WP's very 1st Left-Slanted thread

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah and you are sort of correct, the health systems in the UK and Australia have suffered a battering under successive right wing governments (and plese nobody thry and tell me that Blair is Labour and therefore a leftist), but at least if you cannot afford private medicine there is an effective free alternative unlike the US.

Intelligent Design
Conservativism
Their so called traditional family values
Foreing policy
The common misconception of socialism/marxism apparently, as they were accusing Obama of socialist and even of marxist.
Capitalism, well, I wonder about the competition vs cooperation thing, how cooperation instead of competition would be, and if it wouldn't work, why it wouldn't, or better said, having both, would that be better?

How does that reconcile with the oh-so-popular right-wing complaint that we are all socialists, eager to 'redistribute your wealth' {cue scary organ music}?

Why am I liberal? My views are my own, independent of any label. That said, probably 95% of them fit with the liberal/democrat platform. But to put it in a few easy bullet points, a friend just posted an article on facebook (probably because she's in the photo) where a young Republican is interviewed and offers his conservative platform: "Family, pro-life, God, guns, and babies." Why am I liberal and not conservative?

- Family; In the conservative context, this usually means heterosexual marriage, keep the parents and children together at all costs regardless of domestic abuse issues. I think this is horses**t. "Family values" to me can certainly mean a healthy, heterosexual relationship. It can also mean my nephew's right to marry the most awesome guy he has fallen in love with and adopt kids if they wish. It can mean helping my sister get out of an abusive marriage and back on her feet. I have people I'm not at all blood-related to who are more 'family' than many of my family members.

- Pro-life; i.e.; Anti-choice. A) There is not one single word of the bible which speaks out against abortion. The bible has a very clear definition of when a person becomes a person and that moment is not conception but when that child takes its first unaided breath outside the womb. So don't be tossing the god-argument at me. B) In the case of health of the mother, welfare of the family, what might happen to that child born to a mother who doesn't want him/her or can't care for him/her ... pro-choice IS pro-life.

- God; i.e. The Conservative Christian God; Contrary to valiant attempts to put words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers, as a group they were at least deists, at best atheists in a time when you couldn't admit to such a thing and stay alive much less hold office, and most definitely for the separation of Church and State. I agree with the Founding Fathers on that one. This nation was founded by people escaping religious persecution. Besides, how weak and feeble must your god be that he/she/it needs political endorsement to survive? If your god is so great, won't we adore him/her/it whether there's a nativity scene at city hall or not?

- Guns; contrary to popular belief, most liberals are all for guns ... in the hands of responsible, non-felons, who aren't afraid to prove it with a little bit of paperwork. By the way, if the constitution is so sacred that we can't alter a word of it, such as the second amendment, then why are you so eager to alter the freedom-of-religion bit in the first?

- Babies; WTF is that about??? Why then all the bitching about minorities and poor people with too many babies? Yes, I realize there's an underlying value there that one's worth as a human being is measured by one's ability to breed. My stand: Sex ed makes kids less likely - not more likely - to pop out the kids as a teen because their boyfriend promised he'd pull out early. Birth control - all for it. Pro-choice when that birth control fails - see above.



- Jo; bleeding-heart, tree-hugging, make-love-not-war, down-with-fascism liberal.

First one good.
Second one good.
Third one good.
Fourth one good.
Fifth is just all too common in all groups of society, right-wing or left. I mean, it seems as if people have been trying to redefine socialism to be something other than what it was during the Cold War.
Sixth, I don't see a difference between democrats and republicans on competition. The closest to cooperation might be a democrat labor policy, but even then I don't think most would agree. I think the only people who would promote a cooperation economy might be the Nord, and the social anarchist. A major thing in cooperation is coordination, markets are based upon the idea of self-interest coordinating, but cooperation would need significant changes.

Here's another toned-down view. A distinct difference I'm seeing between the general-right and general-left...

A frightening trend began 8 years ago, carried on by right-wing pundits and hard core Bush fans. That trend: Dissent=Unpatriotic. Bush himself said, "You're with us or you're with the enemy." Talk show hosts and celebrities and countless, countless people I run into on the street and in my circle of friends and acquaintances, echoing that sentiment. How dare I criticize our president, especially in this time of war!

Now I don't get to make too much fun of people who get a decent chunk of their news from Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly, seeing as how I do get about 50% of my news from Olbermann and Maddow. But there's a huge difference here: Left-leaning as these two are, they have no trouble calling foul on the democrats, even Obama, when something goes awry. They're not giving a blanket Obama-will-solve-everything. They're instead giving out a lot of qualifiers about "If" Obama lives up to this promise, or "If" he lives up to that one. I'm loving Maddow's new segment to replace "Lame Duck Watch: Because somebody's got to do it." Now it's an animation of mops and brooms cleansing the White House with the title, "Scrub, Rinse, Repeat: Because this is going to take a while."

I can't say I've been following Rush, Hannity or O'Reilly, but I can't imagine that they started segments on their shows on the 21st of January 2000 dedicated to keeping an eye out for any mistakes Bush might make.

So why am I a liberal?

Because according to me and my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great uncle John Adams, Dissent IS the core of American patriotism.

The whole reason our government is designed the way it is, is because it was recognized that where there is power, there will always be corruption of power. So we must include checks and balances, not give one branch too much authority, allow the people to voice their criticism.

Because unlike the last president, this one seems to welcome a bit of transparency and us little folk keeping an eye on him, crying foul when we see it.

Although, I have this sneaky suspicion that for the next 4-8 years, we're suddenly going to hear a gianormous change of heart from the it's-unpatriotic-to-criticize-the-president crowd. Bets anyone?


- Jo; Hoping that wasn't too sappy. I'm just glad to see America becoming American again.

Wait, what? Are we thinking of the same John Adams here? Second President of the US? The guy who signed the illegal Alien and Sedition Acts? The guy who brutally suppressed any opposition and dissent?

Hm...

Ah, but if you're disabled other people's taxes pay for your medication, and the quality of care is prefectly good where I live, thankyouverymuch

John Adams later regretted it. It was one of the few mistakes he made.

ruveyn

So, it's all cool with you as long as someone else is forced to pick up your tab...

And medical care may be fine where you live. But the American medical system produces significantly higher quality care than the British one.

Regretting it later does not excuse betraying the principles of our Republic only a few years after it was formed.

Sure it does. John Adams was famous and powerful, therefore the standards for excusing him are less than that of other people.

No, higher. With great power comes great responsibility.

HA HA HA HA!! I don't know what you are smoking, Orwell, but bring enough to share next time.

well, I think I should have said that it was mostly in a moderate-left vs moderate-right perspective on economic issues from a worldwide view, than just democrats vs republicans.

The point mostly holds. I mean, very few nations are such that I see them meaningfully integrate cooperation into their structure.

Well the one thing about republicans and democrats is this. The Republicans where to the left from the start of the party up until the 1920's. Then the Republicans went to the right with Harding & the democrats went to the left with FDR.

Lincoin was very liberal and expressed ways to aid the poor. Look at the Civil War, He gave any poor african american cash assistance if they fought on the unions side. He also expressed more even redistribution of wealth and civil-rights.

The only republican since the 20's that were not to the Right where Eisenhower & G.H.W Bush. They were both moderate in political since.