US Presidential Election 2012

I've personally never found the model of Left v. Right, Red v. Blue, Democrat v. Republican etc. to be very useful. Its main purpose seems to be to encourage citizens to think of politics as a professional sport, where you're expected to root for one team or the other without necessarily stopping to think what you're doing. It's really just the Coke v. Pepsi marketing model, isn't it?

I find most people are more complex than can be expressed by a single codified ideology. Gay Catholics, hippies with assault rifles, Tea Party and Occupy people who agree about more than they disagree. It just seems to me that most thinking people I know don't fit neatly into any one pigeonhole, and most nonthinking people I've met just chose their ideology out of convenience (if they even have one.)

Can anybody explain to me what possible use this system is, and what you do with all the people who don't fit in the boxes?

Since when do you and I agree on anything, Davey?

As to explaining anything regarding humans (or the hobbits here) and our 'systems' (as if there are any in reality, just the illusory ones explicated badly by ideologues), I am truly at a loss!

NB GB is a case in point -- and he's definitely a looney! (So is Odo apparently, but I can't see it myself!.... ... In case you're reading this, GB --- )

David H wrote:I've personally never found the model of Left v. Right, Red v. Blue, Democrat v. Republican etc. to be very useful. Its main purpose seems to be to encourage citizens to think of politics as a professional sport, where you're expected to root for one team or the other without necessarily stopping to think what you're doing. It's really just the Coke v. Pepsi marketing model, isn't it?

I find most people are more complex than can be expressed by a single codified ideology. Gay Catholics, hippies with assault rifles, Tea Party and Occupy people who agree about more than they disagree. It just seems to me that most thinking people I know don't fit neatly into any one pigeonhole, and most nonthinking people I've met just chose their ideology out of convenience (if they even have one.)

Can anybody explain to me what possible use this system is, and what you do with all the people who don't fit in the boxes?

Well David, it's not particularly important that you don't find the Terms Left and Right useful. What IS important that people don't ignore reality.

It's really very simple. A Leftist challenges the very concept of Capitalism as a political economic system and Right Wingers love Extreme Capitalism. They are distinct ideologies. Left=Populism (the 99%) Right=Plutocracy (the 1%). Liberal generally refers to people who accept Capitalism but want to soften it. Conservatives just want to eliminate the Public Sector and let the Rich run everything (Plutocracy). Then you have Centrists who tend to want to maintain the status quo and Right Wing Libertarians who want to eliminate the Public Sector and let people be as hedonistic as they want. Finally you have the Pseudo-Populist-Religious-Nutjob-Tinfoil-Conspiracy-Theorist-Misogynist-Racist-Right-Wing. They hate everyone and are easily duped by Right Wing Elites.

Do what will with all the other stuff; that's all over the map. But the Left is nearly always the place where you will find the most Progressive views. And you know exactly what Progressive views are (unless you're living under a rock) so don't try any sophistry on me.

By the way David, Cheers! Nice to meet you.

I really hope you're exaggerating for the sake of rhetoric, but don't you think that perhaps you've spent a bit too much time inside the Facebook echo chamber, GB? Many (perhaps most) of my friends with whom I discuss politics are conservative or right-leaning and your post really doesn't describe them at all. I don't think it's entirely accurate on a larger scale either (not to say it's entirely UNaccurate either, but I guess I have to say that since I'm a leftist flip-flopper ).

A pleasure to meet you too, Mr Beard!

So it seems from your definitions that the Leftist/Right-Wing wheel now spins on the axle of Capitalism? That's a shame because it seems to suggest that Capitalism has won a major victory by being allowed to define the social debate.

A couple decades ago, I think most people would have said that the Left/Right wheel spun on Civil Rights. It's an important distinction, because a lot of key players at the time described themselves as socially progressive and fiscally conservative. Would that make them Right Wingers now? If so, that's a major progressive demographic that's been lost.

Orwell wrote:Since when do you and I agree on anything, Davey?

Wait, you're not suggesting that you agree with me, are you Orwell?

I may have to re-evaluate my position.......

Eldorion wrote:I really hope you're exaggerating for the sake of rhetoric, but don't you think that perhaps you've spent a bit too much time inside the Facebook echo chamber, GB? Many (perhaps most) of my friends with whom I discuss politics are conservative or right-leaning and your post really doesn't describe them at all. I don't think it's entirely accurate on a larger scale either (not to say it's entirely UNaccurate either, but I guess I have to say that since I'm a leftist flip-flopper ).

It's no exaggeration Eldo. A bit simplified but largely true and you've already concurred with my views in prior posts of yours. Conservative or Right Leaning doesn't equal Evil or Right Wing Christian Wacko. I thought I made that relatively clear. I wasn't mean about anyone else BUT Right Wing Christian Extremists and the Corporate Right. I've discussed politics with plenty of conservative acquaintances and friends and we nearly always find stuff to agree on. Admittedly they are mostly California Conservatives. They tend to be more like Liberal to Centrist Libertarians.

And it is, in fact, accurate internationally in terms of ideology, though the names of parties obviously vary from country to country.

David H wrote:A pleasure to meet you too, Mr Beard!

So it seems from your definitions that the Leftist/Right-Wing wheel now spins on the axle of Capitalism? That's a shame because it seems to suggest that Capitalism has won a major victory by being allowed to define the social debate.

A couple decades ago, I think most people would have said that the Left/Right wheel spun on Civil Rights. It's an important distinction, because a lot of key players at the time described themselves as socially progressive and fiscally conservative. Would that make them Right Wingers now? If so, that's a major progressive demographic that's been lost.

Capitalism is Right Wing by definition and the US is a Capitalist Nation. Those that support Capitalism are not actually Leftist's in the traditional meaning of the term. They could still be considered Liberals, Progressives, or Left Leaning though. There is nothing wrong with being a Liberal. They are far more advanced politically than the Right. The only problem is that they tend to be a bit squishy when the Right Wing bullies start beating their chests.

It is only through the bastardization of language that the Plutocrats have conflated terms like Left, Socialist, or Communist with Liberal, Progressive or Democrat. And YES, the Right has ALWAYS defined the social debate in the US (being a Right Wing political-economy, it goes without saying). That's why it is such a [pleasant] shock that Obama is actually pulling ahead running a populist campaign. That hasn't happened for decades.

As to Civil Rights for minorities and women, all Leftists were supporters and primary shakers, but not all supporters were Leftists (there were even a few Conservative supporters). Dorothy Day, Emma Goldman, and Mother Jones are exemplars of Leftists who advocated for every Progressive view you can think of. Without the Left there would have been no Civil Rights acts. It's BECAUSE of the Left that a support system was built for Liberals to latch on to.

Gandalf's Beard wrote:It's no exaggeration Eldo. A bit simplified but largely true and you've already concurred with my views in prior posts of yours.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm glad I have you here to speak for me! (I like to think I've done a lot of growing up since I started posting here at 15 so I'm not sure how far back you're looking.)

Like I said, I don't entirely disagree with what you posted, but I think it's more than just a bit simplified. For one, the idea of a left/right political dichotomy is already so simplistic as to be basically meaningless. I assume that you are largely talking about political and economic beliefs but you clearly care about social issues as well and the "liberal"/"conservative" divide on that can be quite different from the divide on economic matters. Besides, you seemed to dismiss the entire right wing of the political spectrum as plutocrats and the puppets of plutocrats in your earlier post. That might not have been what you meant but it was certainly a rather sweeping indictment of the sort that I don't find helpful (this is one of those things where my opinion has changed since I was 15 ).

Eldorion wrote:

Gandalf's Beard wrote:It's no exaggeration Eldo. A bit simplified but largely true and you've already concurred with my views in prior posts of yours.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm glad I have you here to speak for me! (I like to think I've done a lot of growing up since I started posting here at 15 so I'm not sure how far back you're looking.)

Like I said, I don't entirely disagree with what you posted, but I think it's more than just a bit simplified. For one, the idea of a left/right political dichotomy is already so simplistic as to be basically meaningless. I assume that you are largely talking about political and economic beliefs but you clearly care about social issues as well and the "liberal"/"conservative" divide on that can be quite different from the divide on economic matters. Besides, you seemed to dismiss the entire right wing of the political spectrum as plutocrats and the puppets of plutocrats in your earlier post. That might not have been what you meant but it was certainly a rather sweeping indictment of the sort that I don't find helpful (this is one of those things where my opinion has changed since I was 15 ).

First, I did simplify things a bit. But obviously not enough for some people to understand.

And I KNOW YOU understand because I only had to go back a couple of pages to find you agreeing with me. Albeit in an overly simplified manner

Eldorion wrote:I think the problem with "centrism" in the U.S. is that the definition of centrist keeps changing as the entire ideological spectrum swings right, yet the notion (unspoken or otherwise) that centrism is the most reasonable path doesn't change. Modern American "liberals" would be considered conservative in nearly any other first-world democracy, with centrists even further to the right. It's meaningless to speak of an ideal middle in such a skewed system.

Edit: I should add that if someone's genuine beliefs happen to lie in between the two major parties then that's totally their prerogative and I have nothing against them. It's the sort of people who advocate centrism for the sake of being in the center that bother me. This isn't necessarily directed at anyone on this forum, btw.

Game, Set, Match!

Maybe I need to get my Lefty-Vision fixed, but I don't see anything about plutocracy, capitalism, or religion in my earlier post.

Eldorion wrote:Maybe I need to get my Lefty-Vision fixed, but I don't see anything about plutocracy, capitalism, or religion in my earlier post.

That's because you OVERSIMPLIFIED things.

But you still nailed that post.

Or maybe instead of oversimplifying I just don't agree with you on this.

See, this is what I mean by you speaking for me.

Gandalf's Beard wrote:... Capitalism is Right Wing by definition...

Rubbish! Communism always fails because nearly all humans (and hobbits) are natural capitalists.

Gandalf's Beard wrote:... As to Civil Rights for minorities and women, all Leftists were supporters and primary shakers, but not all supporters were Leftists (there were even a few Conservative supporters). Dorothy Day, Emma Goldman, and Mother Jones are exemplars of Leftists who advocated for every Progressive view you can think of. Without the Left there would have been no Civil Rights acts. It's BECAUSE of the Left that a support system was built for Liberals to latch on to.

As usual, I have no idea what your point is, GB, but I will say (at the risk of sounding ideological), the only route for global human progress is to un-enslave woman EVERYWHERE. That's why people should stand stronger (and braver) in defiance of hideous mindsets like 'Islam' and other Patriarchal Fancies all around the world. Forget your Usahobbit bashing, GB - put your firebrand posting to saving our Sisters from enslavement! Once all women are (relatively) free, we can move on as a Species.

David H wrote:Wait, you're not suggesting that you agree with me, are you Orwell?

I may have to re-evaluate my position.......

I think you better, or else I will have to start [gulp] respecting some of what you have to say!

Orwell wrote:

Gandalf's Beard wrote:... Capitalism is Right Wing by definition...

Rubbish! Communism always fails because nearly all humans (and hobbits) are natural capitalists.

You aren't even addressing my point! Worthless response.

Gandalf's Beard wrote:"]... As to Civil Rights for minorities and women, all Leftists were supporters and primary shakers, but not all supporters were Leftists (there were even a few Conservative supporters). Dorothy Day, Emma Goldman, and Mother Jones are exemplars of Leftists who advocated for every Progressive view you can think of. Without the Left there would have been no Civil Rights acts. It's BECAUSE of the Left that a support system was built for Liberals to latch on to.

As usual, I have no idea what your point is, GB, but I will say (at the risk of sounding ideological), the only route for global human progress is to un-enslave woman EVERYWHERE. That's why people should stand stronger (and braver) in defiance of hideous mindsets like 'Islam' and other Patriarchal Fancies all around the world. Forget your Usahobbit bashing, GB - put your firebrand posting to saving our Sisters from enslavement! Once all women are (relatively) free, we can move on as a Species.

I only Bash the 1%, Nice to see you're taking up a Lefty cause. Even speaking in Lefty Lingo Brother Orwell!

Well, the first debate of the election is starting in about half an hour. I'm not looking forward to this one nearly as much as the vice presidential one, but already have a mug of good stout ale, some complicated chocolate ice cream mixture, and an easy chair all lined up for the night's entertainment.

Any bets on what will be the most entertaining part of the night? My only fear is being bored to tears.

Given that the economy is still doing poor under the sitting president I think Romney won just by not coming off as a complete doofus.

Otherwise I'd pretty much call it a tie. Romney came off much more reasonably than I expected. The two actually said much of the same things, but Obama was better on energy policy (Romney just offers more of the same) and Romney couldn't easily defend why he wanted to repeal Obamacare which was based on Romney's plan in Massachusetts.

Romney had a great zinger (the only one in the debate), but I can't remember it at the moment.

Remembered it! not so much a zinger as a good line: "My one test when cutting government programs will be 'is it important enough to be worth borrowing money from China to keep it going?'"

A bit draconian, but I like it.

Brief impressions from watching the debate:

• Romney was uncharacteristically articulate for the most part but if you look past the rhetoric he cemented his status as the King of Flip-floppers.
  
• To elaborate, Romney is clearly trying to say whatever he thinks people want to hear and coming across as insincere in the process.
  
• Obama floundered around for much of the debate trying to figure out how to respond to Romney. Right or wrong, he didn't give a good performance.
  
• That said, I thought Obama was strongest on health care when he seemed more confident calling Romney out.
  
• Jim Lehrer is a terrible moderator and did absolutely nothing to stop this from devolving into the sort of typical going-around-in-circles "debate" that we see every four years.

Up until tonight the Romney campaign was basically over. Suddenly he's looking viable again.

edit: without fact checking I can't say whether Romney was looking like a flip-flopper. He was basically saying that everything Obama was saying about his economic plan was wrong. He said things that he perhaps hasn't said before but said it smoothly enough it left doubt about whether he was actually saying something new.

halfwise wrote:Up until tonight the Romney campaign was basically over. Suddenly he's looking viable again.

Romney certainly looked alive for the first time in, uh, ever, but I don't think this will be a game-changer. Debates basically never are. The fact of the matter is that almost everyone made up their minds years ago on the basis of party affiliation and those who didn't are by and large going to decide based on the tangible outcomes of government rather than rhetoric. Romney was guaranteed most of the Republican vote the moment he secured the nomination, no matter how weak a candidate he's been. The same thing holds true for the Democrats.

That said, Romney's gotta be feeling good and Obama should be feeling bad for giving such a weak performance. Having a feeling of energy is certainly not going to hurt Romney and could possibly encourage his base to turn up to vote more than they would have.

Edit...

edit: without fact checking I can't say whether Romney was looking like a flip-flopper. He was basically saying that everything Obama was saying about his economic plan was wrong. He said things that he perhaps hasn't said before but said it smoothly enough it left doubt about whether he was actually saying something new.

I don't think it's new for Romney to basically copy whatever successful strategy Obama is currently running with and try to pass it off as his own. Heck, it's the same thing the Republicans did in 2008 by nominating Sarah Palin because she was young and talking constantly about change despite being the incumbent party.

Watching the analysis someone has brought up the etch-a-sketch comment: after being nominated he's free to ignore his base and go back to the old moderate Romney. To a large extent that's just what we saw.

That's a fair point there. Still, Romney has a reputation for being inconsistent and I don't think that tonight helped him on that front.

I will say that if I believed everything Romney said tonight he actually wouldn't be a bad candidate. But the stuff he's said in the past (including his 47% remarks in private) make it hard for me to take him at his word now that he's trying to paint himself as a pro-middle class moderate.