Being mindful of our specific news sources.

Post Reply New Topic

Wombats. [sigh]

I wasn’t here for the incidence you mention, but in general the problem in American politics has been the spread of intentionally false information by various “news”sources on the right. It isn’t freedom of expression to continue to put forward articles and videos that are spreading intentionally false information; that is falling for harmful propaganda and unintentionally becoming an accomplice. I hear the complaint of left bias censorship on a whole of lot of garbage that is truly fake so, no, I don’t buy that the left side of politics is attacking freedom of expression. It is attacking a blatant disregard for the truth. Fervently believing in something doesn’t magically make it true, and we can’t have an honest debate if half the people believe lies are facts.

Well, you are hard left, and I am moderate right.
I suspect we will see eye to eye infrequently.
I can live with that.
It isn't as though we were going to have babies together or any thing/k.

We shall have to simply agree to disagree.

But I’m not hard left. In any other country that hadn’t drifted as far right as the USA I would be a moderate.

CNN, MSNBC and Fox all shill for corporate interests. Don't believe a word any of them say, ever.

WHOA - this discussion thread grew quickly!

Word to the wise: Disbelieve most of what you see, and reject almost everything that you hear!

Such wisdom might just prove helpful regarding the Autism Spectrum!

Based on what I have seen, here in Australia, you wouldn't be seen as a centrist.
Just my opinion.

Perhaps my view will change, but in the short term at least, I will tag you with "approach with caution".

As I have mentioned a number of times, I am good at separating the wheat from the chaff.
Keep an open mind, don't blindly believe anything/k you hear or see, keep your critical thinking skills honed.
The fun is in not being manipulated.

I guess that forces me to ask you what beliefs you feel are key to making someone left v right. We likely do not define it the same.

I might be helpful to get more than one "opinion" on where your political views sit on the spectrum. I think it's easily possible to be moderate/progressive on some social issues and not others.

Yes that's fairly obvious. Calling CNN and MSNBC "left" is pre-programming.

The biggest problem I have with American style progressiveness is their penchant for the woke culture.
All my life I have been on the receiving end of sanctimonious, self-righteous virtue signallers who like to pee on others.
Sanctimony is addictive, and some on the left are big time junkies.

The left tends to focus on their "feelings" rather than approach a situation rationally.
Where some on the right prefer to wait for more information about a situation, I have personally observed that many on the left jump to conclusions and engage in gluttonous self-righteousness.
I find it sickening.

I find our Australian free healthcare vastly superior to the American abomination.
Here I tend to have progressive sympathies.

What makes me a moderate is my hatred of big business, including banks, super funds, twitter and facebook.
I believe in wealth equity but I do not believe in stealing from those who have earned their financial stability.

As Margret Thatcher once said:
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
I tend to concur.

That's not a valid definition of left wing vs right wing politics, though, is it? That's just a summary your feelings, judgement and inherent bias in the shape of selective observation. How irrational!

Extreme left wing = no individual ownership of the means of production. [Hence the old joke, "Why does Marx drink decaf tea? Because proper tea is theft."]. Everything is owned by the State on behalf of the people, which means "the people" own everything and nothing at the same time. By implication, everything *should* happen for the greater common good.

Extreme right wing = completely private ownership of the means of production. By implication, everything is geared around the individual with no sense of wider social obligation. The furthest extreme is anarchy which is basically "survival of the fittest" with no Government, Law, or social organisation of any form. And indeed no mercy.

Weirdly some extreme left-wingers also call for anarchy as they believe the only natural progression from there will be to rebuild society in a fairer, more cooperative and less exploitatative form. But only after quite a bit of Mad Max style brutality, I'd imagine. The vast majority of society don't think this is a gamble likely to pay off.

Both the extreme left and the extreme right are, by nature, riddled with contradictions. On the far left, if everyone is equal and no-one is more important than anyone else, well why do we need a Government then? Hence George Orwell's classic quote from Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Then there's the problem of what actually motivates anyone. If, no matter what you do in life, you end up in exactly the same situation as anyone else, well why bother trying too hard? It turns out "for the love of the people" doesn't always cut it.

The far right has the same problem. If we're all free to do as we please, well why do we need a Government then? Then there's the problem of what actually motivates the 90% of the population who get bullied by the strongest 10% because there's nothing to stop them. If, no matter what you do in life, you end up the victim, well why bother trying too hard? It turns out "for the love of money" doesn't always cut it.

Both extremes are breeding grounds for absolutism and dictatorship, but (just to make things confusing) normally wrapped up in carefully manipulated popularism.

For Western nations, all Governments and mainstream political parties in living memory have been a blend of capitalist and social democratic policies. It's the balance that determines which side of the political spectrum they sit on.

If you believe the people (i.e. the State) should have more control over a nation's means of production than individuals and private companies do, you're left of centre. If you believe there's more to be gained from private rather than public control, most of the time, you're right of centre.

If you believe capitalism should rule where it works best, but social measures through State ownership / control should rule where they work best, on a roughly 50/50 basis, you're centrist. Though again there are different flavours of that. Centrist politics attempt to get the best from both worlds, but are of course equally capable of combining the worst. Plus they're complicated, whereas extremism is easier to sell to simpletons. And a centrist party doing well will benefit all people to a certain extent, and some more than others... but within limits. That's fairer, but it isn't particularly exciting and it doesn't appeal to our egotistic sense of superiority and injustice. We all like to think we're particularly special and/or particularly hard done by.

Most Western elections feature choices between moderately left-wing, centrist, and moderately right-wing parties. Scandanavia bucks the trend a little by having centrist parties who are centrist by holding an equal blend of more extreme views than most social democrat and liberal parties do elsewhere. It is unusual for left of centre parties to stay in power for long periods of time; France is the only exception that springs to mind. The goalposts can also shift. For example the Labour party in the UK has mainly been left-wing but arguably under Tony Blair shifted slightly right of centre.

America is unusual because of its ideological fixation with capitalism, seemingly at any cost. Yes the two parties are different but only in the degree to which they wish to put limits on the extremes of capitalism and balance out its negative effects through taxation and social policy. In both cases the overall balance is still well to the right of centre, but the Democrats lean slightly more towards the centre and the Republicans lean more towards the far right.

The Democrats are not left wing, or left of centre. They're more left wing than the Republicans but that's like saying a pet hamster is closer to a tortoise than a pet gerbil is. It's such an abstract comparison that it's meaningless.

Last edited by Redd_Kross on 21 Aug 2021, 9:58 pm, edited 7 times in total.

Does THIS answer your question?

Certain of our members do not like that thread because it presents means by which their trollery can be disrupted.

I'm really not a socialist, nor, actually, is the American Democratic party. Show me the broadly supported policy proposals that are actually socialist. It's a word that gets thrown around as a scare tactic but even the far left in the Democratic party isn't advocating for government take over of private industry. Do people even know what the word means?

I see myself as a pragmatist more than anything. Why should healthcare be accessible and affordable to all? It isn't just the fairness of it, but the pragmatic reality that keeping all citizens healthy results in less lost work, less lost school, and fewer debts that will never be paid. Better results there, in turn, strengthens the economy. Why should our healthcare system be severed from employment? Because having the two elements tied together (most people in the US get health insurance through employer plans) stifles innovation, preventing would-be entrepreneurs from heading out on their own solely because they may have health issues in their families to consider. Why should lower end workers be paid better? Because the evidence is clear that economically it is far more effective when you apply trickle up theories than trickle down theories. Our nation's most prosperous years as a nation were when the lower end workers earned a more living wage. Why should education be accessible? Again, its pragmatic: better educated citizens means a better educated workforce. A better educated workforce helps us compete better in a global economy.

In the last 5 years it is the conservatives that I've found unwilling to have a conversation and being quick to judge, although I know the issues exists among liberals, too. Ultimately it has little to do with actual political positions and everything to do with the level of distrust currently existing.

Have you ever seen me make any kind of "woke" culture war statement? You haven't. Honestly, I find it strange that the first thing you wrote about was an item from the culture wars, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the role of government in society. That current American conservatives focus so much on it instead of policy might just say something about their current lack of sound and well-considered policy. The whole "woke" thing isn't anything close to what conservative media would have you believe, and what does exist is far more generational than political. Our young people, regardless of politics, are far more comfortable in a world that is diverse in every way imaginable than their parents were.

Traditionally, conservatives are supposed to be against government interference, but they are more than happy to engage in government interference when it meets their agenda. Here is the US the most classic conservative position is to believe more should be legislated at the state level, and virtually nothing at the federal level. Current conservatives make an exception when it comes to social issues the conservatives favor, of course. I actually don't have a strong opinion on state v federal as an overriding philosophy, although pragmatic factors tend to make specific issues fall into different boxes for me.

The running joke is liberals say keep the government out of my bedroom, conservatives say keep the government out of my business, and libertarians say keep the government out of both.

I do not believe government is the answer for much of anything, but there are times it can pull together resources the private sector can't. Planning for the contingency of future pandemics, for one. Helping citizens become educated and have healthcare regardless of their families or employment is another (but it doesn't have to be the only option or done at a federal level).

I'm far from tax and spend. In my profession I see first hand the psychological line people have with taxes, and know it can't be crossed. But I ALSO know which cuts do absolutely nothing but enrich shareholders, and are never returned to the workforce or the economy. It is a myth that all cuts will help the economy; it is very much a curve calculation, and increasing deficits to make tax cuts that don't perform as advertised is just stupid.

Here in the US, the one issue that seems to drive more people into right or left is abortion. If you want government to restrict it, you fall to the right. If you don't think government should restrict it, you fall to the left. You haven't mentioned this issue at all. On this issue, I am very middle: I think the law has no place, but I believe we should pursue policies known to be effective at actually reducing the incidence of abortion in a compassionate way: better healthcare and education being primary. Again, I got there pragmatically, after starting my young adult life heavily anti-abortion. It didn't take long to meet women whose personal stories made me realize how ineffective and inappropriate the law is when it comes to "saving" babies and, so, I tried to figure what was better.

With any proposal I have a simple question: what will it actually DO? Not what do we want it to do, not "well we have to try something," but how will it ACTUALLY play out and what are the plans if it isn't doing what was desired? It doesn't matter how noble your goal was if the result isn't better for society than what existed before.

The problem I have with the current state of American conservatism is that it is fully focused on what it is AGAINST, without making a case on what it is FOR, when it comes to how a nation should be governed. The main goal of many on the right is nothing more than to "own" the liberals. To tear things down, but with no ideas on what to have in their place. Talk about working from emotion! A lot of people falling to the "left" for no more reason than seeing nothing productive or thought out on the right; that doesn't mean they actually philosophically ARE left .

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 22 Aug 2021, 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think that's the crux of the difference between politics in America and Australia.

Whereas in Britain the conservatives/Tories are also the self-declared upper class. The first generation Brits seem have some difficulty letting go of this heirarchy when they arrive on our shores.