Forum Replies Created
-
I suppose when it comes to politics and religion we all become “dogmatic”. Nevertheless, I genuinely believe that those on the “left” and those on the “right” tend to follow what has been called a process of “group think”. Meaning there is a far greater consensus on political issues than one might find in a group of so called centrists. At it’s worst there can be the “let me know what my group thinks of this so I can be consistent and won’t ruffle the feathers of those I know”. By definition a “moderate” or “centrist” does not have a “group” to measure his views on issues. I suspect when it comes to abortion rights, affirmative action, gun control, etc there is far more divergence among moderates than you would find on the “left” and the “right”, especially as one approaches the polar ends of both these bodies.
As far as “socialism” goes-your right it’s far more complicated than what we give it. Growing up in the 50s words like “communism”, “socialism” were dirty words that few of us knew anything about other than these were the bad guys. Today with globalization we see bits and pieces of socialism everywhere including here in the U.S. The word doesn’t carry with it the stigma it once did-although talking to some of my friends my age you wouldn’t know that.
My problem with it is the ideology not the end game. To me the weakness in the system is in the “planners”. A collectivist planned economy means there must be central planners. And the only way that will work is if there is total commitment to the “plan”. And how does that exactly work in a society of free people. What do you do with the dissenters or those who are not on the same page? Who will choose the planners and what plans take priority when there are competing legitimate interests? Who will make these decisions. And those dissenters cannot get in the way if the system is to work. Would there be debate or would that be look upon as subversion? Would dissenters be eliminated? (not an entirely shocking expectation) Somewhere I read that collectivism and individualism are political oil and water.It’s a very strange mix — the folks whom Hillary has pissed off to no end.
————–
One of the interesting/exasperating problems is the label “extremist”
Like, for Waterfield, and other “mainstream-centrists” the leftists are ‘extremists’. And so are the Trump supporters. Both, equally “extreme”.
I mean that IS the ‘mainstream’ view. The corporate-network-view. The CNN view, the ABC view, the NBC view, the NPR view, the NY Times view, the mass-corporate-media-view.
How does that work exactly? How do Bernie and Trump supporters get thrown in the same boat? And how do leftists become ‘extremists’ ? And how does a closet-neocon like Hillary become a “non-extremist” to the mass-media ?
Its all quite strange.
w
vWell-I don’t know if I’ve ever called leftists “extremists”. I’ve said there is the far right and the far left. I’ve called the “left” “progressives” but I doubt I’ve ever used the language “extremists”. I have however called crazy right wingers extremists. And I mean that in a dangerous way.
Another thing: I’ve never claimed “moderates” have the “truth” and the only truth as some have accused me. OTOH there are plenty here who appear to have cornered the market on “truth”. Zack is right. On this board for me to convince people that a centrist philosophy is the real truth would be like selling ice cream in an artic storm. All I’m trying to say is that is just me-it’s how I’m built. If this little fraternity here can’t accept that-so be it.
As far as “liking” a presidential candidate. I don’t recall much of Truman but I read he was not a very likable person, neither was Churchill for that matter or Roosevelt. Johnson was not a trustworthy man either -but all of these men showed toughness, courage, intelligence, and were strong leaders. I respect them all.
Question for the progressives here: Of all the presidents this country has had which ones would you support today if they were running. Not candidates but actual presidents!
As far Hillary being a neo-con or even supported by neo-cons I look at those who during Bush administration got us into these wars. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rice, Perle, Feith, etc. I have never heard or read any compliments from these people for Clinton. Lots of despicable assertions but never anything that would leave one to believe she is part of that camp. The vote for war in Iraq. Sure – in retrospect she and most of Congress wishes that could be a do-over. But not the neo-cons that I listed. The would do the same and more over again.
And yes I expect my Secretary of State to be aggressive in protecting the interests of this country and its citizens. That’s part of the damn job.
Well-I “think” it depends on how we define “thinking”. IMO thought can only occur through a language. (in the field of special education “thought” is part of the language arts and is often part of non-verbal expression).And that’s different than emotion. My dog is frightened of extremely loud noises (can you imagine-she was born to be a “gun dog”. ) She will bolt on me when that occurs. They react to their emotion whether it be fright, hunger, etc. Many of us “want” to believe that dogs think like we do. An example is that movie “Hachi”. A true story based in Japan about a dog whose master dies and the dog returns to the train station day after day and year after year even though his master never gets off the train. Most everyone that has seen the movie expresses sadness over the poor dog who keeps waiting for the owner who never shows up. But there’s no evidence to prove the dog is sad, lonely, and or misses his owner. Nevertheless, we attribute how we would be in that situation. An equal explanation is that the dog returns everyday out of habit. Or the dog merely “enjoys” of feels “comfortable” (see I’m doing it) around the people who pay him attention. In that light it’s not a sad story at all.
Maybe I am a communist.
Waterfield,
You’re correct about the term, “Mick.” I’m Irish as well. The English thought of the Irish as subhuman. Treated them as a different species, often like dogs. And they were treated that way in America when they first came over, too. Like dogs. Or worse. Some people treated their dogs much better than the Irish they encountered.
And it took many decades for the Irish in America before they were even considered “white” by the Anglo-American establishment.
Definitely a racist term.
The only work the Irish could get was usually on the railroads. When my wife’s ancestors sailed from Ireland even before the potato famine the only sea going vessels were by sail. Hard to imagine the courage it took to pack up their entire family, kids and all, and sail to a strange land they knew little about. They arrived in New Orleans as opposed to Ellis Island and began working along with the black slaves on the railroads leading to the west coast. They eventually settled in San Francisco and yes generations later they all became rabid 49er fans. Barb’s dad was the golf pro at Pebble Beach and she was born in Carmel. But we plan on returning to Ireland again for more research into her ancestry via the church records-which are apparently the most accurate.
And while I love my Brit neighbor and respect his knowledge of beer and formula one race cars I do sense quite a bit of superiority in his views of those who are “different”.
What I don’t get is the age difference in the vote-if in fact this was in part a racist fueled vote. By far the older generation in Britain-from what the polls show-voted to stay while the younger vote voted to leave. I would have thought the opposite would be the case if racism was behind the vote.
I believe you have that backwards. The polls I saw leading up to the vote showed that each age group progressively became more inclined to Leave the older the group was. And one of my Brit friends yesterday was complaining that it appeared young people weren’t turning out to vote (and he was a strong Remain).
My brain was twisted. Aging is not for fools.
WV: “well that’s you.”
That’s correct. I honestly do not believe the government is about to come knocking on my door at any moment to take away my “freedom”. Maybe you do WV but I sincerely don’t. Those that do are simply paranoid IMO. And I feel sorry for such people because the cynicism robs them of any possibility of a satisfying life-at least in my opinion.
Now do I agree with the decisions and policies of various administrations, politicians, political parties-of course not-that is a totally different subject. Do I believe there is injustice to many here and abroad -of course -but again a different subject. Indeed I give much of my time and dough to many causes that I believe can help right what I perceive as injustice because I don’t “trust” many in charge of our welfare to do so.
Now a different subject: BNW appears to have a genuine “fear” that the government will take away his freedom if there is an inch given to some sort of gun control. Not me. Maybe because of my age. I’ve lived a fairly long time w/o ever experiencing the loss of any sort of “freedom” by the government -other than the basic regulatory schemes. If your “personal” experience is different I would like to hear about it.
