentences expressed by a few on the left, the right makes it easy to dismiss any criticism of itself. the anti-war effort in the 60s was used as a tool by the right..."see? look at that dirty, strung out, lazy hippy! they think we should be commies too!" and there you have it. mr. and mrs. USA-all-the-way will never pay any attention to ANY anti-war information now. it's very easy to close people's minds through clever propaganda.
if a clear-thinking person said...hmmm...this system (the right...y'know, the dominant mob) seems wrong. what's the opposition saying?
instead of them seeing the work of howard zinn or chomsky, they'd be shown the sentence from the earth first newsletter. instead of reading the books, they'd take the soundbyte and leave it at that.
183. stostosto - 6/28/2002 5:46:53 PM
From Pseuder's quote in Message # 131:
"America's troubled race relations are clearly a major reason for the absence of an American welfare state. "
Is this commonly accepted? If not, why hasn't anyone commented (other than marj)?
I too believe the rapid influx of immigrant during American industrialisation made it difficult for labour and socialist political groups to orchestrate a mass appeal. Furthermore, I think there's one more factor at work, namely "The American Dream". The idea that anyone can get rich, therefore anyone identifies with rich people when it comes to redistributive matters, much more than what is the case in any other society on earth.
184. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:47:59 PM
soviet union or china...not leftie. they are non-capitalist, but not the left. why do americans insist that anything that is not capitalistic is the left? they are stat
ists...just like america.
185. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:48:20 PM
statists, that is.
186. stostosto - 6/28/2002 5:48:46 PM
#177:
Why so secretive?
187. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:49:26 PM
The excerpts I gave weren't intended to show that the Left is necessarily more nihilistic than the right, but to the extent that this appears to be the context in which some of the more radical environmentalists describe their larger objectives, it doesn't surprise me that many people tend to be repelled by them.
188. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 5:52:51 PM
idea that anyone can get rich, therefore anyone identifies with rich people when it comes to redistributive matters, much more than what is the case in any other society on earth.
What's the point of working hard if they're just going to take it away?
189. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:52:54 PM
Re. 186 -
I was hoping to draw out some indiscreet statements, perhaps?
Okay, okay. They came from the off-road.com website.
190. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:54:43 PM
concerned:
i agree with you there. i consider myself radical left and i think that there are truths to some of the extreme left's position, it is also far too "dystopian" (they'd say it's utopian) for my taste. no fun there. i think if there were a much more "left-oriented" society, we'd come closer to an alignment with nature and thus, the extreme left's position wouldn't be necessary. i think co-existence is possible. i don't think it can be left in the hands of corporations.
191. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:54:58 PM
Now, nobody try to sell me that offroaders are all dastardly RWingers, please.
192. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 5:57:33 PM
Concerned can trot out as many quotes from the political fringe in the USA (as compiled by the Heritage Foundation, I'm guessing), but nothing changes the fact that there is no electoral Left in Yankistan in any meaningful sense.
The poles of the political spectrum in the mainstream politics of the USA can be expressed in percentages of federal expenditure in GDP. At one end the right wants about 15% while at the other end the centre-right wants about 20-25%.
193. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:57:46 PM
iiibbb:
but they DO take it away! whether it's through unfair taxation of our own labor (used to finance wars we don't all want), or through the expenses of our immediate needs (food, shelter, etc..). capitalism couldn't survive if there weren't poor people. shit, when certain conditions arise, the market favors MORE unemployment. it, in fact, NEEDS unemployment. the technological revolution has found us working even MORE hours (thus, taking away our time too). i'd rather them take it away and redistribute it, then to take it away and throw most of it to corporate welfare or military surplus.
194. concerned - 6/28/2002 6:00:51 PM
i think co-existence is possible. i don't think it can be left in the hands of corporations.
I agree with this, 'to a fault', as they say. Governmental and NGO oversight of corporate effects on the environment are necessary. I don't necessarily belief that maintaining a ever-constant drumbeat of opposition oriented activism or subsuming that agenda to an ideological one necessarily works out very well in the medium to long term.
195. concerned - 6/28/2002 6:02:23 PM
Concerned can trot out as many quotes from the political fringe in the USA (as compiled by the Heritage Foundation, I'm guessing)
Hahahahaha!
196. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 6:05:32 PM
Not just talking about the well to do Ivan... the mega rich.
The thing that all of these dreamers (from the small business owner to the ultra rich) have in common is not education... it's the hours they put in. I read they put in ungodly hours... way more than most people are willing to.
So if you have a dream to make a business take off... what's the point if they're going to take a huge chunk of it? Then you have fewer businesses starting because it's not worth the effort.
It's like working for the government (which I have) where it isn't really effort and productivity that's rewarded.
197. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 6:08:25 PM
Or my friends that have worked alongside unions... where they're actually confronted if they were too productive (making everyone look bad).
198. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 6:10:00 PM
One place I worked it was verbotin for white collar workers and lab workers to do things like change a lightbulb. You were taking work away from the union guys. So you call them to do it, and they fuck around for half an hour and charge your project $50 for something that should take 30 seconds.
199. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 6:14:50 PM
Property rights are a very useful and convenient social fiction, a prerequisite in some form to economic prosperity. But I don't understand why property rights are deified in some circles (viz. libertarians and some right-wingers).
If the capital share of output is 40% because there are many workers competing for few jobs (and thus wages can be bid down), rather than 20% because the labour market is tight, what then is so sacrosanct about the way the market has distributed income? Ethically that distribution is arbitrary, based as it is on whether the labour market is tight or loose. So it's hard to say the capitalist "earned" that difference between 20% and 40%.
200. stostosto - 6/28/2002 6:22:20 PM
Deification of property rights is conducive to their instrumentality.
201. stostosto - 6/28/2002 6:26:59 PM
c'd:
off-roader.com? An unorthodox source for ideological analysis. Thanks for giving it.
202. stostosto - 6/28/2002 6:49:45 PM
The poles of the political spectrum in the mainstream politics of the USA can be expressed in percentages of federal expenditure in GDP. At one end the right wants about 15% while at the other end the centre-right wants about 20-25%.
Which is why c'd's claim to be a political centrist, while still a mindbogglingly implausible affectation, is actually less so in an American context.
203. JJBiener - 6/28/2002 6:53:52 PM
PE - But I don't understand why property rights are deified in some circles (viz. libertarians and some right-wingers).
Then you haven't been paying attention for the last six years. It has been explained to you numerous times.
204. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 7:04:53 PM
Message # 203: Yes, but those explanations were stupid. Libertarianism is an incoherent nonsensical pseudo-philosophy.
Message # 202: Concerned supposes himself a "centrist" because his views on abortion are more "left" than "right. He doesn't realise that abortion is a trivial, parochial issue compared with the grand questions of economic & social ideology on which the labels "right" and "left" acquire their meanings.
Message # 200: Deification of property rights also makes a certain segment of the rabble absurdly doctrinaire about economic policy. How can you separate this deification from the excessively laisser-faire attitude found in Yankistan?
205. stostosto - 6/28/2002 7:10:07 PM
Pelle asked about ideological fault lines upthread. If we're talking electoral politics, I think we are actually observing shifting fault lines in Europe. Analysts speak of "old" politics and "new" politics. The "old" issues were those of economic redistribution. Government versus market, labour versus capital, left versus right. Who-pays-how-much-for-what-politics.
The "new" issues are things like the environment, gene technolocy, food safety, animal rights, the EU - and, I would add, foreigners. On these issues (plus a few social ones like crime or abortion), the fault lines cut down through established left- and right categories.
The most potent shift inducing force of late, obviously, has been the issue of foreigners, that is, immigrants. But you will notice that harsh opposition to immigration which is usually lumped together by such terms as "right wing populism", is actually advocated by parties that have greatly diverging programmes on other issues. Le Pen in France is close to a classic authoritarian if not fascist. Jörg Haider in Austria, Carl I. Hagen in Norway and (the late) Pim Fortuyn in Holland are (were) champions of economically liberal (in the Euro sense of that term) platforms. In Denmark, the Danish People's Party is best described as Social Democrat plus xenophobia.
It seems in parliamentary democracies with proportional representation, ideology perceived as a coherent package of policies is on its is way out and is replaced by competing a la carte offerings.
In Britain, I would say Blair has co-opted many Tory policies and views in order to secure the middle ground. Clinton actually pioneered that approach in the US.
206. stostosto - 6/28/2002 7:20:12 PM
How can you separate this deification from the excessively laisser-faire attitude found in Yankistan?
Well, I think they're one and the same, and I agree with your point. By my comment in #200, I really aimed at the legal protection of property rights, effectively enforced by police and courts, something which I agree doesn't require deification. But a strong social consensus as to their inviolability is certainly conducive to their credibility, hence economic usefullness.
207. betty - 6/29/2002 8:49:38 PM
sto,
your "new Politics" sounds to me very like what goes on in the US...isue politics. It's why Gore could get on TV and imply that votes for Nader would deny women their right to reproductive control. It was really offensive and much worse when I would get chastized by other hard lefties for "ignoring this vital issue". but then Nader was the only candidate saying he'd re-instate federal funding for poor women's abortions...but we'll over look that and vote Gore because Bush is one of the Four Horseman of the Apocolypse doncha know.
(I have a little bitterness about that election, pardon me for shitting all over the floor)
Anyway, my point was supposed to be that issue politics is very, very bad for people in this country and that's why you get political schizophrenia here...but you know, I'm sure somebody else will say it better and more clearly.
I'll go back to the wading pool.
208. iiibbb - 6/30/2002 10:47:37 AM
My rather unpopular idea to help the poor is a flat percent tax with a reverse income tax for the poor. Determine the poverty level (make it whatever you want for individuals, married couples, or families)...
Everyone adult above the poverty level gets taxed a flat percentage rate with maybe a few deductions here and there for kids or otherwise. Incomes that are slightly above the poverty level have the percent rate is phased in gradually.
If you are below the poverty level you get enough money to bring you up to it as long as you are working a full-time job receiving minimum wage (set at a level that is workable for small business owners).
Then you are responsbile for doing with that money whatever is required for your personal circumstances... you want to spend it on an abortion... fine... you want to spend it on a mercedes... fine.
But it's all you're going to get and you should show a little fiscal responsibility.
209. Rama - 7/1/2002 9:32:05 AM
Then you are responsbile for doing with that money whatever is required for your personal circumstances... you want to spend it on an abortion... fine... you want to spend it on a mercedes... fine.
I believe you are making the common mistake of treating the symptom rather than the cause. In a country as rich as the US, the vast majority of people who live in poverty do not do so because they can not get enough money to live a middle class life-style. They do so because of bad luck, bad planning or both. Of course, giving them more money will help them, but it also harms other people (those we take the money away from, and those who begin to make bad decisions because of the temptation of being taken care of by the state), so we need to be sure that it provides more help than harm. I think it makes better social sense to mitigae bad luck and help people make better decisions.
210. Rama - 7/1/2002 9:38:04 AM
On a more strictly ideological topic:
It occurs to me that, in America, liberals privilege kindness and justice, while conservatives privilege liberty and security. However, there are inherent conflicts between kindness (or mercy) and justice. And there are inherent conflicts between liberty and security (or safety). So liberals and conservatives not only disagree about which human goods to emphasize, but they both spend a good deal of time pointing out the internal inconsistencies the other side is trying to ignore.
211. bubbaette - 7/1/2002 9:40:00 AM
Working a full time job at minimum wage in this country will not bring you above the poverty line. In some areas of the nation, what full-time jobs are available pay the minimum wage (or slightly above) and offer few opportunities for advancement and few or no benefits. Of course it's always comforting for the comfortable to blame the impoverished for their poverty -- it means that there is no obligation to try to improve their plight.
Many of those who are impoverished are not in or suitable for the workforce -- those of advanced age who worked their entire lives in the types of jobs offering low pay and no benefits -- the mentally and physically disabled -- those who were born into impoverished areas of the country without the resources to moved. But don't trouble your head about them -- it's their own fault.
212. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 9:52:19 AM
Message # 209
I think there should be assistance given in helping people make good decisions... but I am half playing with the left's concept of how to redistribute income (based on the green party platform). The GP says it wants to guarantee everyone a job, and guarantee everyone a minimum wage that one can raise a family on.
Guaranteeing everyone a job... I'm not sure if that means we all become street sweepers or we reinstate the Civilian Conservation Corps. We all know that many small businesses balk at raising minimum wage to what the left proposes.
My idea is a redistribution idea that lets people pick a jobs, minimum wage can be set for people that are dependents, and if they support a family then they get reversed taxed.
You can still provide assistance to the poor through government programs... either abortion clinics... health clinics... gov't prescription drug programs... whatever...
but it forces everyone to operate under the context of cash being exchanged.
I find that a lot of problems with government programs is the concept of the 'free lunch'. People demand services because they're an 'entitlement'.
There is no 'free lunch'. The more our welfare system mimics real life the better it is for everyone.
213. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 10:01:41 AM
In a country as rich as the US, the vast majority of people who live in poverty do not do so because they can not get enough money to live a middle class life-style. They do so because of bad luck, bad planning or both.
to quote rama: "Wrong."
214. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 10:02:08 AM
bubbaette... I am not blaming impoverishment on the impoverished....
The reverse tax them to bring them up to a standard of living, but the minimum wage has to be set so that the businesses that employ them can survive.
My idea helps both sides. You set the minimum wage so that the small businesses can survive as well as employ dependents (who don't need a minimum standard of living).
You use the reverse tax to bring any adult or anyone supporting a family up to a minimum standard of living above and beyond the minimum wage. The only requirement being that the work full time (which you can set for 30 or more hours or whatever).
You can set those levels wherever you want. I am just talking about a system.
Government services can be also be provided, but people pay for them. That puts pressure on the government service to operate in a fiscally responsible manner too.
215. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 10:11:11 AM
perhaps one "tenet" of the radical left is that there is a major difference between growth-motivating profits and greed. that dividing line is where we split off from the more moderate left and the center. for the radical and extreme lefts, most of what constitutes wealth is greed, not growth-motivating-profits (GMP), both for corporate entities or the pirates that run them...nor are they "rewards" for a job well-done.
by accepting that it's admirable for any human to make 50 million dollars a year (i don't care if they have 20 children with expensive medical conditions, there is no need for a human to make that much), you prevent the creation of a rational income system or rational profit system.
the amount of money that goes to corporate welfare, which doesn't actually improve the lot of most americans, is grossly unfair...but what can we expect when our politicians and lawmakers are the very same pirates they support or are fellating the other pirates so they all benefit from their own greed.
216. bubbaette - 7/1/2002 10:11:16 AM
iiibbb
My response was to Rama. I don't know if you recall this, but back in the late 60's or early 70's, Nixon proposed a national standard of living/income floor. Imagine a republican president doing the same today!
Personally, I like the notion that if people abide by the social contract -- work, pay taxes, raise their families, abide by the laws -- then there should be a minimum standard which would not include chosing between heat and groceries, or between college (for those who demonstrate an ability to benefit) and health care.
217. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 10:56:29 AM
I was 3 or 4.
I don't think people have a 'right' to college. You can do plenty in life without a college degree. College is over-rated (or the students coming out of it are) in terms of how well prepared you are to perform a job... many jobs don't require that college degree to perform.
Even in my own experience I shouldn't have gone to college right after high school. I wasn't ready mature enough to appreciate it. If I'd worked first, I think I would have gone to college a lot hungrier.
218. bubbaette - 7/1/2002 11:03:27 AM
I worked first and that experience demonstrated that I had to go to college. Mom and dad weren't able to help much, so mostly I got through on student loans and jobs.
But I think that I still had an advantage that many don't -- I was raised in a household that valued education and was expected to go to college. Many of those who are in multi-generational poverty don't have those benefits.
Actually, I think that there are sufficient resources out there for those who want to further their education for them to be able to do so. I think the main obstacle for those who have the ability to succeed in higher education but no money is that they don't see themselves as the kind of person who goes to college.
This also applies to post-secondary vocational education, be it trade school or an associate's degree.
219. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 11:16:01 AM
If you are in any kind of applied field and you can't find someone to pay for you at least in part... you are either being to restrictive or you're not trying hard enough.
I didn't have stellar grades, but I've gotten a lot of money for education... it's has something to do with luck... but luck improves if you are also driven.
220. PelleNilsson - 7/1/2002 1:07:49 PM
iiibbb
Why should businesses that cannot afford to pay a decent salary be allowed to survive?
Isn't your proposal of a "reverse tax" in fact a massive transfer of income from one cohort of workers to another and a de facto subsidy of the businesses in question?
221. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 1:13:01 PM
Small businesses are hampered by the overhead associated with being small. Unlike large corporations they don't get worker's health insurance as a group plan. They don't have the benefit of a large infrastructure.
They also just do things that may not be worth much but still need to get done. Take any number of jobs a HS student off for the summer might take. Mowing lawns, trimming bushes.
People seem to have me pegged as someone diametrically opposed to the redistribution of income.
222. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 1:17:35 PM
Isn't your proposal of a "reverse tax" in fact a massive transfer of income from one cohort of workers to another and a de facto subsidy of the businesses in question?
Taxes funding government run programs are already a massive transfer... but with more overhead.
In addressing my proposal, you really can't use the words 'massive transfer' because I've not said anything about what the minimum wage should be, what to set the poverty level at, and what percentage rate people will be taxed.
I haven't said a thing about magnitude. This is the basic structure I personally would prefer. It seems to me it is somewhere between the left and right's ideology about taxation.
223. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 1:19:00 PM
Why should businesses that cannot afford to pay a decent salary be allowed to survive?
Tell that to small farmers.
Bigger is better when it comes to minimizing costs.
224. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 1:27:03 PM
It is also in the public interest for small, locally owned businesses to do well. Otherwise everyone winds up working for Wal-Mart...
Which are the dead end jobs we don't people to get stuck in. Fight big business.... right?
225. PelleNilsson - 7/1/2002 1:42:43 PM
iiib
We are not talking about students mowing lawns or small farmers. We are talking about low-salary sectors of the economy such as the textile industry, poultry processing plants and so on. It seems to me that rising the minimum salary to a decent level would be much more effective, and more cost-effective, than a reverse tax scheme which will ineviatbly require a bureaucratic apparatus for its implementation. I'm surprised to see you argue for bigger government
226. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 1:54:53 PM
YouWe are not talking about
You are trying to commendeer the line of thought I started... needless to say all low income people are who I was talking about.
I think my scheme would hardly require any extra government... if not less.
As far as the various low-salary jobs... if you supplement one, you supplement them all. You are fixated on certain low-income jobs in manufacturing. I am concerned about all low-income jobs... no matter the size of the business or how limited it's market.
Low-income manufacturing jobs are always going to be low-income manufacturing jobs.
... and as I said when I stated my proposal... no one likes my idea... even though I think it has merit.
227. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 2:07:08 PM
Let's say we raised the minimum wage in poultry processing plants. The PPP either raises it's prices to stay in the black, or it goes out of business... somemay stay in business because the reduced competition has increased their market share, but they can't keep up with demand so their prices go up.
If you raise wages... someone is going to take the hit... usually consumers. It seems to negate the benefit of increasing wages... at least for those who still have jobs.
Any government policy which sets wages, prices, or whatever economic factor you wish will result in some kind of 'massive transfer' of $$ from one place to another.
Mine seems the most above board... it calls a payout to the lower-income exactly what it is.
228. betty - 7/1/2002 2:12:09 PM
iiibbb,
it would seem to me that all employers would drop wages as much as they could under your system because they know that the government will pay their employee's wages for them. what's going to keep businesses from trying to maximize profits this way?
229. PelleNilsson - 7/1/2002 2:12:18 PM
iiibbb
No, I'm not "fixated on certain low-income jobs in manufacturing". That's a charicature of my argument that it is more effective and simpler to raise the minimum wage than to introduce a reverse tax
I guess we may safely conclude that your Ph.D. studies do not include economics.
230. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 2:17:13 PM
If you raise wages... someone is going to take the hit... usually consumers.
this happens because of greed...not because of mathematical function. there is no need to let consumers take the hit. superlative incomes and bonuses, a system created by the top execs anyway, are not questioned...but they should be. when you make the greedy determine what happens to consumers, you get things like the california energy "crisis" and other enron-like scenarios.
the CEO of the company i used to work for had a 30 million dollar bonus in one year. that's just bonus. and yet, because it was a pharmaceutical company, when problems arose "consumers" always got fucked. because we assume that such exorbitant income is by default right and good and perfectly acceptable, then we also accept that the brunt of economic change "naturally" has to fall on the consumers.
231. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 2:17:45 PM
no they do not...
...and I don't mind reaching for things I don't totally grasp.
The true mark of an expert of course is whether they are capable of communicating principles at a lower level rather than be an arrogant ass about it.
Good afternoon.
232. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 2:18:31 PM
231 addresses 229
233. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 2:19:43 PM
pellenilsson asked a few days ago about the fault line among ideologies. one that comes up, in my mind, is the sheepish acceptance that corporate execs (and sports stars, etc.) somehow deserve to make more money than many local school systems.
234. PelleNilsson - 7/1/2002 2:21:11 PM
I'm primarily a telecommunications man myself.
235. betty - 7/1/2002 2:22:02 PM
ib,
if you raise minimum wage and tie it with a proper proportion between top execs and lowest paid employees, consumer prices will not increase. So now company execs can't make 3,000 times (yes that's a real figure) what their lowest paid full-time employees do, they can only make 100 times. Still an obscene amount of money (In the US some one making 100 times the minimum wage is bringing in 1.3 million dollars), but the business is burning fat in the right place.
236. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 2:24:23 PM
I agree Ivan... I have no idea how to reign in CEO's gone wild...
One side of me wants someone who has an idea that the world wants, suffers obnoxious hours and years of relative low income to build that business up... they should be rewarded. Without the carrot, there may not be an inspiration to innovate.
But then somewhere along the line something happens and you get Microsoft, Enrons, and pharmaceutical companies.
How to fix that yet still inspire innovators?
237. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 3:15:59 PM
ibx3:
i think one major obstacle is that there is virtually no representation of, or influence by, the poor and working class in just about any sector of the "system"...despite the fact that they are a majority.
in academia, in the US at least, fewer than 10% of academics are from poor or working class backgrounds (and that's an optimistic number). among politicians, this may be even less. among corporate execs, perhaps even fewer.
so, ultimately, the largest portion of the country is completely under-represented and has virtually no say in anything. voting does not express the will of the people, it expresses their dissatisfaction with the dearth of choice and representation.
so i guess that nothing will be fixed because the people called in to repair the damages are the same as the people who cause them.
238. bubbaette - 7/1/2002 3:29:17 PM
From my experience working on the lower end of the socio-economic scale, the poor and working poor are not mainly proto-communists yearning to breathe free and escape the yoke of the man. Instead, they tend to resent others who are also poor -- for example those drawing welfare. They don't resent the system, they resent the boss and are easily divided and conquered.
239. betty - 7/1/2002 3:40:58 PM
bubba,
it's always been ironic to me that the people most likely to need some form of public assistance in their immediate future frequently voice disgust for those drawin'. But it's a way of gaining legitimacy and of elevating themselves above the "real poor". there was a time when the rich were resented and hated for being what they are lazy assholes who steal from the labor of others...poor people had it much better then, but now we just smile while they butter up our assholes sure we won't be the next to be raped. Inevitably we are.
240. bubbaette - 7/1/2002 3:43:11 PM
Yeah -- I would have figured there would be more of a "there, but for the grace of god, go I." Now I think it's more akin to whistling past the graveyard.
241. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 3:49:18 PM
the poor and working poor are not mainly proto-communists yearning to breathe free and escape the yoke of the man.
i agree. but i think that part of this situation lies in the fact that, at least in the US, we see the world as either capitalist or communist/socialist. anything else is inconceivable. i think that if alternatives were promoted with equal vigor (which they wouldn't...things like sustainable economies, barter, etc., don't put money into big corporations) they still wouldn't wanna be communists, but they might not be so inclined to be corporate capitalists either.
part of the trick is that the upper classes convince the middle class that the lower class is screwing them. the middle class, which aspires to be upper class, are more likely to complain about those lower classes ge