Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cairnius wrote:Again, this is about context. I am discussing the American political spectrum. You can discuss something else, but I'm not interested in that at the moment. On the American political spectrum, Republicans are conservatives, and Democrats are liberals.

I will not argue that many people equate liberal with Democrats and not with Republicans. However I submit that's because people misuse the word and don't understand that the opposite of conservative is progressive and that liberal is a school of political thought to which both Democrats and Republicans subscribe. Though I can accept that in a contextual sense I can replace where you use liberal with progressive and then have a functioning sentence - I see no reason not to attempt to clarify the more accurate phrase.

Your definition is a broad definition that would be appropriate for, say, a discussion of global political thought.

I certainly agree and would add - for a discussion of political thought in general, since it is a political ideology and any conversation about politics that may include it should use that definition.

Even if we were to go that route, the United States would be rather conservative compared to Europe. What America was and what it is are entirely different things.

Of course, but we still have a liberal form of idealogical thought to our government.

The Founders were extremely "liberal" for their day, but 21st century America is not a liberal place politically.

The Founders were "liberal" for their day and also founded a country on the concept of liberal politics. 21st Century America is not a liberal place politically presuming you mean progressive instead of liberal and compare only to Europe. COmpared to China we are quite progressive and liberal, even if we went hard line Republican and used more conservative liberal ideals.

Socially we are increasingly liberal, but even then not overwhelmingly so. There are plenty of hold-outs from the 20th century, and will be for quite some time.

...yes, once we get rid of those 20th century holdouts we'll be doing fine. (you lost me here)

The Constitutionalist Party is a party that subscribes to government only being interpreted through the Constitution as to what it can or cannot do. That's why I brought them up as your likely meaning.
Strict constructionism is a very interesting term with a whole lot of potential sub-definitions and meanings and is hard to define. But I believe I grok where you're coming from with it. Yes, on average, more members of the Republican Party ascribe to a thought process that calls for more regard to the original language of The Constitution then do Democrats.

Thor665 wrote:
I will not argue that many people equate liberal with Democrats and not with Republicans. However I submit that's because people misuse the word and don't understand that the opposite of conservative is progressive and that liberal is a school of political thought to which both Democrats and Republicans subscribe. Though I can accept that in a contextual sense I can replace where you use liberal with progressive and then have a functioning sentence - I see no reason not to attempt to clarify the more accurate phrase.

Most intelligent thing said in this thread.

Cairnius wrote:Again, this is about context. I am discussing the American political spectrum. You can discuss something else, but I'm not interested in that at the moment. On the American political spectrum, Republicans are conservatives, and Democrats are liberals.

Only the sith deals in absolutes...

I am neither... Yet I have aspects of both. What about centrists? Libertarians? Anarchists? Gonzo journalism? It is NOT just Red Vs Blue. The political spectrum has more colors than a gay pride parade. To ignore them would be out of context.
The posters inside the Top Dog in the Longs Drugs on 51th and Broadway in Oakland tell me you win an political interwebz.

Michael Moore cares about Michael Moore. That's it.

He puts quotes in his movies taken out of context.

He bullies anyone and everyone.

He's the liberal answer to Glen Beck, only with less talent and more bacon double cheese burger.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...are you suggesting that Beck has...talent?

Thor665 wrote:I will not argue that many people equate liberal with Democrats and not with Republicans. However I submit that's because people misuse the word and don't understand that the opposite of conservative is progressive and that liberal is a school of political thought to which both Democrats and Republicans subscribe. Though I can accept that in a contextual sense I can replace where you use liberal with progressive and then have a functioning sentence - I see no reason not to attempt to clarify the more accurate phrase.

I think I get where you're going here. You're referring to purely academic definitions, like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

In this case, if you really want to take the purist tact, then we're both wrong, because the spectrum has more than one dimension.

But if we're talking about American politics, then we're not misusing "liberal" and "conservative." I propose to you that the politics of a nation are unique. The definitions of the words change, relative to where on the grand spectrum the country lies.

On that chart I linked to, I would argue that American politics would be a line drawn between "social liberalism" and "conservatism." Yes we have some Anarchists and Communists but they're not part of the formal power structure. We really don't cross over that middle line. America is an inherently conservative country, not a liberal one. We've always been. Conservative in the powers we wanted to grant the government, conservative in our willingness to engage around the entire planet before WW II, conservative in how we enact reform no matter how badly its needed from women's suffrage, slavery and then civil rights, now economic reform and health care.

In fact, one could say that in America we don't make structural change until we have absolutely NO choice in the matter, or until Americans' passions are so ignited that the right...or wrong...people can control the wave and steer it towards a concrete end.


Anyway, in American political parlance, "progressives" are much more radical than "liberals." A "liberal" might be in favor of the
public option for health care. A "progressive" wants single-payer and the elimination of everything else, for example.

Thor665 wrote:The Founders were "liberal" for their day and also founded a country on the concept of liberal politics. 21st Century America is not a liberal place politically presuming you mean progressive instead of liberal and compare only to Europe. COmpared to China we are quite progressive and liberal, even if we went hard line Republican and used more conservative liberal ideals.

China is actually far Left. See the chart. They're Left Authoritarian.

Thor665 wrote:...yes, once we get rid of those 20th century holdouts we'll be doing fine. (you lost me here)

My hypothesis is that resistance to things like gay marriage, abortion rights, nationalized health care, a responsible use of our military, are all born from 20th century thinking. Conservative social principles, over-reliance on religion to shape our morals, fierce opposition to Federal involvement in the national economy, and hawkish military principles were all staples of the 20th century. It was a much different world.

We were not terribly open to the whole planet all at once, just portions of it in waves of immigration. Our basically isolationist nature limited the influence of other cultures. Our science and education had not expanded enough to begin questioning traditional religious beliefs. It took the Great Depression to get the Federal government more involved as a check and balance to economic activity in a pervasive fashion. World War II scared America out of its isolationism and the arms race with the Soviet Union fed our expanionist-through-proxy-and-currency foreign policy.

The 21st century is already a very different place. Isolationism is gone. We're culturally more open to the world than ever before. The more the internet grows, the more culture we absorb from the rest of the planet. Economically we're intertwined. Science advanced by leaps and bounds, and university education is more accessible than ever (though still not easy). We just had a horrible economic scare which should prove the point that the Federal government can't just sit back and let the stock market and health care run unregulated. The Cold War is over, and we're learning a lesson right now about what happens when you try to fight conventional wars against modern enemies.

My generation, in our mid-30's, were born in the twilight years of 20th century thinking, but we're vastly more open-minded and better educated than our parents. When we hit our 50's and 60's and are taking political office, the general "progressiveness" to use your terms in the government is going to be much wider and more pronounced than it currently is with all these Baby Boomers, and earlier generations, in power. When I look at my 10-month-old nephew, HIS generation is going to be even more progressive than mine.

My hypothesis is that many of America's problems come from living in a 21st century world and being governed by 20th century policy. The resistance to a public option is the best, current example. It's insane. We can't afford to have so many people uncovered by health insurance. It's common sense - in a nation this large and this complex, to expect "the free market" to get everyone covered and healthy is insane. We're too big. Some sort of over-arching, Federal policy is required to step in.

Costs too much? Make whatever national adjustments you have to. Perhaps it's time to end our military adventurism like Iraq which effectively drained the Treasury of the money we need right now to fund health care reform. We change to meet the reality of the 21st century where military action is more than likely going to be about hardcore intelligence-gathering followed by special operations team deployments.

Stuff like this isn't happening right now because we're governed by 20th century thinkers who effectively are isolated from the reality of the here and now. Humans are just like that. The older we get, the less most of us can adapt and change, and change comes faster than ever in the 21st century.

Our leaders have not adapted to the reality of our world. That's both Republicans and Conservadems. They need to stop thinking in the old century and wise up, wake up, and push forward.

I honestly don't think they're going to. I expect health care reform to fail, because our leaders don't have the foresight to understand why we need to do it NOW, before the situation gets worse and requires even more radical change down the line.

I guarantee that certain parties are going to be much more upset with what becomes a political necessity, past the point of debate, in 20 years versus what we could do now to solve the problem which will be much more conservative by comparison.

Thor665 wrote:But I believe I grok where you're coming from with it.

You get many bonus points for the reference.

dogma wrote:Whoa, whoa, whoa...are you suggesting that Beck has...talent?

Not at all, hence the humor.

I'm not sure that referring to the entire 1900s as one entity is a good idea. We have a lot more in common with the 1980s than the 1980s had with the 1930s. We probably will have more in common with the 1980s than the 2070s.

I also can't help but think you're going to end up putting novelty before good policy with that line of reasoning.

Cairnius wrote:You took that comment WAY out of context. MM was saying that "capitalism" didn't help him publish his book or distribute his films, aspects of the system tried to suppress both.

Yes, I am sure the system is trying to suppress him....

Cairnius wrote:In essence, he's right...a capitalist system should seek to distribute any and all products which will generate a profit, therefore "capitalism" (although using the term like this as if it were a person exercising the power to not distribute a book or release a film is kind of stupid) should have encouraged MM to produce his work, as it always makes money.

So are you saying that it was always guaranteed to make money? That is a really bad argument considering that was impossible to know. Your point, if there is one, is really not apparent.

Cairnius wrote:Aspects of the system did not do so, and so taken in context his comment makes sense. You need to take it in context, however...reprint half the article when you make the quotation and then there's no hypocrisy to call. Bad form.

The capitalist system is not all about encouraging anyone "to distribute any and all products which will generate a profit." Because before they generate a profit, it is impossible to tell if that will happen. The beauty of the capitalist system, in theory (our society isn't truly capitalist anymore), is that anyone with an idea can try to make a living out of it. It gives the private citizen the most freedom to pursue their goals.

Cairnius wrote:You just did what MM is often accused of doing, i.e. twisting facts around to make a case...but I'm pretty sure everyone here does that on a regular basis.

I made one simple sentence, and I didn't present any facts. Did you land under sniper fire in Yugoslavia as well? Because you are saying things that didn't happen. I just stated an opinion, a correct opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. The hypocrisy lies in the bashing of the capitalist-ish system that we now possess, but still using it to profit. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, then its because you don't want to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Whoa, whoa, whoa...are you suggesting that Beck has...talent?

Lets not get carried away here....

JEB_Stuart wrote: The beauty of the capitalist system, in theory (our society isn't truly capitalist anymore), is that anyone with an idea can try to make a living out of it. It gives the private citizen the most freedom to pursue their goals.

That's true of any economic system. Even a monarchy allows any given individual to behave with exceptional merit such that they might be promoted to the nobility.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
The hypocrisy lies in the bashing of the capitalist-ish system that we now possess, but still using it to profit. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, then its because you don't want to.

That's not intrinsically hypocritical. Its completely acceptable to view capitalism as evil while using it to profit. After all, MM may simply believe that he himself is evil.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cairnius wrote:The Cold War is over, and we're learning a lesson right now about what happens when you try to fight conventional wars against modern enemies.

You're about 20 years behind the curb.

Cairnius wrote:
My generation, in our mid-30's, were born in the twilight years of 20th century thinking, but we're vastly more open-minded and better educated than our parents. When we hit our 50's and 60's and are taking political office, the general "progressiveness" to use your terms in the government is going to be much wider and more pronounced than it currently is with all these Baby Boomers, and earlier generations, in power. When I look at my 10-month-old nephew, HIS generation is going to be even more progressive than mine.

I don't see that, and I benefit from youth. In general, the generation below me (17-18 year-olds) seems to be more conservative in every sense that matters (fiscal, not social). We're not about to break any cyclic trends.

Cairnius wrote:
My hypothesis is that many of America's problems come from living in a 21st century world and being governed by 20th century policy. The resistance to a public option is the best, current example. It's insane. We can't afford to have so many people uncovered by health insurance. It's common sense - in a nation this large and this complex, to expect "the free market" to get everyone covered and healthy is insane. We're too big. Some sort of over-arching, Federal policy is required to step in.

If I replaced the words 'free market' with 'government' your argument would have almost exactly the same degree of force. Try again.

Cairnius wrote:
Costs too much? Make whatever national adjustments you have to. Perhaps it's time to end our military adventurism like Iraq which effectively drained the Treasury of the money we need right now to fund health care reform. We change to meet the reality of the 21st century where military action is more than likely going to be about hardcore intelligence-gathering followed by special operations team deployments.

I take it you've not examined the military budget. Iraq is the least of our concerns in terms of expenditure.

dogma wrote:That's true of any economic system. Even a monarchy allows any given individual to behave with exceptional merit such that they might be promoted to the nobility.

Monarchy is not an economic system. Its a form of government. Any form of government is compatible with any form of economics. Even authoritarian states and capitalism work, ie China. I didn't expect you to mix something up like this...

dogma wrote:That's not intrinsically hypocritical. Its completely acceptable to view capitalism as evil while using it to profit. After all, MM may simply believe that he himself is evil.

First of all I highly doubt Michael Moore thinks of himself as evil. From what I have seen with his interviews, he sees himself as a noble crusader. To accept something as evil and and openly despise it yet use it for personal gain is hypocrisy. It's a compromise of principles, which by definition is a hypocrisy.

I think it was on Larry King but he said "Capitilism has never done anything for me" after getting out of a limo to go into the building after getting out of First Class from his aeroplane ride after leaving his ranch.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Monarchy is not an economic system. Its a form of government. Any form of government is compatible with any form of economics. Even authoritarian states and capitalism work, ie China. I didn't expect you to mix something up like this...

Well, I have been drinking.

That said, China is not a capitalist state unless you view capitalism as a quality akin to 'softness' or 'beauty' (aesthetic, and analog).

I shouldn't have used the word economic. System would have been sufficient there. Damned vodka.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
First of all I highly doubt Michael Moore thinks of himself as evil. From what I have seen with his interviews, he sees himself as a noble crusader. To accept something as evil and and openly despise it yet use it for personal gain is hypocrisy. It's a compromise of principles, which by definition is a hypocrisy.

Nobility does not disqualify one from evil.



Noble, yet evil. Also believable. The Bible hit on a truth when it described the wickedness of all men.

Ahtman wrote:I think it was on Larry King but he said "Capitilism has never done anything for me" after getting out of a limo to go into the building after getting out of First Class from his aeroplane ride after leaving his ranch.

Clearly it hasn't. Come on Ahtman, MM is perfect and would never say one thing and do another....or would he?

dogma wrote:Nobility does not disqualify one from evil.



Noble, yet evil. Also believable. The Bible hit on a truth when it described the wickedness of all men.

I believe the word(s) you are looking for are Lawful Evil.



Your gamer status has now been called into question and a complaint will be filed with The Committee to review the incident and see what, if any, punishment is appropriate..

Cairnius wrote:I think I get where you're going here. You're referring to purely academic definitions, like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

In this case, if you really want to take the purist tact, then we're both wrong, because the spectrum has more than one dimension.

While i will agree that political thought has more then one dimension in describing it, I don't follow you on how that makes me "wrong." Liberal is a school of political thought, liberal has a definition, Republicans and Democrats both meet that definition. Republicans are liberals. Yes, there are differences in how they choose to express those liberal beliefs - but I've always stated as much.

If you really wish to use Wikipedia in a political discussion then I will throw out this which is from a link on the page you linked to. I will also add Wikipedia's "in depth" analysis of Conservatism where they seem to suggest it is not an ideological thought in and of itself, but rather a way to interpret the political thought of whatever political ideology you happen to be part of (liberal for Republicans)

But if we're talking about American politics, then we're not misusing "liberal" and "conservative." I propose to you that the politics of a nation are unique. The definitions of the words change, relative to where on the grand spectrum the country lies.

I would guardedly agree with this, as long as you agree that the above terms are often misused in discussions of American politics.

On that chart I linked to, I would argue that American politics would be a line drawn between "social liberalism" and "conservatism."

Not to sound like a total mensch - but you are aware you just drew a horizontal line on the 'Liberal' side of the scale, yes? (look at the top, though I am presuming you're using the Slomp scale, since there are a bunch of scales on the page you linked to and you never identify which you're using) I think you're agreeing with me but choosing to argue semantics for some reason.

Many discussions about age and 20th century thought.

Okay, I get where you're coming from on that score now. I would have used a different phrase but you already caught me on that one.

Thor665 wrote:But I believe I grok where you're coming from with it.

You get many bonus points for the reference.

Huzzah!

JEB_Stuart wrote:

dogma wrote:That's true of any economic system. Even a monarchy allows any given individual to behave with exceptional merit such that they might be promoted to the nobility.

Monarchy is not an economic system. Its a form of government. Any form of government is compatible with any form of economics. Even authoritarian states and capitalism work, ie China. I didn't expect you to mix something up like this...

dogma wrote:That's not intrinsically hypocritical. Its completely acceptable to view capitalism as evil while using it to profit. After all, MM may simply believe that he himself is evil.

First of all I highly doubt Michael Moore thinks of himself as evil. From what I have seen with his interviews, he sees himself as a noble crusader. To accept something as evil and and openly despise it yet use it for personal gain is hypocrisy. It's a compromise of principles, which by definition is a hypocrisy.

Not at all.

Remember the anarchist book entitled "Steal This Book".

It deliberately used and subverted standard capitalist marketing and distribution in an attempt to harm the system it was a diatribe against. A sort of parasite meme, if you will.