Jedi Council Forums - The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?)

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Previous | ~~Next~~ | Reload

Author	Topic: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?)
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 6/27/07 3:25pm Subject: RE: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?)
	DeathStar1977 posted: For starters, you seem to vehemently defend the Bush administration (and Republicans in general) whereas he seems to enjoy trashing everyone here in America. Well, considering that I didn't register here until 2001, you've never seen me when there was a Democratic administration. You could ask my brother (if he's still posting any) about my attitudes back during the Clinton administration. I actually defended them, too. There is a big tendency to demonize the other side, and I try very hard to get people to back everything up. I don't think that the Bush administration is as bad as people have claimed, in part because a lot of them are looking for ways to be offended. When they make accusations, I try to get them to both back them up and see the other side. Again, if you ask my brother, I did the same during the Clinton administration. If someone says that someone else broke the law, I want them to tell me what law and show evidence that they actually broke the law. I expect people to look at more than one side of the argument and not treat one side as the whole truth. Just because one side says that (for example) the NSA wiretapping was illegal doesn't make it so. The arguments on both sides have to be looked at, and ultimately it comes down to review by the Supreme Court. Until then, treating it as a fact that it is illegal isn't accurate. One of my favorite hymns is entitled "School Thy Feelings", and as part of it it says: School thy feelings; condemnation Never pass on friend or foe, Though the tide of accusation Like a flood of truth may flow. Hear defense before deciding, And a ray of light may gleam, Showing thee what filth is hiding Underneath the shallow stream. I try to apply that to everything when people are throwing accusations around. DeathStar1977 posted: In all seriousness, I don't consider you an idealogue (far from it...there is a big difference between firmly advocating ideas and opinions and being an idealogue), but based on my observations your POV tends to be far more in line as to what is considered conservative here in the U.S. The key is, as I stated before, for people to remember that such labels are at best a starting point, and there is whole spectrum of political viewpoints that are outside the linear left-right paradigm. Again, you haven't seen me during a Democratic administration. Part of the problem is that I don't fit on the left/right spectrum, and yet too many people keep trying to fit me on there. I try to apply a slow and deliberate approach to any political problem, and my first goal is to identify the root caises, and then try to identify what needs to be done to address those. I really hate it when people "shoot from the hip", especially when such things can have long-reaching ramifications. In that respect, I am very conservative (in the dictionary definition, not the political one). Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ophelia Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 6/27/07 3:53pm Subject: RE: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?)
	I like E_S's term "broadleft," which frees a collection of semi-related political ideologies from the platforms of any particular political party. The main business of political parties is winning elections--in much the same way that it's your and my business to stay alive. If there's a choice to be made between ideology and an election win, a political party must chase the win all the time--or cease to be a political party. Actually, just "cease to be," period. Even so, I find it interesting that at different points in this thread, "the Left" has been described as being hijacked by far-leftist extremists, as crawling toward the Right with its tail between its legs, and as having no coherent philosophy whatsoever. Actually, these statements aren't mutually exclusive if you look solely at the uncomfortable place where ideology meets gritty election-mongering. How many Left-leaning voters truly, in their heart of hearts, hold nothing but two-inches-left-of-center beliefs as their deepest convictions? Probably none. If they've done any serious thinking about politics at all, they probably have a scatterplot of beliefs that fall both left and right of center. However, for the sake of argument, let's imagine that most Leftists who are savvy in the political realm have some utopian dreams that lie to the far left, but are willing to settle for perhaps 20% of what they want, in order to make themselves electable. The opposite number of these political insiders are the idealists, who can't live with themselves if they settle for 20%, and instead insist on supporting a number of "fringe" causes that will not find support among a majority of the voting public. In such a scenario, all have some far-left dreams, and some have all far-left dreams. There would actually be a continuum between the two apparently disparate camps, but the bald reality that nobody wins without the swing voters would draw the election-focused faction centerward. This would cause an unnaturally wide-seeming break between the "moderates" and the "fringe." It would appear as if there were somehow two species of liberal, and that any party attempting to hold onto the full continuum was "hopelessly divided" against itself. In America, at least, the Democratic Party has taken on the role of the party of diversity, and so some of the criticisms about splintering are probably justified. However, I see no particular reason why this complaint ought to hold in nations that have not had the civil rights and immigration controversies that we've had. Recall also that the Right has had its "big tent" troubles too--the religious conservatives on one flank, the economic conservatives on the other, and the people who don't actually like the Right, but just find it slightly more tolerable than the Left, sort of hiding in the back. That said, the "broadleft"--a wide spectrum of belief systems that happen to fall at least somewhat left of center--does have a recognizable character. In the U.S. at least, it has not changed much since the Civil Rights era, and a list of its priorities would sound dreadfully commonplace and dull: a comparatively interventionist government in economic and civil rights affairs, but a more laissez-faire attitude toward what could be loosely called "lifestyle choices." That's it. Nothing seems to have changed much around here since the 1960's, so if the American Left has been "left behind," it was longer ago than "these days"--or at least the idea of "these days" that most of us < 35 y.o.'s have. (Can't speak so much of Leftist politics in other countries--it's hard to speak of liberalism in America without talking about civil rights, and those don't have the same meaning without a long history of slavery.) -----signature----- "Once upon a time, again." --Onoto, NaNoWriMo entry
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DeathStar1977 Registered: Jan '03	Date Posted: 6/27/07 4:22pm Subject: RE: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?)
	KK I think a lot of people take the 'learned' approach that you describe, but no matter who you are, it is very difficult to avoid inherent biases that make us, well, human. Well, considering that I didn't register here until 2001, you've never seen me when there was a Democratic administration. We do have a Democratic Congress, and have had them for several months now. I look forward to your vehement defense of them in pursuit of truth, justice and the American way. ophelia Interesting thoughts...well said.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 6/27/07 4:51pm Subject: RE: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?)
	I think, though, what you're ignoring Ophelia is that in undergoing an "intellectual revolution" in the 1980's the broadright started winning elections not on being as pedestrian as possible, but by being fairly radical. Let me explain. Conservative parties had traditionally run on strong government, strong values, anticommunist platforms which never really rewarded them with strong policy victories or lasting legacies, per se. The radical shift towards economic rationalism allowed them to continue to campaign on ideology, but instead of "values values values! Fight Commies with values and a balanced budget despite increased spending!" it became about offering each person the chance at greater access to wealth by freeing up the market. That is, the right began to be about economic freedom which they argued would lead to social freedom. They won office because they were creating a climate that allowed the middle class to get a solid ROI on their equity whilst otherwise leaving them alone. With the middle class investing and spending more, it gave the right the licence to campaign on a belief system that, objectively, works (mostly). So in a bizzare paradigm shift, the Left has been relegated to harping on abotu a different kind of values, and basically saying the same thing it's always said. Frankly, the Left needs to find a way to speak economically to voters as well as pushing the idea of social responsibility. E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ophelia Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 6/27/07 6:43pm Subject: RE: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?)
	Conservative parties had traditionally run on strong government, strong values, anticommunist platforms which never really rewarded them with strong policy victories or lasting legacies, per se. The radical shift towards economic rationalism allowed them to continue to campaign on ideology, but instead of "values values values! Fight Commies with values and a balanced budget despite increased spending!" it became about offering each person the chance at greater access to wealth by freeing up the market. That wasn't new, though, E_S. The Republican party stood for "government out of big business" all through the Great Depression, and the association with "fat cat" industrialists hurt it badly. Arguably, it never really recovered until the presidency of Reagan, or perhaps even Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" in 1994. Also, Reagan was not elected on the basis of his economic platform--which was only presented in hazy terms during his first run for the White House. Reagan was elected because the country was in the middle of an oil crisis, a hostage crisis, a crisis of confidence in its leaders, and an ongoing Cold War that provoked a lot of fear. Carter was blamed for "soft" foreign policies that had supposedly led to the hostage crisis in the first place. His public image at the time was that of a man beset by constant worry. By contrast, Reagan presented himself as very upbeat and confident--his "It's Morning In America" TV ad is perhaps the most successful non-smear-campaign ad we've ever had. Also, his quietly xenophobic message was what people wanted to hear. Trying to "make friends" in the Middle East--as a buffer to defend against a USSR we did not want to take head on--had gotten our citizens abducted by terrorists. Reagan wasn't going to be "soft" on anybody. No more friend-making, with anyone, ever. Except maybe Margie Thatcher. She was the political equivalent of teh hawt. In short, Reagan was elected just for being Reagan--and for not being Carter. We only found out later what his plans involved. The upper-middle class did like his tax cuts, that's true. Traditionally, only the very rich dodged taxes, by using shelters. The regular middle class broke even, but liked the tax cut idea because they aspired to be in the upper-middle class, and thus benefit from the tax cut then. Everybody else: meh on economics, but people felt safer with a president who openly baited the Commies. That is, the right began to be about economic freedom which they argued would lead to social freedom. They won office because they were creating a climate that allowed the middle class to get a solid ROI on their equity whilst otherwise leaving them alone. With the middle class investing and spending more, it gave the right the licence to campaign on a belief system that, objectively, works (mostly). Maybe Reagan's second term in office. Ideologies seemed to coalesce around him as he went along. In the beginning, he did talk about lower taxes, but he was mostly about We Hate Commies and Hey, I'm Ronald Reagan. I remain undecided about the effects of Reaganomics. In the short term, he did give many sectors of the economy a kick in the pants. In the long term, he left us with a legacy of an ever-inflating deficit and a possible fade-out of the positive effects on businesses. (That's hard to assess.) So in a bizzare paradigm shift, the Left has been relegated to harping on abotu a different kind of values, and basically saying the same thing it's always said. Well . . . yes. Nothing has changed much since the Civil Rights era. How did the Right "relegate" the Left to the position it was already holding? Frankly, the Left needs to find a way to speak economically to voters as well as pushing the idea of social responsibility. The social responsibility thing = the economic plan. People just haven't liked it very much. With a greater percentage of our population aging and health care costs going through the roof, expanded subsidized health care--a longtime pet project of Democrats (assuming they're liberals and therefore relevant to the discussion)--might finally get some support. Actually, we would already benefit from expanded subsidized health care, since a $40 doctor's office visit and a $15 bottle of antibiotics is peanuts compared to a $100,000 ICU hospital stay for double pneumonia. We'd pay the former out to a sick member of the "working poor"--who'd then be back at work in a day or two. We pay the latter when said working poor person doesn't go to the doctor because he has no insurance, and then waits until he's at death's door to rush to the ER. Since he can't pay, the hospital eats the cost, which is passed on to you and me in medical bills and insurance premiums. We're paying for the poor's health care, all right. We just prefer to pay private companies after the fact--and after some people are dead. -----signature----- "Once upon a time, again." --Onoto, NaNoWriMo entry
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 6/27/07 7:52pm Subject: RE: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?) - Date Edited: 6/27/07 8:13pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Ender_Sai
	Due respect, the social responsibility part isn't economical. It is still linked to the same means of achievement that it was, oh, 30 years ago? The state. Arguments centre on how best to spend OPM to fix problems. One of the most compelling arguments I've heard against this thinking came from a guest lecture I had from an aid worker from APHEDA- Aust. People for Health, Education & Development Abroad. This is the charitable wing of the ACTU - Aust. Council of Trade Unions, a leftist and exceptionally economically conservative group. The Left does not seem to recognise that responsibility is something you can't mandate as effectively as you can encourage. So instead of promoting the idea of individual initatives to combat inequality through charity etc, we try and mandate it through law which doesn't work. It's possibly one reason why conservatives can't wait to find things out about, say, Al Gore or Michael Moore which makes them look hypocritical. Gore uses too much energy, Moore is too rich, so how can they really care about the environment/poor? Contrast that with business, where people lead by example and successful leadership models are built all the time - they say, if you want to have what I've got, you have to be prepared to do what I did. Where, say, Al Gore fails is not the validity or righteousness of his message; it's the delivery. As kids, the "do as I say not as I do" mantra of our parents drove us nuts and in adults, it's not inspiring. So, in business, they lead by example; whereas the social responsibility crowd seems to want to lead through dictation, through telling others how do live, think, behave, etc. t's world apart, and partially what I think is choking the left. E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DeathStar1977 Registered: Jan '03	Date Posted: 6/27/07 11:25pm Subject: RE: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?) - Date Edited: 6/27/07 11:34pm (3 edits total) Edited By: DeathStar1977
	ophelia Good points..I'd add that regarding Reagan, he certainly had broad appeal, but he also benefited from the inevitable shift of the Southern white vote from the Democrats to the Republicans that began in the 60s. ES Gore, perhaps for his energy use, but I don't see how someone who is rich (i.e. Moore) who advocates for policies that help the poor makes him 'hypocritical'. Contrast that with business, where people lead by example and successful leadership models are built all the time - they say, if you want to have what I've got, you have to be prepared to do what I did. Except this creates a false dichotomy that the left = anti-business. Rather many on the left believe in a private enterprise system that has government protection against depression and extreme poverty. For example, the main differences in the two parties are how the system should operate in terms of assistance to the poor and to what degree. In other words, hardly anyone is advocating getting rid of welfare completely or letting able-bodied people stay on welfare forever. Lets also not forget that many of the 'blue' states (California, NY, Mass., etc.) that tend to have more 'regulations' (i.e. a higher minimum wage) are strong self-sufficient economies whereas many 'red' states are reliant on federal tax dollars from 'blue' states to sustain themselves. The problem that can occur with the left is not keeping up with the times. For example, I have no problem with unionization, but when unions ask for retirement pay to begin at 55 (as I think occurred in the NY subway strike a few years back), I roll my eyes. People don't retire at 55 anymore, and such demands are remnants of an era long gone. Furthermore, globalization is inevitable and complete protectionism would probably hurt our economy. But what many on the left is not complete protectionism, rather certain rules that prevent exploitation and a so-called 'race to the bottom'. So, in business, they lead by example Businesses also fail sometimes, which the government doesn't have the luxury of being able to do in the same manner. That is the point of many on the left, that the free market can't solve every problem (i.e. global warming, landing a man on the moon, Katrina clean up, etc.) and it is not a 'big' government that is desired, rather a competent one. I'd add that health care may be included, and that some argue from a moral POV that there should be health care for all. Also, businesses are successful for a variety of reasons, not just the leadership of the owners. The workers for the various companies play a large role too, as do the consumers in any given society. whereas the social responsibility crowd seems to want to lead through dictation, through telling others how do live, think, behave, etc. t's world apart, and partially what I think is choking the left. Again, here in America, the 'social responsibility' crowd has become the religious right, and it could turn the Republican party into a minority party, and is part of the reason why Democrats regained control of Congress...among other reasons people don't like to be lectured on how to behave/family values by a party that lionizes the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. So in summation, yes the free market and entrepreneurship are a guiding force behind any successful economy. But there are other factors that are often either forgotten, or just not noted.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 6/28/07 12:21am Subject: RE: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?)
	DS1977 posted: Except this creates a false dichotomy that the left = anti-business. Not what I was getting at; I was saying, the way to lead is by example and not through pulpit based dictation. Business knows this and it's probably where the best "leadership" types are going - lord knows they're not going into politics. The left need to realise, IMO, leadership is a key facet and that it's done through example, that's all. E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DeathStar1977 Registered: Jan '03	Date Posted: 6/28/07 12:36am Subject: RE: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?) - Date Edited: 6/28/07 12:39am (1 edits total) Edited By: DeathStar1977
	ES I was speaking more in general in terms of what is often leveled at the left (i.e. left=anti-business) and did not intend to attribute it to you. Business knows this and it's probably where the best "leadership" types are going - lord knows they're not going into politics. I'd guess that they aren't going into politics because they don't want every facet of their lives dragged through the mud. The left need to realise, IMO, leadership is a key facet and that it's done through example, that's all. While I certainly don't think the left needs to realize it more than the right (here in America at least), rather that I'd agree that it is done through example and further add that it is done by reasonably but firmly standing for ones beliefs. Politicians like John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey were great leaders (although neither were businessmen), albeit for different reasons, but both shared forceful visions and genuine principles that had all Americans in mind, not just the specific demands of certain interest groups. I certainly agree with the notion of leading by example, and not through mere rhetoric...but you may asking too much to demand that politicians practice what they preach.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Lowbacca_1977 Title: Senate Moderator Registered: Jun '06	Date Posted: 6/28/07 2:46am Subject: RE: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?)
	DeathStar1977 posted: Gore, perhaps for his energy use, but I don't see how someone who is rich (i.e. Moore) who advocates for policies that help the poor makes him 'hypocritical'. I would have figured Moore's hypocracy comes from claiming to be one of the masses when he isn't, and then further to try to criticise anyone else for questionable accuracy. His arguements are often including lots of outright falsehoods. One could start with how he tries to be common man and talk about growing up in a city like Flint, when that isn't where he's from.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jediflyer Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 6/28/07 4:43am Subject: RE: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?)
	I love all this pro-business rhetoric from ES. You would almost think that business leaders were infallible and would lead us to paradise. Just don't look at the dot com fiascos and Enrons behind the curtain. -----signature----- As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences. -Eugene McCarthy There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 6/28/07 5:01am Subject: RE: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?)
	Sure thing, JF. E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DeathStar1977 Registered: Jan '03	Date Posted: 6/28/07 8:16am Subject: RE: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?)
	I would have figured Moore's hypocracy comes from claiming to be one of the masses when he isn't, and then further to try to criticise anyone else for questionable accuracy. His arguements are often including lots of outright falsehoods. One could start with how he tries to be common man and talk about growing up in a city like Flint, when that isn't where he's from. He was born in Flint, grew up in neighboring Davidson to working-class parents (who worked in Flint), so he does have some claim to being 'one of the masses', at least as much as Bush pretends to be. Either way, I again believe that one shouldn't have to be working class, or poor, to have to advocate policies that may benefit them. Far be it for me to defend Moore, but of course he is going to respond to those who question him. My problem with Moore is that I believe that he really does care about working people and thus does them a disservice when he is misleading in his statements. So again, Moore may be a lot of things, but in this instance, he doesn't seem to be a hypocrite. JF makes a good point, and I'd add that of course successful business leaders are worthy of admiration, but there are plenty who fail (just like other industries) and many turn to the gov't to bail them out (i.e. airlines).
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 6/28/07 2:55pm Subject: RE: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?)
	And yet, now both of you missed the point. Yay! Business is currently where leadership models matter. Not politics. Flyer, you probably aren't exposed to it but I know you are DS, so you've no excuse! Business is also where innovation, radical strategies and example-based emulation also matter. If we look at politics from around 50-60 years ago, we could see far more statesmen. Far more natural, quotable, emulatable leaders. We don't have that now, but if you browse the business section of your average bookstore there's tonnes of books saying, "if you want what I have, you have to be prepared to do what I do". Or, as I'm contesting, a kind of example based leadership. Which I am contesting would be something the left should invest in. DS, you see what I've been able to really effectively do without trying? I've gotten you to defend Michael Moore. I wasn't even aiming for that, but it kinda proves my point, doesn't it? E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DeathStar1977 Registered: Jan '03	Date Posted: 6/28/07 3:47pm Subject: RE: The Left - left behind? (ie what does the Left stand for these days?) - Date Edited: 6/28/07 3:57pm (1 edits total) Edited By: DeathStar1977
	Business is also where innovation, radical strategies and example-based emulation also matter…If we look at politics from around 50-60 years ago, we could see far more statesmen. Far more natural, quotable, emulatable leaders. We don't have that now Well, yea…which is why I brought up JFK and Humphrey as examples. So I’m glad we agree. I am not contesting that business is where innovation, radical strategies and examples matter…rather that it is not the only place to find such people. if you browse business section of your average bookstore there's tonnes of books saying, "if you want what I have, you have to be prepared to do what I do". I don’t know, I heard that Rudy Giuliani’s book ‘Leadership’ proves that he is a great leader. Ya know, because he said so. you see what I've been able to really effectively do without trying? I've gotten you to defend Michael Moore. I wasn't even aiming for that, but it kinda proves my point, doesn't it? Hey I was just setting the record straight …but how does it prove your point?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Previous | ~~Next~~ | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »