From Laurie...
"So here is a link I found to explain to John a little more about what is wrong with conservatism these days and that the left and right are not equally dark or extreme: The dark side of American conservatism has taken over "
41 comments:
Well, I read the whole thing and must have missed the point... I think it was saying that some Republicans are bad... So apparently they all are??? :-)
The opinion writer (Max Boot) has an interesting background.
it is very curious how difficult it is for John, a self described moderate independent, to see how extreme the GOP / conservatism has become. MSNBC and major publications have many, many former moderate republicans who are highly critical of Trump and the current GOP, but John is blind to it. How odd.
I think it is mindboggling that more than 40% of citizens continue to support our lying, racist, crooked, president. What would you say, John, if the pollster asked you do you approve of Trump's job performance? approve, strongly approve, disapprove?
Republicans keep stating openly that they’re totally fine with Trump’s corruption
Laurie, just when I though we might find common ground...
Republicans are extreme? Compared to whom? We want equal treatment under the law, we want the law enforced against lawbreakers, and we want law-abiding citizens unimpeded, within reason, to pursue their own best interests. We do NOT like open borders, radical racial preferences, or non-gendered nonsense. We want to Americanize, not Balkanize. As has been said before, The Right is right where it always was, but the Left continues to head for the Deep End.
Laurie,
I guess I would have to say approve if those were my only choices...
Would I prefer someone more like Romney, Kasich, etc? (ie honest, balanced, charitable, honorable, professional, etc)
Of course I would... But he went off the table in 2012...
As I often bemoan, we were given the choice between Lying Hillary and Lying Trump... I sure hope we are given better options in 2020.
Here is an interesting review of the Radical Right
Jerry, Just curious, are you a member of the John Birch Society?
We want equal treatment under the law, we want the law enforced against lawbreakers, and we want law-abiding citizens unimpeded, within reason, to pursue their own best interests.
The problem with Republicans isn't what they are for. The problem is they aren't in favor of doing what they say they are for. They want to enforce the law. But none of them seems to want to crack down on tax fraud. They want citizens to be able to pursue their own best interests, but they aren't in favor of measures that would allow them to do that. They want choice, but they want to force others to pay for the costs of their choices.
Yesterday's Trump column in USA Today was a pure form of distilled Republicanism. Basically, our Donald whipsawed help care policy between two different ideas, that it should be based on the private sector, and that it should be based on government. You know what? I would take either alternative. The problem wasn't with the two theories, rather the problem was that Trump wouldn't pick a side. Faced with a choice between a rock and a hard place, Trump chooses neither. And this is why health care policy is such a disaster. We refuse to choose to make it better. The irony is that Donald was supposed to be a fixer, the brilliant business man who could find the solution. But the reality is, he has no interest in finding the solution, all he wants to do is ramp up the problem amplifying a national division from which he can benefit politically.
--Hiram
John,
You do know that Wikipedia is written and edited by individual authors, do you not? And the author(s) of this particular piece of claptrap want to characterize "opposition to socialism, communism, Marxism, anarchism, social democracy, progressivism and liberalism" as being "radical." Since when is opposing a radical new political and economic philosophy a radical idea? Pot, meet kettle.
Oh, and I consider myself just to the right of John Birch. :-)
I think most of us understand that you are our Far Right perspective.
I just wonder if you can understand that or if you think you are a "normal American"...
On the G2A Nolan diagram I envision you in the right side of the TEA word. I would put you above the line except for your pre-occupation with having government control the sexuality of people and what women do with their bodies.
"The irony is that Donald was supposed to be a fixer, the brilliant business man who could find the solution."
21 months into his administration, he has yet to nominate anyone to be ambassador to any of these countries (plus others of less strategic importance not listed here): Cuba, Egypt, Estonia, Georgia, Ireland, Jordan, Libya, Mexico, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.
Three departments (agriculture, homeland security, and treasury) don't have chief financial officers. All six seats on the Federal Elections Commission are up for nominees, but haven't received one. Defense, homeland security, interior, and the CIA don't have inspector generals.
And conservatives scoff when Democrats suggest that perhaps Republicans aren't serious about actually governing...
Or... Do we just have too many redundant personnel in government?
How many more bureaucrats and politicians could we get by without?
I don't know.
I again have my doubts about your Nolan diagram. Having just returned again from China I find it puzzling. It is often said that one cannot have economic freedom without political freedom, nor vice versa. Yet China (and Vietnam) have been making it work for some considerable time. To me, those two countries would support your Nolan diagram, well I believe that a more realistic portrayal of the political spectrum would be along a single line from lower left to upper right, perhaps with confidence interval"-like bars to account for a wider variation at the extremes. As for the diagram as you have it, I would put myself just slightly to your right. My philosophy on personal freedom is bounded by two bumper stickers, "your rights stop at the end of my nose," and "there can be no right to do that which is wrong."
As I said, you would be above the line and to the right of me except for all the governmental controls you support.
Feels like we could be using ambassadors in Istanbul and Riyadh right now, but ymmv...
You seem to believe there is a (more or less absolute) right to harm others, as occurs in an abortion. I believe in personal freedom AND responsibility.
Laurie, perhaps I can help you a bit. Trump's job performance is just fine, but his personal style many find annoying/aggravating/etc. But what the 40% who like Trump just fine are approving of is that he is doing the right things, AND that he is annoying all the right people is just a bonus.
How would those ambassadors help?
Govt control is still govt control...
Gov't control is NOT gov't control because it depends on WHAT is being "controlled." If government wishes to "control" the "right to bear arms," that is a whole different kettle of fish than government wishing to "control" your "right" to commit infanticide.
Not really... We the people simply decide what our social norms are.
And then sometimes we make constitutions, laws, etc to enforce them across all of our people... Or not...
You simply think that a first term fetus is the same as an child, adult or other living and self aware human.
Number of abortions per year: 652,000 /year
Number of gun deaths per year:37,200 / year
To more of a libertarian, forcing Parents to raise or not raise children is not government's business.
Anymore than government telling citizens which gun they can own.
You and the rest of the Religious Right are just like the DEMs, you think that government should legislate and force your version of morality on everyone to protect citizens from other citizens.
Why does it bother you to admit you advocate for big government when it suits your sense of morality?
Because our laws are how we cede to government the right to enforce the COMMON morality-- the "norms" which we accept. Murder has been against the law for centuries. Why? Abortion has been legal for only a few decades, and is still opposed by a majority, depending on how the question is written. Why should I not advocate for supporting the common morality? Why should our representative republic not structure government and law to support that common morality? When our fundamental document outlines a right, like the second amendment, that requires more respect than some magical "right of privacy" found in some "penumbra" of the same fundamental document. Question: Is a murderer entitled to a "right to privacy" because they did not have eyewitnesses to the crime?
Your prescription would say that government has NO legitimate authority over personal behavior, meaning the entire criminal code should be abolished. Really?
I have no problem with using government to ensure the needy and innocent are kept safe, fed and cared for. You are the one who wants to limit government's involvement in that...
So as we often jest, the religious right wants to insert the government in between a Mother and her fetus until the baby is born... And then the baby is on its own...
Seems pretty balanced
It's not my job to inflict my morality on others. Hey, I support Keith Ellison. And I would like to think the other side, given their support of Donald Trump, would have the dood sense to cut back on the moralizing also.
I support providing health care not necessarily because it's the morally right thing to do, but because it's good policy. I support forcing other people to pay for health insurance through the universal mandate, not because I am on some sort of power trip, as many folks think seems to be the case, or because I think it's the morally right thing to do, because it might well not be, but because it makes overall health care cheaper and more available.
--Hiram
Hiram,
But Jerry knows better than the Mother...
Therefore he supports government intrusion between her and her Dr. :-)
And of course he knows the sexuality and who every adult should be attracted to and allowed to marry. :-)
And assuming Jerry is against physician assisted suicide like many on the religious right... I assume he believes he knows what is best for a terminal patient in severe pain or facing death through dimensia.
Personally I am not that wise and all knowing...
"I have no problem with using government to ensure the needy and innocent are kept safe, fed and cared for." Congratulations, you have just imposed your morality on everybody. The haves will be forced to pay taxes for it, and the have-nots will be forced to accept the (admittedly too few) requirements to participate.
Add "abortion illegal in all circumstances" to "abortion illegal in some circumstances" and you get 89% pro-life. Do you believe that government should be allowed to legislate to achieve this wide majority "morality"/policy preference?
"Personally I am not that wise and all knowing..."
And yet you go on and on about what /I/ believe, and how I am clearly in error for believing what you say I believe. Condescend much?
Actually, the haves will have to pay, and the have nots will choose to apply and accept the benefits. No one forces a recipient to cash that check. :-)
And yes I agree we should demand more effort and improvement for our investment in them.
Is your "abortion math" how you get to math that denies man made climate change? Just make up funny assumptions? :-)
Gallup asked the question... Do you consider yourself prolife or prochoice?
In 2018 it was a 48% to 48% tie after several years of prolife having a small majority.
My only point was that I think you would support a more controlling government than I would in many cases... Where as you think you are a supporter of "small government and personal freedoms". Mostly you just want to cut taxes and chop social services, which I agree does put you to the right of me.
Remember that the X axis deals with wealth transfer...
And the Y axis deals with personal freedoms vs govt control... (outside of the wealth topic)
Now I agree that you are against gun control, public school control, etc...
However you certainly support controls on female citizens, restrictions on LGBT citizens, controls on really sick people who are in pain, etc... (ie religious right platform)
Now back to your diagram...
"I believe that a more realistic portrayal of the political spectrum would be along a single line from lower left to upper right, perhaps with confidence interval"-like bars to account for a wider variation at the extremes. "
This is why people on the Far Right frustrate me... They will say they they support less government control than those terrible far Left Liberal folks... Even as they demand government implement all of the Religious Right governmental control on non-religious citizens or people of other religions.
Just think of all the Religious Right folks who are concerned by our bringing Muslim citizens into our country. While being okay with are home grown White militia folks.
See the Christian Right views here, they seem familiar:
- Controlled Education
- Creationism vs Evolution
- Resist Teaching Sex Education
- Limit contraceptives and abortion
- Limit freedoms of LGBT citizens
- Biotechnology and patient rights
OK, let's try again to straighten out your diagram. I think that perhaps the problem is that your vertical axis – personal freedom – needs to be tilted to the right. Anarchy is the complete Lack of government control over individual actions, but to ensure personal safety and economic freedom, any good government must exercise some control over its citizens' behavior. Otherwise we have lawlessness. Somehow your chart does not accommodate the fact that those on the right wish to have laws that protect us from one another and enforce societal norms, while those on the left either want to establish laws to defy societal norms and defend criminal behavior, or to abolish laws to the contrary. And you seem to be rejecting "Christian right" viewpoints simply because of who supports them. That put you on the side of those who think our current failing government-run education system is doing just fine for all kids. And that it matters not how sex education is done, just so we call it sex education. Please, let us have a little discrimination among viewpoints.
I don't reject Christian Right views because of who supports them... I resist them because they support ignorance, intolerance and government control.
And I agree that the folks on the Left have their own slightly different warts. That is why they also are below the line...
By the way, being above or below the line is neither good nor bad. It just means that you want government to control more aspects of the personal lives of individual citizens. You want government to limit their choices for some reason.
Remember that even I would trounce on the life choices of some very irresponsible citizens to protect kids and to end poverty.
Just curious...
"those on the left either want to establish laws to defy societal norms and defend criminal behavior, or to abolish laws to the contrary"
What were you thinking of here?
I agree that their weak borders / amnesty policies fit that description, but often they want to control many things to save everyone from each other... (ie environmental regs, financial regs, anti-discrimination regs, etc...)
"By the way, being above or below the line is neither good nor bad."
And there is the problem with your two-dimensional (one step up from one-dimensional, but) thinking. Some laws on personal behavior must be considered "good" and some must be considered "bad." In this country, 89% of the population thinks that laws against abortion, with some exceptions, are "good." In China they had a law for mandatory abortion of a second child, and most of us thought that was /bad/. Same law, basically, two different interpretations, by two different government systems supposedly at the opposite ends of a one-dimensional political spectrum.
" to control many things to save everyone from each other... (ie environmental regs, financial regs, anti-discrimination regs, etc...)"
Perhaps that is the discriminator you are looking for. Leftists promulgate lots and lots of regulations to "control" behavior, and the Right thinks "that government best which governs least," or something like that. Oil and gas deregulation, opposition to Hillarycare, Obamacare, and "Medicare for all" are POSITIVE policies. Perhaps a simple count of regulations in the Federal Register would be a yardstick for where one sits on the vertical axis (if you insist on it being vertical and independent). It isn't, of course, because there is an economic cost of regulation, somewhere near $ 2 Trillion! Forbes
"I don't reject Christian Right views because of who supports them... I resist them because they support ignorance, intolerance and government control."
Sorry, but I cannot let that one slide. That one statement is a masterpiece of ignorance, intolerance and bigotry. You're better than that.
I think this topic deserves it’s own post.
Post a Comment