What Good Exists In The Right-Wing?

Which are all things that liberals hate and despise.

 

The drivel is all on you. What I described was liberalism. A system of political and economic freedom where the role of government is decided by the people. As this can extend to the government providing education, security and even healthcare through the agreement of the people, it is certainly not a libertarian panacea.

It is not close to the lies that are told by Fox News and other extremist conservtaives as to what "liberalism" is. It is what I believe, so how about debating with this real life liberal instead of your grotesque straw man?

Oh no...is this what I am debating with? "Societal freedom"? What sort of linguistic and philosophical gobbledegook is that? There is no such thing as "societal freedom" because you just invented it by trying to sew a goat's head onto a dead cow. Surprisingly the animal stays dead and is weird looking. I said nothing of the sort (the whole concept is garbage).

Is there any sort of coherent thinking going on here? Forget politics, just look as this as a piece of thinking. In the last sentence you say that you can achieve this "societal freedom", whatever that is, by "authoritarian policies". Are you happy with this horsecrap or are you suitably embarassed? Language is a precise thing, with precise meaning. To mangle it like that is just taking the debate nowhere.

Let me try and help you. Somewhere I expect there is the concept that authoritarianism is needed to drive an economy which has removed the incentive of the market mechanism, but if you mean that, then you need first to say it, and then to show how this concept counters my argument. Because I agree with that concept, if that is what you meant, you should explain how your view of this concept differs from mine. I know that command economies do not work. So figure out where we are different. Then deal with me (clue: I think that in some things, like health, the markets tends towards monopoly and high barriers to entry so I think this needs regulation to be effective).

Good luck with that. If you are still struggling, let me know and I will offer you further tips on how to deal with my argument, above the pathetic attempt that you make here.

You can make up straw men as to what I think, or you can seriously think, consider and deliberate on what I - and real liberals out there - have really written or think. I suggest you do that.

How sad. My "cronies"? Why is it that the Right on here all act collectively like a democratic centralist Soviet style political party, parroting a crude party line and showing that they are unable to enter a serious debate? I argue for myself. No one else.

As to any good in the right wing, well this is not too much for me to say. It would be nice if the right wing can bring it out on here by showingb they are more than the partisan hacks they project on here. If you push me I will say that there is a lot of good in the right. I love to quoter Reagan's speech at the 40th anniversary of the D Day landings, even if it is to demonstrate the narrowness of American exceptionalism. I also frequently champion Adam Smith, even if it is to point out that he saw capitalism's weakness, and government's role to counter, as being its tendency to form cartels. Even though I detest vile scum like John Bolton, and his insistence that any journalist who talks to him crawls right up his arse, I admire greatly those neo-cons like Perle and Wolwowitz who are educated, cultured, like to debate and relish a good discussion. I, as I have said on here, have started threads praising Condi Rice, vindicated by the recent revelations that she was at odds with the thug Cheney. I always like GWB, despite his "cowboys and injuns" crudity in foreign policy, due to his self effacing humour and now by the fact that he is a moderate statesman compared to the neo-fascists who vie for the leadership of the GOP.

Today the bigots all have tea bags hanging from their hats.

 

Is there a political party in America that embodies your version of "liberalism" ? If so, how so ?

 

Hello 82

Not really. I think political parties are generally broad churches and so they don't embody very much by themselves. Agreeing with political parties is what communists do, not liberals. We prefer to be individuals. In America political parties are very loose amalgams of people, more than in Europe. Generally I would see Democrats as least bad, but by no means always. And right now US politics is a complete mess.

I think Clinton was a pretty heard headed liberal, relatively fiscally disciplined and anti welfare dependence. He was also very smart. As you know I was a supporter of Blair's alliance with GWB, although I would never have voted GOP. Obama is disappointing because he is cowering in front of conservatives whose economic illiteracy is monumental and whose opposition to growth through debt - in common with German Christian Democrats - is crippling the global economy. What's needed now is economic stimulus and government driven growth, to be eased back significantly once the economy starts to regenerate tax revenues. This is needed globally. Then the world needs to stick to fiscal discipline in the same way Clinton did and GOP Presidents rarely do.

Generally I support moderates in the GOP (known to the Right as RINOs) and the Democratic Party (known to the Left as "rightwingers", the equivalent of DINOs). I'd be happy to see Huntsman as the GOP POTUS, as he seems competent. Right now, with Obama's impotence and freezing in the headlights, Bush would be a welcome comeback, particularly as he used to act collegially with smart advisors on most occasions (with the exceptions of Rumsfeld and Cheney).

My nightmare scenario is an incompetent bumbler (Obama) against a bunch of economically illiterate, dumbed down populists such as the Tea Party.

Anyone but them really.

When it comes to the one issue that I am "left" on, which is that healthcare should be universal in civilized societies, I prefer the French or German model to the statist British one. I do recognize the constititional difficulties that poses in the USA and would suggest that a "health tax" specifically ringfenced for health expenditure, with a market regulated by the government and independent providers selling care in a regulated market. But I think the chances of any sensible debate on healthcare in the US are remote. You will continue to spend higher and higher amounts of your money on the most inefficient system in the world, enriching healthcare monopolists and depriving millions of the basic support of healthcare that they receive in other civilized countries as a matter of routine.

As I have said, liberalism stands for a free market, where that market is not distorted by a tendency towards monopoly. As we consume by cooperating economically, through the market, we also cooperate through our election of government to provide collective benfits such as security, public education, and a society where the poor and disadvantaged are supported. I don't want to live in a world full of beggars and thieves. I prefer that as a society we work together to try and prevent this, by providing people with more and more opportunity to improve their lives ("equality of opportunity, not outcome"). And where they can't, due to poor luck, illness etc., then I want to feel that my community looks after them, and for this I am happy to pay taxes (a welfare safety net).

The USA is not so different to the rest of the world. My views are seen as "centrist". I don't see this as compromise though, but a quite agressive global ideology. For this reason some (people like Chomsky) would call me a "neo-liberal", even sometimes abusively a "neo-con". When you look at some neocons, I do share a lot of their attitudes (discounting the Pharaseeical "moralizing" ones). But as anglo-American Christopher Hitchens (now if he was a political party I'd be a member) said: "I'm not any kind of conservative".

 

This one sentence of yours tells us all we need to know about the mindset of a liberal. "Governments are needed to regulate the markets"? Yeah, how is the government, i.e. obama with all his regulations of businesses working out for America these days? The regulation of our markets (totalitarianism & statism) are the reasons our businesses and corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars--unwilling to take a chance of investing in their businesses and and hiring more people for fear of the uncertainty of being saddled with more regulations and with costs of obama's healthcare boondoggle etc. It should come as no surprise to you that obama's speech on jobs will be nothing more than perhaps another porkulus spending bill, and or of course a diatribe bashing Republicans for the nation's woes so as to take the heat off of his pathetic and destructive tenure as our nation's worst president--even beating out that hapless jimmy carter for that unenviable distinction.

Our unemployment rates are going to stay at high levels or even rise so long as we have this market/business hating liberal in office. Check out America's high unemployment rates during an 8 or 9 year period of the FDR's administration. Looks like the average unemployable rate was around the mid to upper teens. So both FDR and obama had and have little or no faith in the individual or in the free competition of the market place. Summary.....Liberalism=total failure

 

I needed to get caught up and find out how an absurd thread from January had morphed into this at this time. IMMHO, the OP is a completely soiled diaper.

I would agree that politics, particularly American politics, seems to struggle with maintaining a foundation with ideology, and that "liberalism" in America has changed shape many times, just as has "conservatism", as most folks believe they know it

I think Obama terrible, as you know, but also would not welcome back Bush. A few of us, Flounder included as I saw you two had a small dust-up, are actually big Romney fans. We want the fiscal Conservative, social "so what", but it has to be someone who can govern regardless. As Reagan was so nimble at reaching across the aisle. A talent Clinton also developed adequately beginning in '95. Many of us would vote for Governor Chris Cristie if the fat-boy would run.

I do rather like the Tea Party though. However, plenty of other places around here for me to argue with liberals.

As an aside, I spent my morning releasing these two blokes 5 miles down the road after trapping them last night on my property. Numbers 5 and 6 this season. My own coon flash mob. Stinking liberal bandits trying to steal my stuff !

 

A nice follow up to this thread would be a really neat list of the wondrous achievements of the Left-Wing.

 

Yes and that one sentence from you tells me all I need to know about you, and to read your juvenile crap no further. That sentence of mine mirrors the philosophy of Adam Smith. When you know who he is and have read what he has written, come back and we'll talk. Until then go spill your vile poison somewhere else. All your "let's exterminate liberals" childishness is rather tiresome.

 

What makes Adams Smith's philosophy trump others in economic theory?


"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

"The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

Sounds like Liberal Socialism to me. By the way, was there has been much debate about the conflicting of "Wealth of Nations" and "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" which in my opinion appear contradicting.

FACT: Government intrusion requires the erosion of civil liberties. What made this nation great was not the Governments attempt to inject itself into every facet of its citizen’s lives, but rather to stay out of it and be a PART time process to initiate legislation related to treaties and administer our system of laws.

Smith is right when he describes the risks of laissez-faire economics. But that is why we have laws preventing monopolies and oligopolies.

If we want a more perfect economy, we need to abort this abomination called the tax code and the Adam Smith notion of progressive taxation and create a modified flat tax. This alone will go a long way to eliminating the policy influencing and lobbying we know to be bad for free markets.

IN addition, we need to eliminate ALL subsidies by Government and make them illegal. These two things alone will create an incredible economic engine towards growth.

 

What good exists in the Right-Wing. I suppose that we are here to fight the Left-Wing, that's the best one I can think of.

 

So, it's you I have to thank for those darn rascals taking every single persimmon off my tree! I had about 30 persimmons that I have been watching on a regular basis, as I had some indication that the masked robbers had already been helping themselves to them. I even put netting around the bottom of the tree (the tree is not too tall), and even covered the tree with netting. I had the pleasure of eating two of them, (they usually mature around Oct-Nov), but these two were ripening early. Today, I went to water my tree and noticed the netting was pulled away from the tree and every single persimmon was gone except for one! (*)(*)(*)(*) those raccoons. They killed my chickens (last year) and ate my persimmons and I don't appreciate you turning them loose in my neighborhood. I really think they are more conservative than liberal - they are good at not being caught and usually can figure out how to get out of the cage.

 

Well, Conservative or Liberal, they are up to no good. My friends here have suggested that I shoot them, but I am still into trapping them, and then releasing in your yard

I suspect mine are libs, and yours neocons, btw.

But I will go in the other direction with the next ones. 10 miles too. 3 miles was not far enough. I am sure I have caught a couple twice now. I have hauled away 6 this summer, and there are new footprints still.

Yours will keep getting your persimmons. You will likely need a welded fence material. Good luck.

 

82 really is a big softie. Catching liberals and letting us go eh?

 

Not entirely an unintelligent post, even if extremely libertarian in outlook.

Totally at odds with the idologists of teh American Revolution for example, but not incoherent.

But you do concede, don't you, that the one sentence that "libhater" cited as "the mindset of a liberal" is conceded by you to be your very mindset when you say:

Smith is right when he describes the risks of laissez-faire economics. But that is why we have laws preventing monopolies and oligopolies.

Laws are enforced by governments. Laws are regulation. Will conservatives ever take issue with the nonesense that their colleagues like "libhater" post? Do you have a typical liberal mindset for writing that sentence?

This is the problem of the right wing. They act as a Soviet communist party acts, never criticizing each other, as good comrades, loyal to the end.

Liberals, on the other hand, relish a fight with the Left as well as the right. I personally prefer intelligence to ideological agreement. Why is there so much "conservative" nonsense posted unchallenged by conservatives?

 

LOL ... yup, you got me figured out

I have some fun in PM's with my Conservative brethren about solving my liberal raccoon problem. Darn things are like Indians .... Comanches in particular. Come in the night and steal my stuff before I know what happened. Nothing but footprints in the morning.

Gosh knows I am hoping for better days. For a man such as Reagan, or Truman, to rise up. For some leaders in our Congress on the left like Tip O'Neill and Sam Nunn, and on the right as Gingrich and Goldwater, who can work politics with the opposition as we so desperately need. I honestly believe we are finally cycling back that way.

In the meantime, when you have time, and if you have not watched it yet, this is a speech I watch about once every 6 months. Oct 27, 1964. No teleprompters. It is probably the finest speech by an American in the 20th century, IMMHO.

I'm currently pulling for Romney, btw.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY[/ame]

 

They reproduce so fast, the only way to get rid of them is to shoot them.
When one got into the chicken coop and killed our chickens, I was so mad I did set up the trap, and sure enough, he came back the next night. We killed him. I had been releasing them (I go several miles, don't want them finding their way back), but this one had to go.

If they were libs, they probably wanted to help you out, not harm you. Mine were definitely cons, they were greedy when they ate all the persimmons and only left me one. They had no compassion whatsoever.

Well, I'm over my anger now. We haven't had rain since June, every green thing is dying and the deer and other animals can't find any thing to eat. I figured they were probably starving and needed the persimmons more than I did. Next year will hopefully be different - and I won't be so "compassionate".

Fences don't keep raccoons out. We have a 6ft fence all around our property. Chain link in back and wrought iron in front - the only thing it keeps out are the deer - who eat more of the plants than raccoons. Raccoons only eat the fruits. This is the first year they've eaten so much of our fruit - it has to be because of the terrible draught we're in.

 

Yeah but the problem is that you don't make sense:

1. You like what Reagan said? I watched some. It's classic fiscal conservativism. But this isn't what he did. He presided over very high tax and spend policies. It was Clinton who returned the USA to a sound balanced budget. Clinton was an enemy of welfarism, and dependency.

I don't necessarily criticize Reagan for this, but I do say it is puzzling that you righties give Reagan such a free pass.

2. You like fiscal conservativism but you choose a big government RINO (Romney). There are times - Keynes still remains fundamentally right that the budget needs to be balanced over the economic cycle - when a country needs to borrow. These are those times, as we need to invest and spend to reflate the economy. An economy is not a household budget. It is an engine. When the car is stationary it needs more gas to get it going than when it is going fifty miles an hour. The problem has been that when the car has being doing fifty, republicans have been driving it in first gear, wasting the gas.

President Romney will be a big disappointment to you, just like GWB.

3. You want the two parties to work together but you are pro GOP. It is clearly not in the GOPs electoral interest to work with Obama and get the unemployment level down (so they are not going to), and it IS in Obama's to work with the GOP (which is why he has to make it look like he is trying very hard). This is the cynical concern which underpins both sides. If you were a real patriot you'd support Obama, surely? Until recently he showed that he was willing to abandon any principle he had to get a deal with the GOP.

4. You now tell me you're a moderate conservative. And yet you've been playing with some pretty nasty, ignorant and bigoted friends recently (politically speaking). The fact that moderate conservatives would prefer Perry, Bachmann and their ilk to centrists such as Obama, underlines how weak their intellectual position is. The political posturing is more about following a team, than beliveing in values. Obama may be weak and ineffective, and a bit of a pompous arse, but he's no extremist. The extremists at the moment are all in the GOP, which is why Romney may not even get a look in (wait for the nastiness about his religion to come out from the Tea Party bigots).

 

Sounds like:

The conservative racoons left you some charity.

They may get shock and awe next year.

 

I sure hope so, otherwise everyone else in the US is going to get shock and awe!

 

It is not wise to compare the past of over 200 years to that of the modern day. Although it would be nice to be living in the 1700s with todays perspective. But that is simple minded thinking. To evaluate the current situation with political parties you must evaluate the individuals and what they stand for today (not over 200years ago). Their idologies and their behavior speek volumes of information, and that is what you need to evaluate. Forget the mythology and dream world of the past, look at what is is today. If you have any kind of information evaluating ability you will know what each party has done, and what they truly stand for. And not what they say or what the broadcast media sells you. Intelligence and ability to evaluate a persons behavior applies to the larger gourp of politicians as a whole.

 

I agree with you except on your opinions of Clinton and Obama - but otherwise very good post. You have a good eye to see the contradictions within the Republican party.

I have participated in several Tea Party rallies in Illinois (I know! and it wasn't even in the south!) and even two of my best friends who are pretty libertarian and will vote Ron Paul still gush over Reagan. I don't want to break their hearts but I won't lie to them either :/

 

Clint - this is the best post I've read from you yet....nicely said! 100% agree.