Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Monday, May 7, 2012
How Far to the Right?
Go Arnold go !!! I can't say it better than he did... Thoughts?
Why is it always us "extremist" types that are expected to move left? Goldwater was right: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
Now I think there are also plenty of extremist types that I think should move Right... Ironically, they are likely proclaiming the same quote... And just as certain that they are protecting the normal man from the wealthy over lords.
I am more pragmatic, I believe that our population is somewhat of a normal distribution. Centered somewhere in the center of the Nolan chart. Now if the Religious Conservatives annoy too many of these Centrists, it is likely the GOP will have some challenges this Fall... Nolan Chart
Funny thing, I have been talking about the hero model in politics today, in reference to the Avengers movie that opened last weekend. Joss Whedon the director is famous for his exploration of the hero myth, in shows like Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, and Firefly.
Perhaps the most effective image I know for a politician is the "The Terminator", the good and even the bad. We want this guy, utterly selfless, utterly incorruptible, who simply will not stop ever until he achieves his objective. This image is so powerful it actually got Arnold elected governor of California, in the real, not the cinematic world.
We want our politicians to be heroic, to be decisive to blow through all the obstacles in their way. That appeals to us on a visceral level. But is that what we want in the real world. Let's remember, Buffy is not big on due process. That model is one that can be very comfortably employed by very bad people.
I'm still not understanding how you can be an extremist if you happen to be exactly right, even if you are on the "right" politically. Why should Romney NOT support the Ryan budget, for example? Every Republican in Congress did; are they all radicals and extremists, or are they simply solving a huge problem that desperately needs to be solved while the "centrists" have done nothing but make the problem worse?
If the concern is about getting elected, then my observation, based on Reagan, is that you can elect an "extremist" if that person is consistently principled and can well articulate WHY. Or you can wait 'til everything goes to H--- and get a Nehemiah Scudder.
In general, being extreme isn't inconsistent with being right. The problem comes is that it's very rare for people to be right, and it's a lot easier to be wrong. The problems with the Ryan budget are many, but the biggest single problem is that it isn't a budget at all. It's based on cuts which are unspecified. Not making hard choices in this area is the equivalent of not making choices at all.
Besides, being correct is all relative to your destination. With this in mind, everyone can be correct while heading in different directions.
Rarely have have I met a strong willed person that thinks they are incorrect in their beliefs.
As for being correct and labeled an extremist. History is full of people that fit these criteria. Some changed the world and many ended up dead or in prison.
I think the difference between the masses cheering or getting out the pitch forks is relative to how well you manage selling your different view. And how well you can stay focused on what is important.
I think that was Arnold's point, the Republicans are challenging the masses on every front rather than the ones that are important to our country's long term economic strength. And thereby giving up many would be allies and turning them into enemies.
If they would turn down their control the masses efforts (ie authoritarian) and focus on the economic issues, things may go better. Instead they decide that you have to believe everything, or you are out of the club.
So to be a good Republican, a person must be: - pro big military - pro foreign conflict - pro-life - anti-progressive taxes - anti-gay rights - anti-union - anti-social programs - anti-EPA - etc
It gets to be a pretty small group, when you turn away anyone that differs from your "correct" world view.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept the Extreme Left's definition of what is "Extreme Right." From where I stand, it's very difficult to be too far right-- to be extreme-- but it is very easy to be too far left because I place the center at the place where there is at least one solution to the problem. The Democrats in the US Senate have refused to even consider a budget for over three years now, in violation of the law requiring one EVERY year. The Ryan budget is the only game in town, and therefore that must be the "center" of the discussion. I tend to believe something more to the right of the Ryan budget would be preferable.
The President PROPOSES a budget every year, but is not required to pass one. Every budget Obama has proposed has been defeated UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate, who then (controlled by Democrats) refuse to take up any alternative, contrary to law.
TAX bills must originate in the House, and the GOP-controlled House HAS passed budgets every year, only to have them die in the Democrat Sin-it.
"Every budget Obama has proposed has been defeated UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate, who then (controlled by Democrats) refuse to take up any alternative, contrary to law."
You have just told me that "The Democrats in the US Senate have refused to even consider a budget for over three years now,"
And now you tell me that Obama's budget has been defeated in the senate. The only way that can happen is that if it has been considered. There is a contradiction here.
Did the senate consider the president's budget or not? And by the way, if the Obama budget was proposed, surely someone, if only the person who proposed it, must have favored it, although perhaps not in the final form on which the vote of the senate was taken.
TAX bills must originate in the House, and the GOP-controlled House HAS passed budgets every year, only to have them die in the Democrat Sin-it.
I have searched my copy of the constitution this morning, and found no provision requiring the senate to approve measures taken by the house. But what does seem to be the case is that while the senate has not been able to agree with the house on the budget, they have considered it.
Aside from word-twiddling, there is an upshot to the debate. The Left aka Democrats have not proposed a solution to the budget problem and have made it worse, by action and inaction. Could we please just go back to the "disaster" that Obama "inherited," when our debt was $5T lower, our deficit 1/4 of what it has been every year since Bush, and we had millions more jobs.
I had the same thought yesterday. Though I want to go back to the days of Clinton. Whatever the taxes and spending were then seemed to be working very well.
The Left aka Democrats have not proposed a solution to the budget problem and have made it worse, by action and inaction.
I have talked a lot about solutions to the debt crisis. I have talked about tax increases. I have talked about cuts to the military, I have talked about various cost reduction strategies with respect to health care. I am open to suggestions with respect to Social Security. And my side has been burned politically for openly discussing those views. Republicans talk in general terms about cutting, but offer no specifics.
Tax rates were higher in the Clinton administration, pretty much disproving the notion that high tax rates hurt the economy.
OK, I'm willing to let the Bush tax cuts expire and go back to Clinton's rates. But that means that the millions of people who were in the 10% bracket and dropped of the rolls entirely get to pay 10%, and the millions more who dropped from 15% to 10% get to pay more, too. Which of course means that "the rich" will go back to paying a SMALLER percentage of the total taxes than they do under the Bush rates. I'm sure the economy will thrive if we just continue spending trillions more dollars we don't have on things that we don't need.
Here is another link somewhat related to your topic: Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem. It offers an in depth explanation of how extreme the right and the GOP have become.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it always us "extremist" types that are expected to move left? Goldwater was right: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
ReplyDeleteNow I think there are also plenty of extremist types that I think should move Right... Ironically, they are likely proclaiming the same quote... And just as certain that they are protecting the normal man from the wealthy over lords.
ReplyDeleteI am more pragmatic, I believe that our population is somewhat of a normal distribution. Centered somewhere in the center of the Nolan chart. Now if the Religious Conservatives annoy too many of these Centrists, it is likely the GOP will have some challenges this Fall...
Nolan Chart
Funny thing, I have been talking about the hero model in politics today, in reference to the Avengers movie that opened last weekend. Joss Whedon the director is famous for his exploration of the hero myth, in shows like Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, and Firefly.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the most effective image I know for a politician is the "The Terminator", the good and even the bad. We want this guy, utterly selfless, utterly incorruptible, who simply will not stop ever until he achieves his objective. This image is so powerful it actually got Arnold elected governor of California, in the real, not the cinematic world.
--Hiram
We want our politicians to be heroic, to be decisive to blow through all the obstacles in their way. That appeals to us on a visceral level. But is that what we want in the real world. Let's remember, Buffy is not big on due process. That model is one that can be very comfortably employed by very bad people.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
I'm still not understanding how you can be an extremist if you happen to be exactly right, even if you are on the "right" politically. Why should Romney NOT support the Ryan budget, for example? Every Republican in Congress did; are they all radicals and extremists, or are they simply solving a huge problem that desperately needs to be solved while the "centrists" have done nothing but make the problem worse?
ReplyDeleteIf the concern is about getting elected, then my observation, based on Reagan, is that you can elect an "extremist" if that person is consistently principled and can well articulate WHY. Or you can wait 'til everything goes to H--- and get a Nehemiah Scudder.
J. Ewing
In general, being extreme isn't inconsistent with being right. The problem comes is that it's very rare for people to be right, and it's a lot easier to be wrong. The problems with the Ryan budget are many, but the biggest single problem is that it isn't a budget at all. It's based on cuts which are unspecified. Not making hard choices in this area is the equivalent of not making choices at all.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
Besides, being correct is all relative to your destination. With this in mind, everyone can be correct while heading in different directions.
ReplyDeleteRarely have have I met a strong willed person that thinks they are incorrect in their beliefs.
As for being correct and labeled an extremist. History is full of people that fit these criteria. Some changed the world and many ended up dead or in prison.
I think the difference between the masses cheering or getting out the pitch forks is relative to how well you manage selling your different view. And how well you can stay focused on what is important.
ReplyDeleteI think that was Arnold's point, the Republicans are challenging the masses on every front rather than the ones that are important to our country's long term economic strength. And thereby giving up many would be allies and turning them into enemies.
If they would turn down their control the masses efforts (ie authoritarian) and focus on the economic issues, things may go better. Instead they decide that you have to believe everything, or you are out of the club.
So to be a good Republican, a person must be:
- pro big military
- pro foreign conflict
- pro-life
- anti-progressive taxes
- anti-gay rights
- anti-union
- anti-social programs
- anti-EPA
- etc
It gets to be a pretty small group, when you turn away anyone that differs from your "correct" world view.
Maybe anti pro-choice would be more descriptive and correct.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but I refuse to accept the Extreme Left's definition of what is "Extreme Right." From where I stand, it's very difficult to be too far right-- to be extreme-- but it is very easy to be too far left because I place the center at the place where there is at least one solution to the problem. The Democrats in the US Senate have refused to even consider a budget for over three years now, in violation of the law requiring one EVERY year. The Ryan budget is the only game in town, and therefore that must be the "center" of the discussion. I tend to believe something more to the right of the Ryan budget would be preferable.
ReplyDeleteJ. Ewing
Isn't it the president who sets the budget? And don't appropriation measures that pay for it originate in the House of Representatives?
ReplyDelete--Hiram
It is an interesting theater...
ReplyDeleteG2A Relativity
Relativism isn't very popular with conservatives these days.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
John,
ReplyDeleteAs someone concerned about our country's long term economic strength you should really vote for a democrat for president.
Private Jobs Increase More With Democrats in White House
The President PROPOSES a budget every year, but is not required to pass one. Every budget Obama has proposed has been defeated UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate, who then (controlled by Democrats) refuse to take up any alternative, contrary to law.
ReplyDeleteTAX bills must originate in the House, and the GOP-controlled House HAS passed budgets every year, only to have them die in the Democrat Sin-it.
J. Ewing
"Every budget Obama has proposed has been defeated UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate, who then (controlled by Democrats) refuse to take up any alternative, contrary to law."
ReplyDeleteYou have just told me that "The Democrats in the US Senate have refused to even consider a budget for over three years now,"
And now you tell me that Obama's budget has been defeated in the senate. The only way that can happen is that if it has been considered. There is a contradiction here.
Did the senate consider the president's budget or not? And by the way, if the Obama budget was proposed, surely someone, if only the person who proposed it, must have favored it, although perhaps not in the final form on which the vote of the senate was taken.
--Hiram
TAX bills must originate in the House, and the GOP-controlled House HAS passed budgets every year, only to have them die in the Democrat Sin-it.
ReplyDeleteI have searched my copy of the constitution this morning, and found no provision requiring the senate to approve measures taken by the house. But what does seem to be the case is that while the senate has not been able to agree with the house on the budget, they have considered it.
--Hiram
Aside from word-twiddling, there is an upshot to the debate. The Left aka Democrats have not proposed a solution to the budget problem and have made it worse, by action and inaction. Could we please just go back to the "disaster" that Obama "inherited," when our debt was $5T lower, our deficit 1/4 of what it has been every year since Bush, and we had millions more jobs.
ReplyDeleteJ. Ewing
I had the same thought yesterday. Though I want to go back to the days of Clinton. Whatever the taxes and spending were then seemed to be working very well.
ReplyDeleteDebt Graph
The Left aka Democrats have not proposed a solution to the budget problem and have made it worse, by action and inaction.
ReplyDeleteI have talked a lot about solutions to the debt crisis. I have talked about tax increases. I have talked about cuts to the military, I have talked about various cost reduction strategies with respect to health care. I am open to suggestions with respect to Social Security. And my side has been burned politically for openly discussing those views. Republicans talk in general terms about cutting, but offer no specifics.
Tax rates were higher in the Clinton administration, pretty much disproving the notion that high tax rates hurt the economy.
--Hiram
OK, I'm willing to let the Bush tax cuts expire and go back to Clinton's rates. But that means that the millions of people who were in the 10% bracket and dropped of the rolls entirely get to pay 10%, and the millions more who dropped from 15% to 10% get to pay more, too. Which of course means that "the rich" will go back to paying a SMALLER percentage of the total taxes than they do under the Bush rates. I'm sure the economy will thrive if we just continue spending trillions more dollars we don't have on things that we don't need.
ReplyDeleteJ. Ewing
Please forward your ideas again to Harry Reid and Pres. Obama. Apparently they didn't get your letter the first time.
ReplyDeleteJ. Ewing
I'll send that right out...
ReplyDelete