Is President Obama a Nice Guy?
in [Lisp]
|
From: Nick Keighley on 9 Dec 2009 06:48 On 7 Dec, 21:24, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavall...(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2009-12-07 14:19:00 -0500, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...(a)gmail.com> said: > > > Both fascism and communism are extreme examples of state control. They are > > both driven by some vision of what society should be and how to shape the > > individual to fit that mould, with the underlying assumption being that the > > state has a right to determine the course of the life of the individual, > > essentially owning that life. > > > I would assign both of these regimes to the extreme left. odd > The problem is that Fascism is a mix of features from both the "right" > and "left," but mostly of the right. > > The terms "right" and "left" as labels on the political spectrum have a > history going back to before the French Revolution. These labels have > been in continuous use since that time, and their broad outlines have > not changed. Thus, one is not free to redefine their usage (as you do) > or one will simply not be understood by anyone who has studied politics > (or european history). > > From the Wikipedia article on leftright politics: > > " "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic, royal and clerical > interests, while "The Left" implied support for republicanism, > secularism and civil liberties." > > Fascism thus shows some features of both the left and right, but more > of the right: > > left - pro-state intervention in economy > right - anti-egalitarian (believing that only an elite is fit to rule), > anti-civil-liberties, anti-socialist so the soviet system was fascist? > with regard to religion, fascists were nominally anti-clerical, but in > reality they formed significant alliances with the dominant religion > and persecuted minority religions. Because this mix of features shows > more right features than left, fascism has historically been considered > a predominantly right wing ideology. > > > The right is about smaller governments: less state control. The ultimate far > > right is anarchy, not fascism. the Italian Anarchists seemed to regard themselves as leftists. > This is wrong. The right favors state control, it's a bit like that term "liberal". A liberal economist looks pretty "right" in Kaz's sense. Someone with liberal social policies Kaz might classify as "left". In the UK the Liberals are almost socialists whilst in Australia they are conservatists. > but in ways that support > their views, and not in ways that don't. For example, the right favors > state intervention in a woman's reproductive decisions (something an > anarchist or libertarian would not) because this sort of intervention > is pro-religion. > > Both the right *and* the left favor government intervention on some > issues, and oppose government intervention on other issues. They just > differ on where those interventions should come. For example: > > left - intervene in economy, don't intervene to impose religion on > reproductive choice > > right - intervene to impose religion on reproductive choice, don't > intervene in the economy. > > The notion that the right is opposed to state intervention and favors > small government is a view the american right has promoted, but > > 1. the facts don't bear it out at all > 2. support for individual civil liberties and a reduction of state > power over individuals is a feature of the *left* not the right. > > For example, in addition to favoring state intervention in private > reproductive matters, the most recent government of the right (when the > party of the right controlled both houses of congress and the white > house) took the US from a balanced budget (or a small surplus) to the > largest budget deficit in history. The largest budget deficit in > history can hardly be called "small government." and some of the other measures of the previous president look a little non-individual rights. > Finally, since the american revolution and the subsequent constitution > were born of enlightenment ideas, they were anti-royalist, > anti-aristocratic, pro-civil-liberties, and pro-secular. Thus, it was a > fundamentally leftist revolution, founding a fundamentally leftist > government. This explains why the right has been on the losing side of > history on most every major political issue from slavery[1], to women's > suffrage, to civil rights, and school prayer - the fundamental > structure of american law and government are profoundly biased toward > the left - thankfully. > > [1] antebellum justifications for slavery were typically religious > (i.e, the bible accepted slavery) and anti-egalitarian (i.e., whites > were "natural" masters), and thus, pro-slavery positions were of the > "right." Similarly civil rights, and women's suffrage. School prayer is > obviously a religious issue and hence, also of the right. > -- > Raffael Cavallaro
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 9 Dec 2009 10:20 On 2009-12-09 04:18:47 -0500, Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik(a)Sun.COM> said: > This sounds like a description with a left-bias. No, it is a description with a historical basis. Many people today are confused because the fundamental principles of the original left - that all people are equal before the law and that no group should be "natural" rulers of others - have become so universally accepted that the whole debate has shifted, and now the current "center" is where the far left was originally. What current political group in the US of any significant following claims the following? There exists a class/ethnic group/religion which is the natural ruler of others. The civil rights of those who are not members of this natural ruling class/ethnic group/religion should be curtailed or eliminated entirely (i.e., it should be legal to imprison or enslave them at will). God and his true church have sactioned the moral/political/legal superiority of the ruling class/ethnic group/religion and it is a crime both against the state and against God to oppose the status quo by demanding equal rights for all before the law. And yet all of these ideas were political *reality* when the terms "left" and "right" came into being. -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Dr. Brian Leverich on 9 Dec 2009 12:17 On 2009-12-09, Casper H.S Dik <Casper.Dik(a)Sun.COM> wrote: > Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > >>For those with actual reading comprehension, the relevant variable here >>is egalitarianism v. elitism. Extreme leftists (e.g., communists) want >>the state to intervene in the economy to promote economic equality; >>extreme rightists (e.g., nazis) want the state to intervene in the >>economy to promote the interests of the ruling class. > > This sounds like a description with a left-bias. Er, no, that's pretty much what any reputable historian or political scientist would say, irregardless of their own political orientation. ### > As ideologies kill people by the thousands, we're better if > we sail clear of them. > > Casper Everyone has an ideology. You clearly do. It's prolly healthier to talk about the consequences of ideologies rather than sweeping them under the rug. Love, B.
From: George Neuner on 9 Dec 2009 20:24 On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 17:17:38 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Brian Leverich" <leverich(a)linkpendium.com> wrote: >On 2009-12-09, Casper H.S Dik <Casper.Dik(a)Sun.COM> wrote: >> Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: >> >>>For those with actual reading comprehension, the relevant variable here >>>is egalitarianism v. elitism. Extreme leftists (e.g., communists) want >>>the state to intervene in the economy to promote economic equality; >>>extreme rightists (e.g., nazis) want the state to intervene in the >>>economy to promote the interests of the ruling class. >> >> This sounds like a description with a left-bias. > >Er, no, that's pretty much what any reputable historian or >political scientist would say, irregardless of their own >political orientation. > > ### > >> As ideologies kill people by the thousands, we're better if >> we sail clear of them. >> >> Casper > >Everyone has an ideology. You clearly do. It's prolly >healthier to talk about the consequences of ideologies >rather than sweeping them under the rug. > >Love, B. Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people. -- Ferris Bueller
From: Tamas K Papp on 10 Dec 2009 02:28
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:24:07 -0500, George Neuner wrote: > Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my > opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should What about healthy skepticism? :-) Tamas |