The Right Wing Machine.

[BabyHeadCrab]

Is the right wing more polar than the left? Do they all tend to agree with one another more so than the left? If so on what issues and why does it scare the shit out of me that they dont even debate among themselves, as liberals and moderates do. I simply am not politically intellegent enough to provide an answer. Commence flameing me, I know I provide no evidence whatsoever to reach this conclusion because i'm really aiming to just learn by posting this. I want guys who are normally active on this forum to debate this here thesis.. because i'm too lazy to do it in my own damn head:

Is the right more polar on political, economic and social issues than the left? Do they tend to agree more and blindly stand behind one another? Or are the liberals more guilty of this? Each party has shades and extremes but I guess what i'm really asking is, are their fewer on the right (conservative) side of things.

edit: damn cant edit post to put a poll in.

ok wtf is up with this forum...(sorry triple post lol)

 

[15357]

lolololol triple thread.


There is no distinction. Everyone does it.

 

[Nat Turner]

repost (wtf?):

Do you know what "right wing" means? Or "left wing"?

In case you aren't sure, "left wing" means supporting large government, which is essentially totalitarianism. Nazis, modern liberals, Communists, socialists, fascists, Green party, etc. are all left wing.

"Right wing" means the support of a very minimal government, or absence thereof. Anarchists are the extreme, and libertarians tend towards this side. Republicans of the past tended towards the political Right.

Contemporary Republicans and Democrats are both very close to the center.

Now generally, anything to do with politics generally means blindly supporting a cause, whatever the issue is over. Certain political groups are more polarized on certain issues, but I don't see major differences between leftists and rightists.

The most extreme on the right, as I said before, are the anarchists (or more specifically, the anarcho-capitalists). They are more polarized on the Right than most modern liberals are on the Left.

 

[OCybrManO]

Do you know what "right wing" means? Or "left wing"?

In case you aren't sure, "left wing" means supporting large government, which is essentially totalitarianism. Nazis, modern liberals, Communists, socialists, fascists, Green party, etc. are all left wing.

"Right wing" means the support of a very minimal government, or absence thereof. Anarchists are the extreme, and libertarians tend towards this side. Republicans of the past tended towards the political Right.

You're only thinking of one factor (government size)... and you're labeling it incorrectly. Liberal & Conservative is not Big & Little government. Authoritarian & Libertarian are Big & Little government. Left and Right are both mixes of the two. They're both medium government in their own way. Left wants the government to beef up economic regulation and cut back on social regulation. Right wants the reverse. Hitler was a conservative authoritarian. Stalin was a liberal authoritarian. Gandhi was liberal libertarian. I'm a liberal libertarian. I can't think of a major conservative libertarian, ATM.

EDIT: Wait... now I remember one... Milton Friedman.

Also, I didn't even factor the military or any other issues in... which would make it even more complex. I don't think you want a 4D political graph.

 

[Nat Turner]

You're only thinking of one factor (government size)... and you're labeling it incorrectly. Liberal & Conservative is not Big & Little government. Authoritarian & Libertarian are Big & Little government. Left and Right are both mixes of the two. They're both medium government in their own way. Left wants the government to beef up economic regulation and cut back on social regulation. Right wants the reverse. Hitler was a conservative authoritarian. Stalin was a liberal authoritarian. Gandhi was liberal libertarian. I'm a liberal libertarian. I can't think of a major conservative libertarian, ATM.

That's extremely ambiguous, and is incorrect. It's also a common misconception. Left is simply large government (total amount of social AND economic control), and right is small or lack of government. There's many different definitions of "liberal" and "conservative", and they don't necessarily correlate with left and right. Liberal and conservative can be mixes of the two.

Far right wants little regulation in economics and social areas. (libertarian and anarcho-capitalists are examples)

Far left wants heavy regulation for both. (Communism is example)

 

[ComradeBadger]

Is the right wing more polar than the left? Do they all tend to agree with one another more so than the left? If so on what issues and why does it scare the shit out of me that they dont even debate among themselves, as liberals and moderates do. I simply am not politically intellegent enough to provide an answer. Commence flameing me, I know I provide no evidence whatsoever to reach this conclusion because i'm really aiming to just learn by posting this. I want guys who are normally active on this forum to debate this here thesis.. because i'm too lazy to do it in my own damn head:

Is the right more polar on political, economic and social issues than the left? Do they tend to agree more and blindly stand behind one another? Or are the liberals more guilty of this? Each party has shades and extremes but I guess what i'm really asking is, are their fewer on the right (conservative) side of things.

edit: damn cant edit post to put a poll in.

ok wtf is up with this forum...(sorry triple post lol)

They're both the same in terms of debating within themselves.

It's US politics, it's one big circle-jerk.

:|

 

[OCybrManO]

That's extremely ambiguous, and is incorrect. It's also a common misconception. Left is simply large government (total amount of social AND economic control), and right is small or lack of government. There's many different definitions of "liberal" and "conservative", and they don't necessarily correlate with left and right. Liberal and conservative can be mixes of the two.

Far right wants little regulation in economics and social areas. (libertarian and anarcho-capitalists are examples)

Far left wants heavy regulation for both. (Communism is example)

I'm going by the Nolan Chart, the Political Compass, the Friesian Institute's Proposal, and other common multi-axis designs. You seem to be using the dumbed-down, one-axis political "spectrum" that is all you hear about in our two party system... which is practically useless in real world applications. If anything is ambiguous it's the everything-is-left-or-right crap. If "Nazis, modern liberals, Communists, socialists, fascists, Green party, etc. are all left wing" it is far too simplistic.

 

[gick]

Left Wing = Favouring economic collectivisation.
Right Wing = Favouring economic liberalism.

Also, you get Social Liberalism and Social Authoritarianism. This is where big government vs small government comes in.


Left-Wing Liberalism characterized by left wing economics, that are implemented on a voluntary basis by the people. See Social Democracy, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Parecon.

Left Wing Authoritarianism is where collectivisation is enforced through social authoritarianism. This is where Communism fits in.

Right Wing Liberalism. Maximises personal/social freedoms while also trying to get closer to a 'free market' ie, where there is absolutelty no collective ownership (unless you count shareholders) and no regulation of business. This is where Milton Friedman fits in. Also, the Libertarian party of the US belongs here too.

Right Wing Authoritarianism. Economic Liberalism/Freedom combined with social authoritarianism. The majority of political parties in the western world belong here including Republicans and Democrats, Labour, and the Tories.

'Conservatism' is really only applicable in party politics. 'Conservatism' is a term for parties who wish to maintain the political/economic/social status quo, or to 'preserve culture and traditions'. As to where conservatives belong on the scale, it is relative to the country from whence they came. For example, in Russia, 'conservatives' would be those who wish for a return to Communism, whereas in the West, they tend to be those who want a return to old-fashioned lassiez-faire economics and 'family values'.

 

[Gray Fox]

repost (wtf?):

Do you know what "right wing" means? Or "left wing"?

In case you aren't sure, "left wing" means supporting large government, which is essentially totalitarianism. Nazis, modern liberals, Communists, socialists, fascists, Green party, etc. are all left wing.

"Right wing" means the support of a very minimal government, or absence thereof. Anarchists are the extreme, and libertarians tend towards this side. Republicans of the past tended towards the political Right.

Contemporary Republicans and Democrats are both very close to the center.

Now generally, anything to do with politics generally means blindly supporting a cause, whatever the issue is over. Certain political groups are more polarized on certain issues, but I don't see major differences between leftists and rightists.

The most extreme on the right, as I said before, are the anarchists (or more specifically, the anarcho-capitalists). They are more polarized on the Right than most modern liberals are on the Left.

And yet you, a rightwinger likes racism, and coincedentally most racist are rightwingers. And coincedentally it's a rightwing government that intruduced the patriot act. It's a leftwing organization like the ACLU that fights for more rights and liberties.

 

[CptStern]

I hate labels ..I hate political polarization, I hate partisan politics and I hate blind fealty to political ideals based on little more than association

Nat Turner: your statements are exactly why so many people dont care about politics or couldnt be bothered to vote: partisan politics and fiery rhetoric oversimplified to mean "us vs them" which in turn alientates people who may be centrist and actually vote or support based on policy NOT political affiliation.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Just look at the last couple of elections in the US to see where the right wing and left wing stand. The elections were both extremely close, so worrying too much about one being absolutely powerful is not worth the time in that sense. Of course, now that one power is in the house and controls congress, we might want to worry, but frankly I would have worried under Gore or Kerry too, so I say that you never truly win with politicians. I agree with Stern that the us vs. them mentality is ruining politics. The 2 party system (or even just the perception of it) has to go. Policy, not Party. Amen.

The most important battle in the US (and arguably in the whole world because of its far-reaching implications) is the battle for the Supreme Court. If Bush gets enough of his people onboard there, then there's no telling what will become of any US policies, foreign or otherwise. Executive power and civil liberties post-9/11 are a couple of the most pregnant topics. Huge implications follow both depending on the court's decisions. The confirmation hearings of late have been about much more than abortion and I can't understand why the Democrats focused so much on this (though it is certainly an important issue too). It just goes to show you (the world audience) that American politics is nothing more than a show--they knew many women were staying at home because they don't work (the husbands work) and watching the hearing and they were playing to their audience. What a disgusting display. Makes me sicker than the whole Lewinsky debacle...almost

 

[Lemonking]

And yet you, a rightwinger likes racism, and coincedentally most racist are rightwingers. And coincedentally it's a rightwing government that intruduced the patriot act. It's a leftwing organization like the ACLU that fights for more rights and liberties.

The ACLU is a pain in the ass, bra D:


edit: stern is right.

 

[CptStern]

heh before I clicked the politics thread I noticed that Spicy Tuna was the last to post ..I thought to myself before clicking "I bet it's something stupid" ....sure enough, there it is for everyone to see

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Keep this up, I learn from this stuff guys, keep posting, keep debateing

and thanks (most of you) for not simply flameing me and saying I dont know what things mean. (Nat Turner, I may be not quite as politically smart as some of these guys, but i'm not an idiot)

I am not a good debator nor am I very smart in politics and I admit that! (thats why I love to read your posts).

 

[Lemonking]

come on now Stern, why Im sure not everyone is sooooo extreme in the ACLU
they wanted to sue NYC for random bag checks after the London attacks yet when you enter their HQ they have to check your bags :O
and also They say a 14 year olds brain is not marure enought to understand his actions(murder cases), yet when they talk about sex education they say a 14 year old is mature enough....whilest I think the ACLU is important,they are to extreme with some of their views

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Nat Turner: your statements are exactly why so many people dont care about politics or couldnt be bothered to vote: partisan politics and fiery rhetoric oversimplified to mean "us vs them" which in turn alientates people who may be centrist and actually vote or support based on policy NOT political affiliation.

Case and point: I learned more from stern's words above, than all of Nat's posts put together here. And i'm not even here to take sides or debate. That post sums up so well how I feel stern I cant even express it.

The ACLU is simply a shade of the left, not all of us would prefer to express our opinions in such a fashion, which in my eyes is a little over the top.

 

[CptStern]

do you have any idea why the ACLU is in existance?

here's a hint:

"defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person ... by the Constitution and laws of the United States."


sure they've debated questionable cases but they're non partisan human rights watchdog who defend the constitution for every citizen EQUALLY ...I dont see anything that would warrent criticism which ironically enough only ever comes from right wing organizations

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

do you have any idea why the ACLU is in existance?

here's a hint:

"defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person ... by the Constitution and laws of the United States."


sure they've debated questionable cases but they're non partisan human rights watchdog who defend the constitution for every citizen EQUALLY ...I dont see anything that would warrent criticism which ironically enough only ever comes from right wing organizations

Well, I am very liberal (obviously) but I think the way the ACLU portrays themselves rubs off looking kind of paranoid if you will. Take a look at the website: http://www.aclu.org/ , GOVERNMENT SPYING in giant red text, sure I stand by most of what they believe in but i'd say this is the left's version of fear mongering, i'd rather people just learned the facts without scareing you shitless first. Leave that to the Bush Administration and its color coded "oh noes terror threat lvl" system, and Osama and his little home movies.

 

[Lemonking]

I aint part of a right wing org. still I think, so does my grandma btw ( who surely isnt a prt of any right-wing group) a pain in the ass.I also said they are important,but they are just to EXTREME with alot of the stuff they say.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Well if your Grandma says it, it must be true

Sorry, couldn't resist!


The extremities of political movements are sometimes important, as they force popular pressure on issues that wouldn't normally be considered. How you view this force depends entirely on your idealogy however.

 

[Glirk Dient]

do you have any idea why the ACLU is in existance?

here's a hint:

"defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person ... by the Constitution and laws of the United States."


sure they've debated questionable cases but they're non partisan human rights watchdog who defend the constitution for every citizen EQUALLY ...I dont see anything that would warrent criticism which ironically enough only ever comes from right wing organizations

Granted they have done good and bad things in the past. They aren't a blessing nor a plague so just because they believe in something doesn't automatically make it right or wrong. Hell...they supported the KKK using the N word.

 

[CptStern]

Well, I am very liberal (obviously) but I think the way the ACLU portrays themselves rubs off looking kind of paranoid if you will. Take a look at the website: http://www.aclu.org/ , GOVERNMENT SPYING in giant red text, sure I stand by most of what they believe in but i'd say this is the left's version of fear mongering, i'd rather people just learned the facts without scareing you shitless first. Leave that to the Bush Administration and its color coded "oh noes terror threat lvl" system, and Osama and his little home movies.

but ...they are spying


I dont agree that it's left leaning ..that's just an excuse made by right wingers because they're always being targeted ..which is more of a statement about right wingers than the aclu


aclu members are predominately lawyers who give their time for free ..but you or I could be a member, anyone can

 

[CptStern]

Granted they have done good and bad things in the past. They aren't a blessing nor a plague so just because they believe in something doesn't automatically make it right or wrong. Hell...they supported the KKK using the N word.

no they didnt. ..they defended their constitutional right to march

"Under well-established First Amendment law, organizations such as the Klan have a right to speak, and public officials are obligated allow that speech to go forward on public property.

"The mayor has taken a tough stand on a difficult issue," said ACLU Legal Director Raymond Vasvari. "No one expects his position to be popular, but the First Amendment extends its protection to even the most vile speech."


http://www.aclu.org//freespeech/gen/11015prs19990803.html

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

but ...they are spying


I dont agree that it's left leaning ..that's just an excuse made by right wingers because they're always being targeted ..which is more of a statement about right wingers than the aclu


aclu members are predominately lawyers who give their time for free ..but you or I could be a member, anyone can

Yes, they are spying, I never discredited that fact.. I just figure most people going to the ACLU website know that, and i'd rather be greeted with something more pleaseing to the eyes. (I know i'm a wuss) haha.

 

[Sulkdodds]

"I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"?

I agree with Stern that the us vs. them mentality is ruining politics. The 2 party system (or even just the perception of it) has to go. Policy, not Party. Amen.

Damn straight. The problem with 'us and them' mentalities is that they depend entirely on your perspective.

 

[CptStern]

Yes, they are spying, I never discredited that fact.. I just figure most people going to the ACLU website know that, and i'd rather be greeted with something more pleaseing to the eyes. (I know i'm a wuss) haha.

while I do admit I like being greeted by nice things, this is about human rights and is such should be alarmist. I like my rhetoric flaming hot ..I'd be disappointed if I got a nice friendly hello instead

 

[Glirk Dient]

no they didnt. ..they defended their constitutional right to march

"Under well-established First Amendment law, organizations such as the Klan have a right to speak, and public officials are obligated allow that speech to go forward on public property.

"The mayor has taken a tough stand on a difficult issue," said ACLU Legal Director Raymond Vasvari. "No one expects his position to be popular, but the First Amendment extends its protection to even the most vile speech."


http://www.aclu.org//freespeech/gen/11015prs19990803.html

Hmm, your right my mistake. Got mixed up with something else. They have also supported spam, saying the stuff that does get through anti-spam filters is just easy to click and delete. Besides...they do support an agenda so it is hard to take them seriously...why aren't they protecting gun laws?

In any case it doesn't make the case any better. There is an old saying my poli sci teacher said about our freedoms "Your right to swing your fist ends at another persons nose". In other words you have freedoms, but when it starts to harm someone else it is ended. That is the reason you can't run around on a plane saying "Bomb" and the reason you can't walk around the streets naked and swearing at kids. Without these limitations America would be a very scary place. The limitations are set to protect us.

 

[CptStern]

Hmm, your right my mistake. Got mixed up with something else. They have also supported spam, saying the stuff that does get through anti-spam filters is just easy to click and delete.

wow lets burn down their headquarters

Besides...they do support an agenda so it is hard to take them seriously

ya protecting the US constitution, what a bunch of agenda having crazies

...why aren't they protecting gun laws?

"The organization declares itself officially "neutral" on the issue of gun control, pointing to previous Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Miller to argue that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and the unlimited possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." wiki entry

 

[Flyingdebris]

And yet you, a rightwinger likes racism, and coincedentally most racist are rightwingers. And coincedentally it's a rightwing government that intruduced the patriot act. It's a leftwing organization like the ACLU that fights for more rights and liberties.

woah woah woah, slow down there tiger. You can't just go around accusing people of being racists based on their political leanings unless their political leaning is based on racism like with nazis. Hell i'm sorta right wing and i'm pretty damn sure i'm not a racist.

Saying that the kkk are right wing and thus all right wingers must be racist is not an argument that holds water.

Besides, some might argue that the political left is racist in the manner in which it keeps certain minorities in a poverty stricken state through a system based on handouts rather than enabling them to better themselves. I don't necessarily believe that, but i'm just pointing out that thinking in absolutes like what you are doing is a big mistake.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

No debating amongst ourselves? You have to be kidding there. We don't do it publically on issues I guess. So if it seems that way you're right there and with good reason.

But trust me, if somehow leftists just dissapeared from the nation, you'd see several new parties form fighting for various issues. You would immediately see the libertarians split from other moderates. You'd also see religious fundamentalists split from moderates. Then you'd have 3 main groups (as it usually turns out in internal debate, just check protest warrior or somewhere else where we talk amongst ourselves) all going for political control.

However, what would be unholy alliances in a situation like that need to be formed to keep the left out of power. We win because we don't have infighting. It's a lesser of two evils situation, a matter of keeping socialism and other things associated with the left out.

 

[OCybrManO]

You can occasionally see points where the tension temporarily breaks the unified façade. The most recent one I can remember is the nomination of Harriet Miers. That obviously didn't sit very well, internally. Then, there was some noticeable dissent quite a while back regarding Israel. Also, there were two or three more that I forgot while writing the last few sentences...

... but the rest of the time you could question 10 people at random and get the same responses using all of the same key phrases. It's like some sort of hive mentality. Whenever one is questioned, its brain sends out a psychic query to the TPD (talking point database) which then relays back one of the prearranged answers that has been determined (either through think tanks or polls) to be the most effective. That's my theory. Now, all we need are psychic interrogation shields!

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

The only things now heating up to a near boil and about to break out in public fighting are illegal immigration and federal spending.

Basically everyone on this side agrees as far as policy for illegal immigration. The problem is in the Southwest we feel like northerners and easterners neglect the issue and don't give a crap. Kind of like the whole Canada East-West divide and anger. There's a lot of anger at Bush internally because he's been real lousy about it.

More fiscal conservatives and many libertarians are furious at spending levels. The problem is figuring out what to do about it. Which areas to hit without significantly changing things in social programs, military, or public safety.



EDIT: Hmm, that's another reason while we're always unified. While there may be fighting about how to implement something, with varying degrees of approval or dissaproval, plans by liberals are unanimously disagreed with. Thus a common standing.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The 'Right Wing Machine' = ....Schwarzenegger, The Governator!

Badum-boom-tish.

 

[JNightshade]

Hahahahahahaha

*straightens tie*

the political spectrum is far too complex and multifaceted to be distilled into a simple left-to-right spectrum. Unfortunately, everyone in the US seems keen on doing just that regardless. Goddamn yanks. I swear, I'm moving to the south pole as soon as I get out of college. Penguins are the only friends I need.

 

[Flyingdebris]

i dunno man, my daddy always said never trust no penguin

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

The 'Right Wing Machine' = ....Schwarzenegger, The Governator!

Badum-boom-tish.

Your awesome hahahah.

 

[Nat Turner]

Ok, I researched about the left and the right on Wikipedia to see the actual meanings. There's many different interpretations, but I see that from the commonly held meanings I was mostly wrong. Sorry guys for my faulty information.