Partisan War Syndrome

“Today’s Republican Party, for instance, could not win without the corresponding conservative ideological movement that gets that party its committed donors, fervent foot soldiers and loyal activists. That base certainly operates as an arm of the GOP’s party infrastructure - but few doubt it is fueled less by hollow partisanship, and more by their grassroots’ commitment to social, economic and religious conservatism.”

While I agree with the broad points that you make, I don’t think that you recognize the value of the “partisan war” mentality.

We have certainly seen Republicans who sway and “flip flop” according to the desires of their fired up conservative activist base. Naked partisan power plays have been a key to the current Republican take over of all branches of government. Perhaps there is a need for these types of players within a political power or perhaps we should listen to the wisdom in the adage “your enemies are not your teachers.”

In either case, I don’t think the Democrats can successfuly articulate a coherent message of hope that translates into overarching policy themes because the party is still trying to figure out where it stands. To date the party has been unable to take up the legacy of FDR, Truman, and even Johnson. It has not been able to speak clearly as the party that empowered more people to reach the middle class than ever in history. Rather than defend the policies that enabled this to happen, Democrats are unable to say openly that taxes contribute to the common good, that when we act together we accomplish more individually.

Democrats perhaps are gunshy about pushing for the types of progressive reforms that led to the civil rights act. The loss of an entire region of the U.S. was an enormous price to pay and may contribute to the fear of taking too strong a position on issues of civil liberties and justice. An example of this cowardice has been the Democaratics response to the Republican attack on the rigts of Gay Americans.

The Democratic party was most inspiring when it pursued an agenda of equal opportunity, building infrastructure (including human capital), and pushing itself and America to overcome prejudice and fear. But thse messages are challenging. And if the pary expects to lead, it needs to give people something to follow. How many people in the last election “voted for Bush with reservations.”

Instead the Democrats, like the GAP, have tried to become everything to everybody and have instead become nothing to anyone.

A part of the solution must be to identify the most courageous Democratic leaders and spread their name. A part of the solution has be debating amongst ourselves as the party base.

One of the most progressive presidential candidates was Dennis Kucinich. He stood for everything that true Democratic progressives believe in. Yet, many progressives would’nt support him because they wanted someone who they thought could win. They wanted image, not substance. The rest is history.

Kucinich is still one of the few politicians that stands up for “We The People.”
http://www.kucinich.us/

So long as we continue to associate the Democratic Party with “the Left"--neither of which really exist, as the “Democratic” party is merely one half of a centrist corporate-defense party, and “the Left” in the US bears no resemblance to actual Left politics--we will continue to remain trapped in this vicious cycle of political schitzophrenia known as American socio-political cognitive dissonance.

The so-called “anti-War movement” has been co-opted and subsumed by the Democrats, so that rather than a real movement that challenges government, we have Cindy Sheehan and her celebrity friends having a folk-song party in front of the White House, waiting for the next photo-op. United for Peace & Justice, purportedly the largest anti-war coalition in the nation, has steadfastly done everything in their power to not actually make any real challenge to the government nor create any real disturbance around the war, aside from the tired old ineffectual, unseen, unheard and unheeded marches and rallies that no one but the choir ever sees or attends.

In short, activism has become entertainment, and the Democratic Party has hoodwinked us all into thinking they care about us, when in fact, they give as much money to the Pentagon as the Repukes, and wouldn’t dare challenge the corporate system which keeps them rich and fat and liars.

I encourage you all to read “Regulated Resistance: Is it possible to change the system when you are the system?” which asks, Does the American “anti-war movement” really have the ability to bring about change when they are closely monitored, financed, and regulated by the same system they purport to oppose?
http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/articles/30

The only way our of this morass, out of this one-way ticket to collapse, is to completely change our political system and have real democracy, which means ending the empire and kicking the corporations out of the political process.

Until then, we are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Sirota’s posting today reminds me that, I too, supported Kerry on the theory that he was the most ‘electable’ candidate.  There’s no question that a candidate with powerful TV charisma, such as Bill Clinton, can go far, regardless of his position on issues.  Unfortunately, with the possible exception of John Edwards, none of the 2004 candidates had Clinton’s charisma.

Despite Sirota’s leaning for an “ideologically pure” candidate, we really do need a charismatic leader, such as a Kennedy or a Clinton, who will nonetheless expouse a position that will expose the lies of the last 30 years of conservatism. 

Conservatism has really be “in control” ever since Johnson gave up the South with the Civil Rights legislation.  Jimmy Carter was elected because he was “from the South,” as was Bill Clinton.  The last northern Democrat was JFK, who was elected 45 years ago!

There is no question that the Bush presidency has exposed the fundamental weaknesses of conservative positions, especially on taxes, and fighting a useless and unnecessary war in Iraq, all in the name of “fighting terrorism.”

We have had the ‘progressive’ taxation system undermined ever since Reagan, and there are still conservatives and libertarians who want a “flat tax,” austensibly in the name of simplicity, but, in reality, as a giveaway to the very rich.

Unfortunately, much of the current conservative movement is made up of what I will call “Wal-Mart Joes”, people who are barely middle class, or even below.  They listen to Limbaugh and other hate-mongers of the radical right, who, while catering to Wal-Mart Joes’ hatred of gays and others, bash the tax system that has benefited Wal Mart Joe the most, the progressive tax system.  It is the Wal Mart Joes of this world that used to vote Democratic, that voted for Reagan in 1980, and voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.  The conservatives are also to blame for the health care crisis in this country, nixing Hillary’s Single Payer health care reform for market-driven insurance.  Health Insurance costs have more than doubled over the last five years, which is why GM today announced that it is cutting billions out of its health insurance program for employees.

Democrats need Wal Mart Joes back, and the conservatives have given LOADS of ammunition to any Democrat that is willing to take a stand on the economic issues of taxation and health care, and the failed Iraq war.  The current Congress only listens to the dictates of the corporations that put them there.  This includes some of the lame and feeble Democrats that are currently in office.  A Democrat who is able to articulate effectively what is wrong with the current path, including the “regressive” income tax, the market-driven health insurance industry, and the war in Iraq, while, at the same time, not appearing “wimpish,” will be able to re-capture the Wal Mart Joes.

I know that recapturing Wal Mart Joes won’t be easy, especially for those that want to take the correct stand on gays, namely, “let them marry, it ain’t gonna hurt you.” That should be an understated part of any campaign.  JFK didn’t push for Civil Rights in his campaign, although clearly he believed that the time had come to end the discrimination of the previous 170 years of American history.

Finally, it is really time for Democrats to take a stand on getting out of Iraq.  It is the wrong war, only a “war for oil,” and the American people are ready for true leadership on getting out.

“The so-called “anti-War movement” has been co-opted and subsumed by the Democrats, so that rather than a real movement that challenges government, we have Cindy Sheehan and her celebrity friends having a folk-song party in front of the White House, waiting for the next photo-op. United for Peace & Justice, purportedly the largest anti-war coalition in the nation, has steadfastly done everything in their power to not actually make any real challenge to the government nor create any real disturbance around the war, aside from the tired old ineffectual, unseen, unheard and unheeded marches and rallies that no one but the choir ever sees or attends.”

I think you pointing out something true about the role of activism in American today. However it may be overstated. It does seem that the anti-war movement and Cindy Sheehan, in particular, helped to galvanize anti-war sentiment across the country.

It’s also true that the Dems are also tied to corporations, it is problematic to jump from that to there being no difference between them. That was the mistake that Ralph Nader made in 2000. Despite the problem with the Dems (lack of vision, unwilling to push corps out of politics, etc.)they are not fundamentalists trying to usher in a more theocratic government or fiscal conservatives trying to take us back to pre-depression economic policies.

“It does seem that the anti-war movement and Cindy Sheehan, in particular, helped to galvanize anti-war sentiment across the country.”

True...until she went from being a grieving mother to a celebrity and partisan hack. Her little smiling moment at the so-called “civil disobedience” at the White House showed how much activism has become entertainment. There should have been a riot there, instead, not one of those celebrities was actually arrested. It’s a joke. I encourage these folks to go back and read their Thoreau, “On The Role and Importance of Civil Disobedience”. It is not supposed to be “fun”.

And, what does it matter if the choir is “galvanized”, they are still the choir. Most Americans are completely disconnected from the so-called “anti-war movement”, which to most Americans is simply a joke.

Lastly, as I said, so long as you keep perpetuating the myth that there is any real or empirical, quantifiable difference between the Dems and Reps, you are part of the problem. Look at them both holistically, and you will see there is no empirical difference. They both stand for the same things, and differ on negligible, niggling non-issues.

The Democrats were once known as the party of the ordinary working people — now they are labeled as the “Tax and spend” party.

The Republicans (who have out spent everyone) have at least remained true to their long time title, “The Party of Business”.  Big business itself may be danger (GM and other autos, the airlines, etc.), but only the lower end employees will feel it. Their pensions were turned into 401(k) plans while the remaining defined benefit plans have been pilfered. The top guys, however, have their options (unexpensed and unedangered) and a host of deferred and hidden monetary gains.

What has changed? Look at Congress — both sides of the aisle have cooperated with any legislation which favors off shoring our jobs and giving CEOs a basket of goodies. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 is a prime example of this joint venture with the BIG boys.

Actually, the Congress and big business (aka big contributors) have so much in common that, neither is aware of what is happening to the American middle class, or else neither gives a damn. They all have their lifetime benefit packages and annual increases in income.  They say the economy is doing well, job gains are coming along, median income is up — compared to what? Last week? Last Month? Last year? Take the long view of 20 or 30 years, and it is not a pretty sight.

If Democrats had any guts they would have presented a clear alternative to the Republicans’ idea of private accounts for Social Security. The party who invented the program has forgotten what it was for. I have paid the “Self-employment Tax” (Social Security) for forty years. It was and should be a tax. It is NOT a retirement plan — it is an insurance for those in need. As such the solution to solvency is simple… simply remove the $90,000 cap and tax all income.

Along with party designations, the terms left, right, liberal and conservative have lost any clear and meaningful definition. Democratic liberals are anything but liberating. By allowing the middle class to decay through job losses, they have helped destroy the liberating effect of a steady income, health insurance and an optimistic future.

The current Republican administration has conserved nothing. They gave away our jobs, have spent our grandchildren’s inheritance and have made Homeland Security into a sick joke.

I have been a lifelong conservative — there is nothing neo about it.

“It is the Wal Mart Joes of this world that used to vote Democratic, that voted for Reagan in 1980, and voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004....
Democrats need Wal Mart Joes back, and the conservatives have given LOADS of ammunition to any Democrat that is willing to take a stand on the economic issues of taxation and health care, and the failed Iraq war.”

In Sunday’s “Washington Post” column SundayPolitics, there was a blurb about DNC Dean’s “Merlot Democrats” aka “the base”. Seems that 1/3 of them have postgraduate degrees and they are “affluent and secular in their cultural values, and not particularly anxious about ‘pocketbook’ issues.” Does anyone really wonder why the Democrats keep losing? Wal Mart Joe’s don’t hate gays but they don’t see any reason to adhere to a party that places gay marriage and abortion above the economic interests of most of the country - which is mainly feeding, clothing, and sheltering their families with a bit left over. And why should they?

“Look at them both holistically, and you will see there is no empirical difference. They both stand for the same things, and differ on negligible, niggling non-issues.”

Empirically there is a difference between the two parties on important issues: while the Dems position on Gay Marriage is a BS compromise, it is different than wanting to pass anti-gay marriage amendments; while Dems have failed to provide a real education program, they are far from believing that the solution is standardized testing and privatizing the educational system; the parties have different stances on women’s right to choose, and they have different beliefs about the governments role in assisting American in need (for example the victims of Hurrican Katrina).

I am not saying that they are different across the board. They have clearly gotten too close to corporate America. They have allowed themselves to be cowed by the repubs. Worst of all they have undertaken a policy of appeasement on a large scale for fear of alienating moderates and independents.

Perhaps it goes back to one of your original points, we do need to shake up the political system. We have needed a third party for a long time. Sans that party however, if we the nation is to stop this turn right, the Dems do need to go back and rediscover why they are Dems to begin with.

“Merlot Democrats” aka “the base”. Seems that 1/3 of them have postgraduate degrees and they are “affluent and secular in their cultural values, and not particularly anxious about ‘pocketbook’ issues.” Does anyone really wonder why the Democrats keep losing? Wal Mart Joe’s don’t hate gays but they don’t see any reason to adhere to a party that places gay marriage and abortion above the economic interests of most of the country - which is mainly feeding, clothing, and sheltering their families with a bit left over. And why should they?”

The fact is that Wal Mart Joe is more than happy to vote for a party that places gay marriage and abortion above economic issues: the Repubs. It was not just fear of terrorism that drove people to vote for Repubs, and not just the Dems lack of leaderships and vision. 11 states had Anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot at the time of the national election. The religious right is even now looking to see if Harriet Mier will pass the litmus test-overturning Roe v Wade. This see this as payback for supporting Bush and the Repubs.

Walmart Joes not only voted for a party whose primary campaign focused on getting the terrorists, stopping the gays, and stopping abortions, they did so despite their economic interests.

“If Democrats had any guts they would have presented a clear alternative to the Republicans’ idea of private accounts for Social Security. The party who invented the program has forgotten what it was for. I have paid the “Self-employment Tax” (Social Security) for forty years. It was and should be a tax. It is NOT a retirement plan — it is an insurance for those in need. As such the solution to solvency is simple… simply remove the $90,000 cap and tax all income.”

This gets to the heart of the matter. If the Dems had any guts they would have long ago said the universal health care is necessity in today’s economy. No one should have to go without medical attention for lack of money. Furthermore it would mean that people who wanted to open their own business could do so without fear of losing health care for themselves and their families, employers could offer higher wages, employees could bargain for raises. It would mean lower per employee cost for businesses of all sizes.

Many of the same arguments are true for childcare. But the Dems either do not believe these things anymore or are too cowardly to stand for them.

The previous posts have said most of it. I would suggest that the focus of opposition must be economic security...that a national economy must be about the production of economic security for all citizens(the necessary basis of true freedom and individualism and effective democracy), rather than a competitive game of “opportunity” for a few to achieve extreme affluence, and undemocratic control of social policy. The Democrats must again become populists, and paint conservatism as a proponent of class divisions. It IS class warfare.

I’m a life long PROGRESSIVE Republican and I think that most of the Democratic party is way too far too the RIGHT!!!

Stop pandering to big business—you won’t win by being Bush Lite—and start being progressive.

Also get out of “identity politics” if you want the “blue collar workers” back. Stop talking about (name your favorite cause) rights and start talking about human rights and the right to privacy.

c.d.embrey

“Also get out of “identity politics” if you want the “blue collar workers” back. Stop talking about (name your favorite cause) rights and start talking about human rights and the right to privacy.”

I think you are right on about this. Human rigts, equal access, the right to privacy are the issues that need to be addressed.

The problem with the anti-war movement is that is is just anti. I have yet to read a coherent way to leave Iraq, other than what we are currently doing (shoring up the Iraqi government until it can provide some semblance of security).

The Dems need to provide a viable alternative to the Repubs. One could imagine beginning by attacking the termination of the estate tax, which seems like an easy target. Moving on to make the tax system more progressive seems like a relatively easy issue to capture as well (economic justice for the working man or some such).

It would seem to me that discarding the politics of race would be another big plus up for the Dems. If they were to focus on the real stratifications in our society, it would be class based. I think more people would be sympathetic to class based assistance, rather than race based ‘give aways’ or ‘reverse discrimination’ (while both quotes are accurate, they are also inflammatory).

Bush has apparently ceded the domestic side to the Congress, while he focuses on the war. This could be used to advantage, but one should not pander to the “anti-war” crowd unless they have real alternatives to the war. And no, just cuttinng and running is not such an alternative.

First of all, the progressives are not the base of the Democratic party.  The Democrats are the base of the progressives, and the “Wal-Mart Joes” and Joans are the base of the Democratic party, just as the businessfolk who hire and fire them, and thereby obtain their allegience, are the base of the Republican party.  The source of the confusion dates back to the Depression, when FDR harnessed a progressive socialist vanguard administration in order to transfer a flagging allegience from Big Business to Big Government, in order to mobilize the nation for war.  Once the war was won, the socialists were cut loose and the fascists returned to, er, business, as usual.

Rabbit has landed. Am reading still and will be doing so again slowly as well as thinking before saying anything. 

This may serve as a warning to any Morons who may or may not be lurking (woof woof), not to be posting anything too stupid, lest ye be given the choice of eating them or the stick.

Chuckville and Farbie, Rabbit salutes your posts, you have bothe said all Rabbit would and better about the “Centrist Corporate-Defense Party”. That is a very good name for it.  It is what has become of all our intended or de-facto 2-party systems.  The left is trying to appeal to the conservatives, or more caccurately the conservatives are the face of whatever organised left labelled rersistance there is, or isn’t.  We all (USA, Britain and OZ) seem to have the most insane fascist leaders all of whom would seem to be such F*cking A*seholes that anybody should be able to beat them, hell they even felt threatened by Michael Moore’s Ficus, enough to pull some swift fraud against it. 

YET our supposed oppositions are in all cases disorganised, and the most coherant message is pretty much just “more of the same”.  It cannot be that both sides of politics are “Missing the point” of what makes people dissatisfied. They cannot be both ignoring “ALL” the issues which people want dealt with differently.  This is only logically possible with a conspiracy, Rabbit can find no more appropriate word.

The FACTS of who supports which party, for how much, what they expect AND GET, in return is not even a secret, so what is there to discuss?

Rabbit has an OPINION about why this is the same in each of our countries.

The disorganised state of what would be a real opposition force is due to the MEDIA primarily. The relatively recently christened MSM. WE KNOW how much they FILTER the news and Rabbit for one has seen MANY examples of very serious mis-reporting becoming the supposed gospel truth among the mis-informed masses.

This keeps everybody in doubt about the truth about so many things. At the least people are confused with the amount of information and just switch off, going into beer and football mode. People are easily made to mistrust each other this way. One group or another is focused upon and all the NEGATIVE sides of that group’s existence and contact with the wider “percieved” community. It can be youth, race, drugs, religions any group you care to think of can be made to look sufficiently “DIFFERENT” and somehow threatening to all these insecure sheeple everywhere. Everyone buys into some part of the story and joins the sheeple in their BLEATING. They bleat whatever they are told to bleat.  “Four legs good two legs bad” BAA BAA....................

“Muslims are terrorists who hate us...BAA BAA”

“We have to kill everybody in case they get the idea to kill us....BAA BAA”

So long as we are all convinced that some group or another are our enemies instead of concentrating on defining who are our friends we are at the mercy of the, centrist corporate-defense party. 

Both the DEMOCRAP garbed beast as well as the REPUGNANT one.

WTH and Rabbit agree once again on issues where the facts are not in dispute. 

The Dems have not offerred an alternative in concept or in the details even down to social security which should be considered their turf.

Wolf even gets no argument from Rabbit, and certainly not CD embrey.

It is rather telling guys that even the conservatives are “COMPLETELY” on target about what is wrong with the DEMS.  Now if only they could all as clearly see the NEO-CONS for what they are.

“The disorganised state of what would be a real opposition force is due to the MEDIA primarily. The relatively recently christened MSM. WE KNOW how much they FILTER the news and Rabbit for one has seen MANY examples of very serious mis-reporting becoming the supposed gospel truth among the mis-informed masses”

Rabbit I believe that this is half the story for sure. But what seperates those who question the media from those who don’t?

Perhaps there is a reason that education is talking point that nobody really wants to reform. Critical thinking does not make for good sheep.

“what seperates those who question the media from those who don’t?”

Maybe that those who question the media have no representation?

“ But what seperates those who question the media from those who don’t? Perhaps there is a reason that education is talking point that nobody really wants to reform. Critical thinking does not make for good sheep. “

Neruda, education does not necessarily a critically thinking sheep make. It can help certainly, but there are plenty of smart people who do a “crimestop” when they find themselves faced with the realization that their governments are not looking after the people’s best interests because that realization would be a “thoughtcrime”.

(Strangely, the comment box says I’ll be identified as “David Sirota”. I am not, I am Kuya.)

I think this is a very valuable article, really a breath of fresh air. I appreciated the author’s willingness to look at the “progressive” movement not so much as an opponent, but as something of an insider, and to characterize some of its pretty severe limitations. Yes, I know we can debate the semantics of the term “progressive”, but for brevity’s sake I’ll conveniently use it as stated. 4000 characters, ya know.

Conservative/libertarian posters at this site often say that self-described progressives suffer from hazy thinking, disjointed styles of reasoning, and intellectual sloppiness. Sometimes I think they have a point even though in general I tend to agree more with the progressive side. For example, I’ve expressed serious concerns (and personal quandries) with the way abortion rights are argued for. I’ve also taken issue with the view that personal initiative, creativity, and hard work have nothing to do with improving one’s quality of life, or at least that prejudicial attitudes can thoroughly negate their value. I also have no more patience with race-based politics; they’re irrational and demonstrably harmful to the agenda of removing race as a source of stigma and social handicapping. Finally, although I opposed the invasion of Iraq, the idea that the US can “cut and run” (to paraphrase wolf above) without causing unbelievable chaos is to refuse to see cause-effect relationships. There’s chaos enough, even with (because of?) foreign troops! Their sudden absence would only trigger a vast flare-up of violence by insurgents.

Side note: with all the hullabaloo over WMDs, I have more concern at the moment with Baathists’ conventional weapons caches; only God knows how many there are around Iraq.

There are times, when the conversation turns to the issues I cite above, that the progressive leaders and commentators I nominally side with can’t seem to hear their own voices or the thoughts that fuel them. It’s as though they disconnect themselves mentally from the implications of what they argue.

If Republicans or neo-cons are also guilty of this, I simply point out that at the moment, I’m not talking about them. I’ll put the magnifying glass over them elsewhere.

If the progressive movement has anything to offer other than reflexive, habitual denunciation of Bush/the Republicans, they have to be willing to accept the kind of critical examination represented by Sirota’s article. I tend to respect self-critique much more than the usual partisan harangues, which so often oversimplify or misrepresent the views of their adversaries. I always feel gratified when a progressive commentator reveals clarity in the premises he argues from, as well as an understanding of the real-life implications of the values and policies he espouses.

Such stuff is too rare in this day of name-calling and deliberate misrepresentation of rival viewpoints (not to mention excessive craftiness in describing one’s own viewpoints!)

Better to turn a clear, dispassionate eye inward and to see one’s own faction with a level of detachment, measuring it against real-world outcomes, in hopes of cleaning up its flaws and making sure it has a grounding in reality. Because if it doesn’t have that grounding, what use is it, after all?

I also found Sirota’s use of terms drawn from the study of dysfunctional psychology as on-target and amusing. I’d like to see more of this kind of writing.

Kuya

Hmmm, well, I guess the ITT server got my name right after all.

Computers. Crazy machines!

Not wishing to take the thread off topic, Rabbit is reluctant to say this but here goes..

Cutting and Running in Iraq, is the right thing to do if the majority of Iraqis want this and I think they do. we should never have been there in the first place and we are not fixing anything stumbling around like a bull in a China shop.  The mess is bad and it is getting worse. It will not get better while the troops of an invading army are everywhere.

Most importantly is that you are STEALING their oil and they know it.  the OIL belonged to Iraqis it is being “FORCEFULLY” privatised and is being placed under US control. THAT IS PIRACY and all the good will in the world will not suffice while this is going on.

A UN security force, with Muslim troops or at least more neutral and complete US British and Australian withdrawal. The war is illegal, it is being waged imorally and poorly and it cannot ever be won by us. We invaded their home and have caused a serious fight among their family. There is NO justification to remain and try to fix the mess. They neither NEED nor WANT our help.  When will even the more enlightened souls of your benighted land wake up to this.

WE DON’T WANT WHAT YOU ARE SELLING. We don’t want it even when you force us to take it.

Cutting and running is just a spin.  GET OUT is simple. STOP stealing their OIL is even more simple.

“Neruda, education does not necessarily a critically thinking sheep make. It can help certainly, but there are plenty of smart people who do a “crimestop” when they find themselves faced with the realization that their governments are not looking after the people’s best interests because that realization would be a “thoughtcrime”.

Very good point. So what is the difference between the sheep and those who question the news?

I think this is an important question to take seriously because it has implications for communicating to a broader audience in an effective way. Especially since “those who question the news have no representation.” People with no representation have no voice/choice in political decision making.

At this point the kind of critical self-reflection that Kuya speaks of must begin yielding a principled alternative. And that alternative needs to be clearly, coherently, and passionately presented.

That being said, Sirrota is right that the political system needs change. The political system resembled the legal system-adversarial. Only the political system is pumped up on hundreds of millions of dollars. And both parties are chasing the cash fix.

The difference in where the parties are at today is that repubs know their goals more clearly: cash, power, control. Policy is secondary. And they understand how to market their message to specific segments (including through using the news and other media).

Whereas progressives seem unclear as to why they want to govern. Sirrot says “parts of the grassroots have taken on the establishment’s condescending, self-fulfilling prophecy that personality, charisma, image and “profile” matter more to voters than anything of substance.”

I think there is more to it. The discussion the article gave rise to demonstrates that a) we, progressives (dems, non-repubs, left, etc.) don’t agree on the substance. We have to have some clear discussions that can at least lead to compromises we can move forward with. Second in this media age “personality, charisma, image, and “profile” matter. They simply do. Substance and style do not need to be mutually exclusively or antithetical.

“ So what is the difference between the sheep and those who question the news? “

Fear and ignorance can separate those who question from those who don’t. Education may be able to dispel fear and ignorance. Fear and ignorance can dispel an education.

It used to be the politicians promised to deliver us our dreams. Now they promise to deliver us from our nightmares.

Hello Rabbit,
I don’t justify the Iraq war, they can keep the oil.

But security and law/order don’t exist (and yes, I know how they were broken, and how they behaved before they were broken).

There’s no safety there. Violence has been unleashed that won’t (I believe) subside even if foreigners bail.

Believe me, I’m aware of how we got to the present situation. I’ve argued against the US being in Iraq since before the invasion. But we’re at the fucked up present moment now, and my indignation about how it all so bitterly took place doesn’t change what’s in hand and won’t turn back the clock.

Would turn back the clock if I could, back to before the sponsorship of Saddam ‘way back when. But that aint gonna happen, and today, I believe some kind of security apparatus has to be built.

Sooner the better. The more Iraqi-controlled the better.

The sooner we all get a realistic understanding about oil, and use the shit more intelligently (equals sparingly), the better.

“It used to be the politicians promised to deliver us our dreams. Now they promise to deliver us from our nightmares.”

What does this mean? Perhaps some examples might make this more understandable?

Here is a serious question. Given that blacks (a misnomer if there ever was one) vote overwhelmingly Democratic (~90%!!!), is this an example of:

1) sheep following what authority figures tell them to do

or

2) a group of well informed folk who understand their own political self interests?

Other alternatives are welcome.

“‘It used to be the politicians promised to deliver us our dreams. Now they promise to deliver us from our nightmares.’ --What does this mean? Perhaps some examples might make this more understandable?”

Wolfie,

This is in reference to the brilliant BBC documentary about the origins of both NeoConservatism and Radical Islam, “The Power of Nightmares”. That phrase is the main tag line, or thesis-statement of the film.

Essentially, the filmmakers are saying that the Liberal dream, that of the promise and power of 20th Century Liberalism, was that government could provide for their people, address and solve societal ills, and be the central construct in people’s lives, helping them all achieve their dreams. That dream failed, and now government, with no tanglible purpose anymore in an era where widescale warfare is obsolete, promises to “protect us from our nightmares” by dealing in the politics of fear.

If you think Fahrenheit 911 did any good to expose the criminal administration we have now, then just hold on to your cobbles! “The Power of Nightmares” makes Fahrenheit 911 look like From Justin to Kelly. I cannot stress enough how important it is for all Americans to view. It is a top notch, professional, credible, non-Partisan documentary which exposes the “War on Terror” for what it really is, a largely exaggerated and manipulated “myth” used to empower certain politicians and justify massive social reforms.

Some of the astounding revelations:

-Neo-conservatism and Fundamentalist Islam originated in the same place: Post-WW II America.

-Leo Strauss, father of the Neoconservative movement, claimed that in to maintain social order the masses needed to be fed myths, namely religion and nationalism to give them something to believe in and identify with, and that any lie was justifiable in order to maintain control of “good” over “evil”

-That the Soviet threat was greatly exaggerated and even falsified after 1974 by a group called Team B which included many Neoconservatives in power now like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, in order to maintain the Military-Industrial complex and sweep Reagan into office, rather than issue in an era of detente and peace.

-That “Al-Qaeda” as an organization was made up by the FBI in January of 2001 in order to prosecute Bin Laden in absentia for the Khobar towers bombing under the RICO statute. That there is no organization called “Al Qaeda”, there is only a scattered network of unaffiliated Islamic revolutionaries who were training in Afghanistan to fight revolutions in their own nations, not to attack America.

-That the “War on Terror” is used as a vehicle by which a population that no longer believes in anything but its own greed and pursuit of selfish material wealth is kept in a perpetual state of fear in order to justify giving up rights.

The BBC series page is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

You can stream or download the three segments here: http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

“They would create a hidden network of evil run by the Soviet Union that only they could see.”

The quote above is from the link above. In 1949 only the neocons could see that the Soviets were evil? I expect that hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe might have had their suspicions. . .

Personally, even if government could “take care” of us, i would be very leary of such an arrangement. I prefer freedom, such as it is, to the gilded cage.

“Personally, even if government could “take care” of us, i would be very leary of such an arrangement. I prefer freedom, such as it is, to the gilded cage.”

By that as it may, it nonetheless was the central tenet of Liberalism (e.g. “The Great Society") Your sentiments are simply those held by the Conservative milieu, who have always been leery of government in private lives.

And, you really need to see the film first before you comment on it. As pertains to history, in 1949 the Soviets were nothing even approaching a threat to the US or Western interests. They hadn’t even developed the bomb yet, or were just emerging with it. But they were still decimated by the war.

The period they discuss in “Power of Nightmares” is the early Seventies, specifically 1974, when the Soviet Union was ossified and nearing collapse, and “Team B” invented a bunch of fictitious weapons systems to justify another Cold War spending spree, and the extention of the Cold War policies.

As I said, the politics of fear. Eastern Europe may have found themselves under the yoke of the Soviet Union, but that’s a far far cry from the danger of World Domination by the Communists, which was never feasible.

They also shatter the myth that the Soviet Union was orchestrating indiginous people’s uprisings and terrorist activity around the world.

Go see the movie, Wolfie. Then come back and discuss.

“ So what is the difference between the sheep and those who question the news? “

“Fear and ignorance can separate those who question from those who don’t. Education may be able to dispel fear and ignorance. Fear and ignorance can dispel an education.”

“Here is a serious question. Given that blacks (a misnomer if there ever was one) vote overwhelmingly Democratic (~90%!!!), is this an example of:

1) sheep following what authority figures tell them to do
or
2) a group of well informed folk who understand their own political self interests?

Other alternatives are welcome”

David. I really do believe that education plays a major role in this issue however I have been thinking about the point that Wolf is making. This is why I put the question out there.

For two reasons I think it’s important not to dismiss so many people out of hand.

1) it’s too easy to say it’s all about the sheep. Part of the point of this article was to point out that progresives need stronger, clearer leadership. Assume the sheep hypothesis is true. Then it’s important for progressive leaders to convey the message that they are strong, competent shepherds. It’s either that or be relegated to a permanent innefectual minority party.

2) This position does convey a sense of intellectual superiority. I am not saying that there is or isn’t something to it, only that the statement leaves with little “so now what?”

“It used to be the politicians promised to deliver us our dreams. Now they promise to deliver us from our nightmares.”

Chuck, thanks for linking the reference to “The Power of Nightmares”. I was not sure where I remembered the phrase from and am glad that you did.

Politics of fear is indeed being used against us. Always has been. Carrot and the stick.

It is important to not dismiss the sheep and they do need those who are genuinely trying to be good shepherds. It is a simple fact that some people are intellectually superior. How they choose to use that superiority is what matters. They can be bad shepherds and use fear and ignorance to keep the sheep in line. They can be good shepherds and use love and knowledge to show the sheep a better way.

So now what?

“Be the change you want to see.” Mahatma Ghandi

Get informed. Stop being afraid. Help others do the same.

“They can be bad shepherds and use fear and ignorance to keep the sheep in line. They can be good shepherds and use love and knowledge to show the sheep a better way.”

This seems far too simplistic to me. As a parent, i often use fear to “keep the sheep” in line. Look both ways when you cross, don’t do drugs, etc etc.

I suppose that ignorance is often self imposed, for one reason or another (typically due to lack of time/inclination).

It seems far more important to me that the “shepherds” get the “sheep” to do whats right. A famous (infamous?) example was how FDR manipulated public opinion to help draw the US into WWII.

Of course, the *real* problem is that the vast majority of us either don’t have the resouces or time or ability to decide if our leaders are following a path that is in our best interests. I believe this is true for all social strata. It is made impossibly difficult by the obvious fact that we have very little ability to forecast the future, and yet must choose to act as if we know what we are doing. . .

If you want the attention and backing of a large number of people you must offer to serve a need they have in common. This is a basic theme in mass marketing.

I agree with a number of comments on this article, but it seems to me the discussion quickly degenerates to those things we disagree on — this is the basic problem with the political parties these days.

I have always thought of myself as a conservative, but the Republicans don’t fit my concept and certainly the neocons do not. (In my book they are a third party.) I am still a conservative — they are not. Damned if I know of any party with which I can agree on much.

The founders of this nation in the preamble to the Constitution spoke of a more perfect union, justice, defense, AND… one we hear little about..."promote the General Welfare”.  Instead, both Republicans and Democrats spend an awful lot of time on divisive topics for “special interest groups” and pork projects for a relative few.

The “Special Interest Group” they should be working for is the citizens of these United States — the general welfare of all of us. Whenever they get to pandering for votes based on a fragment of the population they alienate others. Not real bright.

The first party that stops pandering to XXXX-Americans and works on ideas for health care, jobs, genuine homeland protection, affordable education, a secure old age — the things we ALL want — will get my support, whatever they call themselves.

“ This seems far too simplistic to me. As a parent, i often use fear to “keep the sheep” in line. Look both ways when you cross, don’t do drugs, etc etc. “

Wolf,

But you do it out of love for your sheep. You explain to your sheep why they should do as you instruct them to. You tell them of the possible consequences of their actions but it is done out of love.

Wouldn’t you rather your sheep obey out of love for you than out of fear of you?

Wouldn’t you rather your sheep obey your just laws because they know it is the right thing to do?

“Of course, the *real* problem is that the vast majority of us either don’t have the resouces or time or ability to decide if our leaders are following a path that is in our best interests.”

This is a very important issue. It is one of the reasons that so many turn to the media for information. And it is also why the MSM plays such a major role in politics.

All the more reason to break the ties between government and corporations.

“The founders of this nation in the preamble to the Constitution spoke of a more perfect union, justice, defense, AND… one we hear little about..."promote the General Welfare”.  Instead, both Republicans and Democrats spend an awful lot of time on divisive topics for “special interest groups” and pork projects for a relative few.”

For the most part I agree with what you are saying however I am wondering specifically who you are referring to when you talk about “special interest groups.” That term is very loaded. It was often used to discredit policies meant to address issues of social inequality. And the term has since become more inclusive.

It’s an important point however because some issues which are important to ensure equal right to participate in the more perfect union.

A UN security force, with Muslim troops or at least more neutral and complete US British and Australian withdrawal. The war is illegal, it is being waged imorally and poorly and it cannot ever be won by us. We invaded their home and have caused a serious fight among their family. There is NO justification to remain and try to fix the mess. They neither NEED nor WANT our help.  When will even the more enlightened souls of your benighted land wake up to this.

I agree that we are in their living room, and uninvited, and they want us gone. I said before the last election that we should get out of there, there is nothing that we can do to make it better (jeeze, we don’t even control the “green zone” and a ride to the airport can be fatal).

The country is ALREADY in a civil war, and women have ALREADY lost their freedom. Every innocent civilian that we kill makes 2 or 3 terrorists. We are actually working against ourselves here - talk about BECOMING our enemy.

Trying to control Oil is not only impossible, it’s working against our own interests - think of what 300 billion dollars could have bought in the way of alternative energy technology!! We would have no need of oil by now.

We definately need charismatic leaders to articulate the progressive agenda, we need them now, and we need them to be staunch and vocal in their defense of progressive values.

Bernie Sanders comes to mind.

I, a lifetime democrat, will never vote for Hillary. She has abandoned her ideals and values for the fine triangulation that won the presidency for her husband. That was then - and it was over 10 years ago. Now we need politicians that actually believe in what we do. Triangulation just won’t cut it.

Interesting but not true. Out here on the ground, not in the blogosphere or DC or the salons or radio shows or all that can be perceived by the macro-media, the micro-media is organizing around universal policies that will reshape the states and the nation. Without comment or commendation we are changing everything from a sound ideological basis. To wit:

1- Universal Healthcare
2- Out of Iraq Now
3- Clean Money Elections
4- Environmentally sound business (put the GREEN in the Greenbacks)
5- Living Wage

I could go on but that’s a good start. These entities Mr. Sirota refers to are not the left, liberal or progressive movements just folks playing the old game the old way.  In California we have a Progressive
movement at every level, local, regional, state and national. Its’ here and its’ growing and its’ just getting started.

David should come for a visit.

further,

Brad Parker
PDLA

Wolf you are in need of help as a parent it would seem. You are doing what so many failed parents do.

“As a parent, I often use fear to “keep the sheep” in line. Look both ways when you cross, don’t do drugs, etc etc”

As a parent, Rabbit uses education and reason to help his kids grow up to be good and sensible people.  It seems to work well. 

“I expect that hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe might have had their suspicions. . .”

Actually no, your suspicians would be wrong, Rabbit lived in Europe and nobody in Eastern Europe feared USSR more than USA. They feared a war between the two, we all did.

Your last sentence Wolf is silly.  Everybody on this site seems quite capable of following what the “leaders” are doing and whether or not it is in our best interests.

You are clearly not able, then why do you argue with us, who are indeed having no problem keeping up?  Don’t please be projecting your problems onto others.

Agreeing somewhat with the last poster. Riozen.

Rabbit also feels that the opposition is in the process of being “Created”, and largely via the internet.  It is specifically for the purpose of assisting that formation that Rabbit is HERE.

“Men think in herds, go mad in herds, but recover their senses one by one.” Charles Mackay

part 1

Incredible. Declare falsehoods to be truth and you can prove anything.

The one symptom Sirota fails to mention, the one he suffers from as well, is denial.

(John Kerry’s nomination) was the most non-ideological of choices in what we were supposed to believe was the most ideological of races.

John Kerry was losing to Howard Dean, the true ideology of the 2004 race, until Kerry took his cue from Dean and steered his campaign to a much more vigorous opposition to the Iraq War. Kerry didn’t start to lead the pack until he co-opted Dean’s message. It was only after that, and after Dean’s tantrum, that Kerry earned his electability.

In fairness, Iraq may be an exception when it comes to the grassroots. There is undoubtedly a palpable - and growing - core of progressives outside the Beltway who put their desire to see American troops withdraw above their partisan loyalties.

No. No. No. That is the falsehood that is costing Democrats elections. That blatant partisanship is gutting the Party for the second time in three decades. As a strong believer in Bush’s post 9/11 foreign policy, I cheered when the Democratic Party abandoned their traditional issues in favor of taking down Bush on Iraq.

The Party has always had plenty of issues, real issues, to challenge a Bush Presidency. As a previous article, and debate, perversely illustrated, the social policies of the “far right” is Bush’s real weakness. But instead of rallying the troops to fight that battle, the Democrats rested on their complacent arses, confident they had already won that battle. Instead, they targeted Bush’s strength.

I certainly understand the machiavellian calculations in that. If you cut Samson’s hair, the rest is cake.

But, the operators of the Democratic machine vastly underestimated both the instinctive support-the-president-in-time-of-war reaction as well as the more basic fundamentals to the policy. Carp all you want about Halliburton and Bush-Saudi Conspiracy Theories, the American public still wants to see a proud and strong America.

Read the papers over the past 10 years. Read the Op-eds and the Letters to the Editor. There is an underlying frustration and anger with the populous at large, for lack of a better phrase, with elitist Eastern liberalism. That anti-elitism hit new heights in the subsequent criticisms of anti-Americanisms. At a gut level, the populous, right or wrong, began to see the Democratic Party as castrating.

It is no coincidence that the two greatest Republican Presidents in the past 45 years are seen as Western politicians. They must be the greatest; they are so vilified by the Democratic machinery.

part 2

(Sirota’s Syndrome) is an affliction that hollowed out much of the Democratic base’s economic and national security convictions.

What is hollowing out that base is a growing perception of the increasing irrelevance of the Democratic Party. In the first gutting, Reagan Democrats left the Party largely on dissatisfaction with the entrenchment of a Party that was more concerned with power than policies. Sirota’s syndrome is not a consequence of the Partisan Wars that marked the Clinton presidency, but from an earlier age where rank and file union and party membership were ignored by union and Party leadership.

There is a reason Reagan Democrats were called Democrats.

Even today, labor is spending $80 million dollars fighting Governor Schwarzenegger’s Proposition 75 that would require government unions to get the approval of their rank and file membership before spending union funds to fight political battles against requiring union accountability as they spend millions of dollars in political campaigns against union reforms that ..., yadda, yadda, yadda, ad nauseum.

And, after many decades of New Deals and Great Societies, noble efforts to be sure, we are seeing that the implementations of those policies were not perfect. It is the height of progressive hypocrisy to decry “Hands Off!” as reformers attempt to fix social programs that are not delivering the goods. Creating a political base dependent on Democrats for a permanent dole is no different than the corrupt partisan government bureaucracies of 120 years ago.

The second gutting of the Democratic Party did truly start with the Partisan Wars of the 90s. Progressives in the Republican Party, who saw the danger early on, started calling for accountability in social programs. It is not enough to put those in need of a social net on the dole. Welfare is for emergency situations, to give a “leg up” to those economically dislocated by circumstance or chance. What happened, though is that once the Democratic Party broke the glass and pulled the fire alarm, nobody replaced the glass.

What is killing the Democratic Party is that they have indeed forgotten their progressive roots. Picking unwinnable fights, forgetting that progressivism is about fixing things and making them better; this is why progressives like me are leaving the Party.

The Republican Party is not the intrinsic antipode of progressives. Being a progressive is believing in social evolution, working for change that improves peoples lives. The difference between the two major Parties is not of direct opposites; 17th Century French Philosophy (the left vs the right) is limited by the lack of dimensionality. The major poles of the two Parties are on a different axis. The core value of the Democratic Party is progressivism; social evolution. But the Republican’s core value is not about reactionary conservatism. It is about classical liberalism distrusting governments.

When their Party abandons change in favor of outdated solutions that are beginning to show signs of arthritis, when their Party starts to be more concerned with conserving what they have and resists change, progressives start to see the difference between the two parties becoming largely irrelevant.

Progressives can change the world without sucking on the teat of government.

“the American public still wants to see a proud and strong America”

Too bad they are seeing a collapsing and weak America, or at least they will when they open their eyes.

http://tinyurl.com/cykxx

http://tinyurl.com/dqvp2

http://tinyurl.com/9kc2m

http://tinyurl.com/ey8fr

Choosing either Dems or Reps will be re-arranging the deckchairs on the titanic. Still that sounds like an appropriate way for the greatest failure in the history of earths empires to go out. 

Fiddle while Rome burns, it’s been done before.

It seems likely that it is this blindness and hubris which brings down empires, very likely.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Luminous Beauty linked this on another thread and it is apt for this thread as well.

Some difficult questions, no fence to sit on. Polarizing but effective. Avoid knee jerk reactions unless knee jerk reactions are the reactions you actually have. hehe. I am usually skeptical / disdainful of “questionnaires” but this one, for me, was thoughtful and accurate, I approved of where it brought me:

I am sitting next to Ghandi.

David’s political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85

I would be interested in other people’s results. Please remember there is no right or wrong result. Just different results.

Jay’s political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.07
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.98

This is very similar to an article I read about 25 years. I would add a third, semi-major axis differentiating political belief in progressive political evolution vs “fall from grace”. Measuring left and right on the economics scale doesn’t really cover that.

Besides, I hate being thought of as middle-of-the-road ;)

Thanks, lb and David!

Correction:25 years ago

America is not going to move forward politically and re-engage people in politics until we move beyond the tired ideological formulations of both the Republicans and Democrats.

I think people are interested in social justice, i.e. people being treated fairly regardless of race, color, sex, etc.  I also think the vast majority of people think corporations and corporate “MSM” media have WAY too much influence on our lives.  What people don’t want though is a big centralized Federal government intruding in our lives.  Thus we need to work on regional county and community based solutions to our problems.  An example would be here in Washtenaw county Michigan (home of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti) where we have a county based health plan that provides health insurance for those too poor to afford medical care.  This seems like the right approach to me, it gets the job done of taking care of the poor without the cumbersome top heavy inefficiency of a Federal single payer health care system.  Other examples of regional non bureaucratic solutions to our problems are food co-ops, credit unions,and community gardens.

To move forward I think we need to acknowledge BOTH the right wing point that the big daddy hide bound bureaucratic government isn’t going to take care of us (as in the failure of Federal subsidized housing projects) and the point of progressives that it is inhuman to just leave people behind in a mad every more competitive rat race, and unsustainable to strip the earth of raw materials at an exponential rate. I think we can also get paleo-cons and some Libertarians on board for a non imperalist isolationist foreign policy.  It’s pretty scary that in many ways Pat Buchanan makes more sense to me on foreign policy than Hilary Clinton. I mean he’s right we’re a republic not an empire, right?

I suppose what I’m talking about is something like the Green Party with some with effective leadership, something the current U.S. Green party is totally lacking.  I think we also need to take seriously Libertarian right critiques imperalism as are seen at antiwar.com

I seriously doubt either the corporate funded Dems or Repigs would have the creativity to rebirth themselves in this way.

Anyone with ideas about what a post big government progressive movement would look like, and how we can communicate such ideas to people feel free to e-mail me at raven200@gmail.com

It looks like Rabbit has correctly identified himself as an Anarcho-socialist. 

Quite an interesting little site, thanks Monk.

Rabbit has long hated the definitions of Left versus Right too and this is a solution.

Now how about we divide the world into quarters and each quadrant can have theirs?

Not good, we will end up with all these clowns like Jay who think they are something they are not. Pulling our quadrant into the evil right top one by virtue of their delusions.

This one got lost, here it is again.

Rabbit has done the thing for the Monk.  Couple of questions Rabbit would have preferred a “not sure”. 

Rabbit has not yet made up his mind about same sex couples and adoption. Almost 50/50, and I have swayed a bit back and forth on the issue over the last couple of years.

Rabbit is sitting just to the right of Ghandi.

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28

After having seen the graphs at the bottom, Rabbit would expect dittoheads to be closest to the centre.  They would be found further to the right if their ideas alone were used to judge.  Since they have many misconceptions though about themselves as well as the rest of the world, they answer along the lines of their misperceptions rather than the actual meaning of what they claim to believe.

I will be who I will be.

Hmmm I think the “political compass” is pretty much b.s. a lot of the questions have built in assumptions towards traditional left and right thinking.  For example when it asks about public funding of radio in the following fashion:

“No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.”

I was EXTREMLY frustrated.  Although I said radio should recieve “public” funding this seems to imply I’m a traditional centralist old left government NPR supporter.  Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact I think the most interesting media is do it yourself community and pirate media which is NEITHER funded by the government nor by capitalism. It is neither old old left socialism nor laizez affair care nothing for others capitalism.  This survey leaves no place for such a perspective.

So I got a

Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.36

but I cry foul because many of the questions try to box a person into a left right divide that I think is outdated from a 21st century bio-regional, progressive, information society perspective.

Mrraven

There is some truth to what you say. The model has it’s limitations, but the Old Left vs Right thinking runs into similar problems.

What I find interesting is the double axis comparison. Maybe the questions need a bit of refinement, but the method seems to make sense.

Exactly, pigeon holing (pun intended raven) aside it was interesting.

People tend to get stuck on “ either/or “. It is a false contradiction. It only serves to make true believers on either side close their eyes to more nuanced possiblities.

.. or open their eyes to more nuanced possibilities.

David’s political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85

I would be interested in other people’s results. Please remember there is no right or wrong result. Just different results.

WTH’s stats:
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.10

If you have been reading my comments you may agree with me that this is NOT a very accurate measure — too black or white. Some things I would not call immoral I would call unwise. A better measure would be a 1 to 10 sliding scale for each question similar to the final outcome graph.

mrraven says,

“I think people are interested in social justice, i.e. people being treated fairly regardless of race, color, sex, etc.” 

Agree!

“I also think the vast majority of people think corporations and corporate “MSM” media have WAY too much influence on our lives.” 

I struggle with this and try to question info presented — Why is he saying this? What is the source? Any benefit to the speaker if I believe this? How does this square with my experience? My advice to my kids has always been to question everything.

“What people don’t want though is a big centralized Federal government intruding in our lives.” 

Certainly expresses my view, but I know some who genuinely think it is a good idea — honest.

“Thus we need to work on regional county and community based solutions to our problems.”

I see this as the preferred way, but some problems (civil rights in the 60s) cry out for a national mandate.

Other problems are caused by national mandate. We had a school discrimination lawsuit which brought the fed into our city. Judges make poor educational micro-managers. Many excellent teachers took early retirement due to stupid requirements.

I agree the scale is not very good. At the very least there needs to be a don’t know/don’t care/no opinion choice. There were a couple questions I that had no real interest or opinion about, but was forced to choose sides. That consequently gave far too much weight on those questions.

I also think linking LEFT vs RIGHT to strictly the economic scale probably distorted the questions and analysis. The apparent underlying assumption is that LEFT/RIGHT politics is strictly about economics, so it actually defeats the purpose of a true two dimensional scale.

David ("Popeye") is right. I yam what I yam.

Last night I posted some of my own criticisms of this compass at my own blog, if anyone is interested. Not really anything more than what has been said already, though

WTH and Rabbit as often too much common ground.  This would have helped a lot.

“A better measure would be a 1 to 10 sliding scale for each question similar to the final outcome graph.”

Nevertheless, WTH the fact that the fact of our positions on the graph, may be more accurate than it seems.  Rabbit recognises the intrinsic rightness about his own scores, even though they are more ‘right’ and authoritarian than what would be expected.  The same may be true of many of the apparently odd reseults.  At the same time he believes yours and probably Jay Clines are actually closer to the truth.

This is actually the flip side to what I said above about Jay’s score.  You are both in reality holders of those viewpoints, it is simply many of the facts of everyday existence which mean you are mis-informed.  Rabbit knows that this will be hard to listen to objectively, but he hopes that WTH at least is capable of considering this idea.

Consider this.  You are for the most part supportive of Bush.(compared to most of us). Have a look at where Bush is on the Graph?  Now honestly do you see yourself out there?  Jay is closer, (and his graph says so), but even he is no-where near that sort of people.  Rabbit for one, had already intuited this about both of you, even Jay, who can ignore Rabbit all he wants, Rabbit can still see him and talk to him.
..............(See he has his wee hands over his ears but he can’t shut his eyes and stay on the thread.)

If this idea could be carried a step further, it would seem fair to suggest that something is wrong to cause the apparent politics of WTH and Jay to lean so much further to the Authoritarian Right.  Rabbit suggests it is wrong facts.

They would have many more similar opinions as others on this thread if they had the same facts.  Of course they can say we have the wrong facts, but then we are where we should be on the graph, you are the ones ‘apparently’ out of place.

Has it ever occurred to either of you that you are involved in regular discussion threads on a LEFTIST site?  Neither of you are trolls.  Rabbit admits Jay has shown himself to not be a Troll, and although Rabbit does not offer any other concession to Jay, he apologises for calling Jay a troll.

Jay is still as ignorant as dirt, but he is neither stupid, nor a Troll........................................<>..........................

Anyway, what are you here for?  Neither of you are scoring any points against we ‘lefties’ sorry to say it so, but you must realise it.  The fact may well be that you are both well represented by your personal stats.

For what Rabbit’s intuition is worth, and it is his best sense, they look about right to me.

Whattheheck and Jay, others too, “score points” with me by being here and being outnumbered. Diversity of opinion helps the debate. All are welcome, or should be.

Maybe some well spoken “lefties” should go vist some “rightie” sites?

I think that whattheck and Jays scores are probably accurate too.

Jay doesn’t seem too put off by his score. Correct me if I am wrong Jay. Other than being middle of the road. Nothing wrong with that.

Whattheheck, do you maybe just not like sitting next to the rest of us when you thought you would be in another room? It’s ok, we won’t bite.

One of us. One of us. One of us. hehe

Two of us. Two of us. Two of us.

All of us. All of us. All of us.

Jay is more than middle of the road, he’s a bit left of and less than authoritarian.

Monk we have discussed ‘bombing’ the right wing sites with logic before, it is a lost cause. Has the Monk seen the sort of dicussion that goes on these sites?

The main way of proving a fact is to say “everybody knows that” and “If you had any clue you would know that....”

There is no way that a reasoned logical approach would ever gain anything by ridicule and shouting down on a right wing site.  Rabbit has looked at some of them, and does indeed throw in a hand grenade once in a while. The best thing is to chuck in the grenade then run, don’t bother sticking around for the fireworks.  There is always some, there are always lefties lurking ready to pounce, they are in greatest numbers on the net.

Here are the results so far Very interesting. Order based on the sum of the two numbers :

Jay Economic Left/Right: -1.07 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.98

WTH Economic Left/Right: -3.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.10

Rabbit Economic Left/Right: -3.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28

Neruda Economic Left/Right: -2.38 Social Libertatian/Authoritatian: -5.23

David Economic Left/Right: -6.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85

Whit Economic Left/Right: -7.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08

Raven Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.36

Luminous Bty Economic Left/Right: -7 Social Libertatian/Authoritatian: -7

Makes sense to Rabbit.

Rabbit always was the most straight one at hippy things, even though he is a happy hippy hoppy Rabbit.

Very interesting.

I agree that it is a very imprecise measure. It should def be a 10 point continuum.

However it is a good platform for a discussion.

Rabbit, peoples’ results make sense to you and I am curious as to why.

From what Rabbit has intuited and learned directly, via peoples comments and what he, Rabbit, knows of people.  The fact is you may notice the similarity between WTH and Rabbit.  Rabbit has been pointing this fact out for some time as it happens.  WTH and Rabbit almost always agree on matters where the FACTS are indisputed. 

Obviously there have been many opportunities for Rabbit to observe others of this number and he longs after at least as many others as we have now............................Rabbit MOSTLY wants his beloved.....DARK and Deadly Natalie, Scorpy would be second choice, but will he deign to lower himself to actually looking at the same site as so many of we dirty liberals have already soiled with our mishapen eyes?

Rabbit has a few clues as to where they both will be and there are others too.  . 

Where is Rabbit’s honoured and awesome Queen EADORA?  Sweet LIZ? GrayArea? KUYA? The Mangy WOLF?

Yes in fact Rabbit feels that within thelimitations set by the scales themselves, they are limited to specific attitudes, which are yet simple enough in individual interpretation that each will give a response which is based on things more fundamental about one than mere religion or political labels suggest.

These are the things that matter, and Rabbit is actually more and more impressed with this model the more we see of it.  The fact that Jay and WTH have reacted the way they are to their own scores, and no doubt what is yet to come, will further compound this observation.......thinks Rabbit.

I thought the test was fairly accurate. More good than not good. 10 points would be a bit too much spread. 5 points would allow for a fence to sit on. Strong agree, agree, no opinion or undecided, disagree, strongly disagree. But I liked that the questions demanded commitment to your answer. Too may people sit on fences for the wrong reasons.

What I found interesting was how those of us who took part were all in the same quadrant. Not so different after all it seems. In general at least. Some different opinions on specific issues. But mostly of an accord.

I had expected that my results would be closer together. My sum was - 8.10 and I would have initially expected a -4 and -4, give or take a point. After some consideration and self reflection I understand why I have the spread that resulted.

This last post of Rabbits, apart from showing off his new Rabbit skills, is based upon the presumption that political and religious beliefs change, people do not.

If beliefs change the believerhas changed.

No, Beliefs are things which come and go, today I’m a christian, tomorrow I’m a Muslim, or Budhist.

Once i was a Liberal now I vote Labour.

I am still I.  Changing one’s beliefs is changing one’s beliefs.

There are beliefs which when once changed also change the believer, but mostly Rabbit thinks it is a path of discovery about who we are and only when we have found out that will we be able to ascertain what beliefs we are left with.  We are who we always were.......now we know it......

David,

No, I wasn’t overly disappointed, only in that it isn’t as revealing as I’d expect. My objections are as previously stated; there doesn’t seem to be much differentiation on at least the full spectrum of a progressive nature. I think the “middle” of this scale is more of a dumping ground that these scales fail to separate.

But, maybe that would be too fine a hare to split…

Rabbit says,

“No, Beliefs are things which come and go, today I’m a christian, tomorrow I’m a Muslim, or Budhist.
Once i was a Liberal now I vote Labour.”

When Churchill was criticized for switching parties — his comment was, “It is the parties which changed. My views remain.” (not an exact quote, but close enough)

I have voted Democratic/Republican/Independent, depending on the issues and the person. (Some of them sound good, but I just don’t feel I can trust what they say.) Often the candidates remind me of the opinion test we just took — no best choice.

As for the two parties — they both represent $ today. I don’t expect any strong third party to emerge. Perot came close, but no cigar — Nader is past his prime. Incumbancy rules Congress, seniority runs the committees, the two parties control the slate. I think this is a realistic view, not just my age.

I was raised a Christian, but began thinking at an early age —”If I had been born in China, wouldn’t I likely be a Buddist?” As years passed I became less a believer and more a searcher. I think there is a tendency for thinking people generally to be more socially and religiously liberal.

Also, we tend to worry more. Little imagination = little to worry about. This is the lure of fundamentalism.

My conservative side (financial, defense, etc.)comes from thinking no one will watch out for my family and business as well as I. I’ll do my own profiling, thank you.  PC is silly beyond belief.

Bill Clinton’s, weakness (IMO) is he wants everyone to like him. George Bush’s weakness — he thinks he’s right. I felt Kerry’s was he did not know who he wanted to like him nor what to think was right and just adjusted to the moment. (also just IMO)
------------------------------

Jay,”...maybe that would be too fine a hare to split…” :-)

“Also, we tend to worry more. Little imagination = little to worry about. This is the lure of fundamentalism.”

Point well taken. What we are currently seeing unfolding in the world is a struggle between closed systems (fundamentalism) where answers are given from on-high, written down in words to be taken literally and without question and open systems which accept not having absolute knowledge of everything and understand that openness is the way to progress, The downside is there is more to worry about, more questions, fewer easy answers, and development (social and personal) is challenging.

WTH

Rabbit was only using the politics and relifgions as examples. The only point Rabbit was making, which you got obviously, was that People don’t change just because they change their ideas.  The Churchill quote is an excellent example.

Actually Rabbit has voted for Labour, (Bob Hawke), Democrats, Greens, National Marijuana Party, One Nation (helped them in the election), and even refused to vote and been fined for it.  (We are compulsory, which is not a bad idea I feel, these days) Rabbit has also written his feelings in flowery prose all over the ballot papers on occasion.

rabbit was born an Atheist, became an Apostolic, then Mormon Christian, turned to budhism for many years and am still officially on the role as a Budhist.  Now.............
Rabbit has finally realised he was an
Gnostic all along.

PC is not silly, the proof is in the fact that it conforms to prediction.  It may not be giving all the information you would expect, but as said that is because you think yourself much more different to us than you are. The same for Jay.

Since we have certian information which you don’t, we are more likely to be in tune with where we actually stand in the political scheme of things.

The nuance and individualism, as well as the co-herance of the arguments presented by most of us show an assurance of what we know and the ability to support our views with referenced facts. Our lack of hesitation at replying in detail, and directly to anything which is said and the fact that we acknowledge mistakes, when they are shown, is the proof that we have something which you do not. 

You both usually support the same concepts as us, but you ascribe these concepts, to false beliefes about people and history.  If you had the same knowledge of the facts which we have, you would still have the same attitudes, but your beliefs will have changed.  You will not register any different on the graph, than you do now, that is almost certain.  Go back and read the questions, you are both completely missing the point to suggest that the thing is not a very good indication. 

Rabbit tells you it is a FACT that the questions and the results are ABSOLUTELY valid, within the self imposed boundaries of the test.  The results are DEFINATELY able to be used for comparison. The labels on the graph, are to be interpretd in relation to each other.

Therfore, for Jay to say that the middle is a dumping ground for those who fail to fit elsewhere, is patently insane.  There is a scale, it has been numbered, and the very nature of a scale is such that some will fit in the middle exactly, while others will be at either extreme.

The problem you both have is that you Thought you were something else.  This is not the least bit suprising to Rabbit who has said all along that you misunderstand certain fundamental truths.  It is not you which is wrong, it is your ideas.

The proof is that your ideas are inconsistent with an UNBIASED survey based on attitudes.  Guys the survey cannot be critisised in the way you are doing. The test like all tests of comparison, is to be judged on the previously defined criteria, and saying that these criteria do not say things they were never designed to say, is no argument.

The criteria were selected as a comparison.  Who cares that JAY does not consider himself to be in the position to which he would have assigned himself, an independant test has just placed him where he is and that is valid, for the comparison, of anyone who takes that test.

WTH has given a result exactly as Rabbit would have predicted, and Rabbit has said as much for a week or more, before this test appeared.  The only way this is possible is if Rabbit knows something WTH does not.

Of course you are going to argue with the results, because they are based on your real attitudes.  Your pre-conceptions about where these attitudes placed you politically are according to us, based on misperceptions, about some leaders, about history.  These are things which can be proven and if you ever allow yoursleves to look seriously at the things we show you, you will see this.

If you had different info than now, would you actually change any of the answers you gave to the test?  Of course you would not, so what is so hard to understand.

The test essentially proves your politics are based on some error.

The FACT of the test giving valid results for comparison, is not an opinion, so don’t go there.

Rabbit has just defined a scientific principle, which has to do with testing and without which all science would be worthless.

Here is a simple story.

Jay thinks he is a reasonable conservative democratic individual. 

We say he is supporting a fascist undemocratic viewpoint, b