Will the Conservatives Dominate Federal Politics for 40 Years?

[Pliny]

I'm just not totally sure, in this case, why Chamberlain would be a 'leftist' and Churchill would be a 'rightist'. Churchill also had a significant stint in the Liberal Party and also believed in many statist measures. He led a wartime coalition with Clement Attlee's truly socialist Labour Party, to whom he entrusted the domestic economy.

Statist would be a better term to use than leftist or rightist. There is a general consensus of what left and right is but when you are trying to be concise there are many similarities and confusions in doing so. Naturally, if Hitler is assigned a far right position and all are opposed conservatives will make left wing alliances. When socialists took over the left wing during the thirties then classical liberals and libertarians would by default move to the right side. Although a person could have held the same political views all his life he may, at different periods in his life, been positioned all over the political spectrum.

Read the NSDAP Manifesto, keep your blinders on regarding who wrote it, and tell me if it is a leftist or rightist document.

[Evening Star]

Well, I only used "leftist" and "rightist" because of your original damning statements about "leftists" in post 39. Basically, you now seem to be conceding yourself that those labels are too simplistic, which is how I felt in the first place.

I see what you're saying here. I just don't think any of it bears out your assertion that "[leftists] believe they should have a dialogue instead of defend themselves" (post 39), which you then backed up by giving the example of Chamberlain (post 46). I'm sure I could safely say that Chamberlain was to the right of Attlee, who was deputy PM in the War Ministry. And it's still not clear to me what the left-right ideological gulf was between Chamberlain and Churchill, who were both prominent Conservatives at the same time.

Statist would be a better term to use than leftist or rightist. There is a general consensus of what left and right is but when you are trying to be concise there are many similarities and confusions in doing so. Naturally, if Hitler is assigned a far right position and all are opposed conservatives will make left wing alliances. When socialists took over the left wing during the thirties then classical liberals and libertarians would by default move to the right side. Although a person could have held the same political views all his life he may, at different periods in his life, been positioned all over the political spectrum.

Read the NSDAP Manifesto, keep your blinders on regarding who wrote it, and tell me if it is a leftist or rightist document.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Evening Star

[bloodyminded]

Well, I only used "leftist" and "rightist" because of your original damning statements about "leftists" in post 39. Basically, you now seem to be conceding yourself that those labels are too simplistic, which is how I felt in the first place.

I see what you're saying here. I just don't think any of it bears out your assertion that "[leftists] believe they should have a dialogue instead of defend themselves" (post 39), which you then backed up by giving the example of Chamberlain (post 46). I'm sure I could safely say that Chamberlain was to the right of Attlee, who was deputy PM in the War Ministry. And it's still not clear to me what the left-right ideological gulf was between Chamberlain and Churchill, who were both prominent Conservatives at the same time.

The Left-bashing is generally ill-considered for the reasons you mention, and several others.

I get the impression that Leftism has terrible tendencies that Conservatism simply does not possess...except when they do. At these moments (which are actually on a continual basis, rather than an abberation of these vaunted "conservative principles"), the problem is that Right is actually another aspect of...the Left!

Even if this were so (it isn't) it sort of begs the question of why someone would be defending the honour of one group of de facto Leftists against the other group.

Ay any rate, I once had a poster inform me that, as we can see by their bad behaviour, the Islamist extremists--that is, the most arch-conservative forces on Earth, arguably--are actually....well, you can guess :)

Yep. They're "Lefties" as well.

Edited July 19, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Wild Bill]

The Left-bashing is generally ill-considered for the reasons you mention, and several others.

I get the impression that Leftism has terrible tendencies that Conservatism simply does not possess...except when they do. At these moments (which are actually on a continual basis, rather than an abberation of these vaunted "conservative principles"), the problem is that Right is actually another aspect of...the Left!

Even if this were so (it isn't) it sort of begs the question of why someone would be defending the honour of one group of de facto Leftists against the other group.

Ay any rate, I once had a poster inform me that, as we can see by their bad behaviour, the Islamist extremists--that is, the most arch-conservative forces on Earth, arguably--are actually....well, you can guess :)

Yep. They're "Lefties" as well.

I find it much easier to look at people in terms of whether they are contributors or users. You can usually tell quite quickly. A contributing type personality tends to be self-reliant. If he comes across a pop can on the curb he's likely to pick it up himself and put it in a trash can. If he loses his job his first impulse is to try to find another, not start calculating how long he can stretch a pogey run for "summer holidays".

Contributing personalities start businesses and often try to grow them larger. This means they hire more people, providing more jobs. They pay more taxes to the government, paying for maintenance of the roads and (hopefully!) a few positive things.

Users don't pick up pop cans themselves. They demand the government do it!

There is a sub-species of user who appears to be a contributor but really isn't. He's the guy who will start a "non-profit" organization to do some public charity. Most people don't realize that "non-profit" doesn't mean the people in the organization work for free! Most get paid VERY well, thank you! A good way to dump money that might have shown as a profit is into salaries for the executive officers of the organization.

Or as P T Barnum said it years ago: "Makers, takers and fakers. There are NO other kinds!"

[Smallc]

There is a sub-species of user who appears to be a contributor but really isn't. He's the guy who will start a "non-profit" organization to do some public charity.

Yes, those evil bastards. People who do charitable work aren't users in any way.

[bloodyminded]

I find it much easier to look at people in terms of whether they are contributors or users. You can usually tell quite quickly. A contributing type personality tends to be self-reliant. If he comes across a pop can on the curb he's likely to pick it up himself and put it in a trash can. If he loses his job his first impulse is to try to find another, not start calculating how long he can stretch a pogey run for "summer holidays".

Alright...then this is entirely and utterly separate from this "left/right" divide; remember, this particular part of the discussion began with preposterous declarations about right-wing "solid values" versus left-wing absence of "solid values."

Completely artificial distinctions, bred from the sewer of obssesive left-hatred, which is maybe a hangover from the Cold War days.

There is a sub-species of user who appears to be a contributor but really isn't. He's the guy who will start a "non-profit" organization to do some public charity. Most people don't realize that "non-profit" doesn't mean the people in the organization work for free! Most get paid VERY well, thank you! A good way to dump money that might have shown as a profit is into salaries for the executive officers of the organization.

A lot of such people do not work for handsome salaries, and get involved purely out of principle.

The idea that a profit-seeking entrepreneur (and I'm not knocking them even slightly) are fundamentally more...well, moral than are charity workers is frankly bizarre.

[Wild Bill]

Yes, those evil bastards. People who do charitable work aren't users in any way.

Well, I point out that non-profit organizations are often corrupt and pay big salaries to their executive officers and you take that to mean I'm slagging anyone who does charitable work in any way!

I'm starting to see a pattern here, smallc. You seem to have a hair trigger about anything I say, never missing a chance to misconstrue it into something racist or "evilly right wing".

I don't recall ever pissing into your cornflakes so I'm at a loss as to why you've taken this stance. Could it be that I have disagreed with YOU upon occasion? Is it your premise that those who disagree with you must be "evil right wingers"?

Hell, I'm not even a conservative!

Anyhow, I wait with baited breath for the next straw man you will make me into...

[August1991]

Ay any rate, I once had a poster inform me that, as we can see by their bad behaviour, the Islamist extremists--that is, the most arch-conservative forces on Earth, arguably--are actually....well, you can guess :)

It has always bothered me that the MSM often refers to "conservative hardliners" and associate "conservative" with authoritarian regimes. (BM, you seem to be indulging the practice here.)

Leftists, OTOH, want to give more power to the State and in effect limit the choices of individuals. Leftists implicitly are authoritarian and truly deserve the title of "hardliner".

I don't see much difference between an "Islamic Republic" and a "Socialist Republic".

I know that American liberals often associate American conservatives with fundamentalist Christians but no one on the right wants to establish a "Christian Republic" or have the State force everyone to genuflect one way or another.

Edited July 20, 2011 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

It has always bothered me that the MSM often refers to "conservative hardliners" and associate "conservative" with authoritarian regimes. (BM, you seem to be indulging the practice here.)

To call the Islamist extremists "arch-conservatives" (the term I actually used) is uncontroversially accurate.

Since your worldview is perverse and intensely ideological, any criticism of any right wingers (even including the arch-conservative theocrats) is somehow unreasonable and a product of the "hipsters" in the MSM.

I don't see much difference between an "Islamic Republic" and a "Socialist Republic".

Nor right-wing authoritarian regimes, like Pinochet's (oh, wait...you think he's a hard-leftist Soviet stooge ).

[Evening Star]

I know that American liberals often associate American conservatives with fundamentalist Christians but no one on the right wants to establish a "Christian Republic" or have the State force everyone to genuflect one way or another.

Ha, the present-day Republican Party seems pretty close!

[bush_cheney2004]

Ha, the present-day Republican Party seems pretty close!

Far less successful the the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 which continues and confers preferences for Protestant and Catholic schools.

[pinko]

Far less successful the the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 which continues and confers preferences for Protestant and Catholic schools.

This is a most unfortunate relic of the past. If you look at the way Canada was populated and how it was initially formed you will better understand how such a premise was recognized. If I had my way such a policy would not exist.

Edited July 20, 2011 by pinko

[bush_cheney2004]

This is a most unfortunate relic of the past. If you look at the way Canada was populated and how it was initially formed you will better understand how such a premise was recognized. If I had my way such a policy would not exist.

Canada is for all Canadians, not just you. Clearly this religious component was carried forward in modern times (1982) by a political process that sought to leverage and continue such preferences for several reasons.

[Pliny]

Nor right-wing authoritarian regimes, like Pinochet's (oh, wait...you think he's a hard-leftist Soviet stooge ).

Better described as a Statist. That Stalin and Castro have a different economic model and heirarchichal structure than did Franco or Pinochet doesn't make a dictatorship look any different. The left/right political paradigm needs to be brought into the present and revised to make politics understandable to the average person if there is to be a continuation of democracy guided by the democratic vote. But I don't think people knowing what is going on is high on the political agenda these days.

Essentially, a society or civilization under a dictatorship will be shaped by one person. There is no shortage of people in line to take over a dictatorship so they are basically unstable and who knows what the next person in line has in mind. To say that Castro didn't have an iron fist like Pinochet would be basically wrong. The societies were different, their successes and failures were different their economics were different. Their power was the same.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

Better described as a Statist. That Stalin and Castro have a different economic model and heirarchichal structure than did Franco or Pinochet doesn't make a dictatorship look any different. The left/right political paradigm needs to be brought into the present and revised

I'm inclined to agree with you.

Your dispute here is with August, whose theory boils down quite explicitly to "conservatives good; liberals bad." (Although ever since he discovered Coulter, about five years after everyone else stopped reading her, now everything is about "American liberals"...for...some reason, unspecified.)

Edited July 21, 2011 by bloodyminded

[August1991]

Your dispute here is with August, whose theory boils down quite explicitly to "conservatives good; liberals bad."

....

(Although ever since he discovered Coulter, about five years after everyone else stopped reading her, now everything is about "American liberals"...for...some reason, unspecified.)

For the record, I was impressed with Coulter's description of the French revolution. It is a 21st translation of Macaulay, better than Dickens. I have yet to see a French translation of Coulter's book but it will have one. And it will be controversial.

----

... "conservatives good, liberals bad." I never voted Liberal although I did meet Trudeau and Chrétien, on several occasions, and I was impressed with both of them. Then, I met Jacques Hébert and understood that Trudeau/Chrétien were "frauds". (In the past, I generally voted PQ/NDP or avoided federal elections.)

Au moins mes votes pour René Lévesque, je n'en ai pas honte.

=====

BM, I have been there/done that. I was once a Leftist. Now, I'm not.

Edited July 21, 2011 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

For the record, I was impressed with Coulter's description of the French revolution. It is a 21st translation of Macaulay, better than Dickens. I have yet to see a French translation of Coulter's book but it will have one. And it will be controversial.

Other reviews of Coulter's book seems to bear out your observation...as in worth the price of admission just for the details of the French Revolution. Here are examples:

Historical analysis

The two best chapters within the book are entitled “The French Revolution: When Liberals Attack” and “The French Revolution Part Deux: Come for the Beheadings, Stay for the Rapes.” Having recently studied the French Revolution, I was surprised as to how accurate and detailed this section was, from the storming of the Bastille to Louis XVI’s unsuccessful flight out of Versailles. However, this section differed from my personal education on the French Revolution for its emphasis on how bloody the Revolution really did become.

I never knew how the mob tormented Marie Antoinette with heated sexism, nor how many people lost their heads to the guillotine, nor how the mob brainwashed Antoinette’s son to tell the jury that Antoinette sexually molested him. I guess I accredit this lack of knowledge to my public school education. - RightWingThinking

Or this from NewsMax:

Ann Coulter's chilling two-chapter recapitulation of the French Revolution is worth well more than the price of her new book, "Demonic," but that's just a bonus.

Edited July 21, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

Other reviews of Coulter's book seems to bear out your observation...

God knows, but her description of the French Revolution is a perfect example of polemical writing.

Any English professor of 18th century European history should include Coulter's chapter on a reading list. First, it describes graphically the French revolution. Second, it shows -using modern style- what a partisan text is.

It's a wonderful text and any student of history should read it - to learn about the past, and to learn about polemics.

[bloodyminded]

For the record, I was impressed with Coulter's description of the French revolution.

Um...yes. It has been bleeding into almost all your posts on every subject recently.

Hence your intensified derision of some entity you and Coulter term "the Left."

... "conservatives good, liberals bad." I never voted Liberal although I did meet Trudeau and Chrétien, on several occasions, and I was impressed with both of them. Then, I met Jacques Hébert and understood that Trudeau/Chrétien were "frauds". (In the past, I generally voted PQ/NDP or avoided federal elections.)

I was talking small "c" and "l", not the parties.

Like many people who newly discover the simpleton religion of reactionary polemics, you're beginning to view "the Left" (about which you remain quite confused: see your remarks on Friedman and Pinochet for a salient example) as the true Enemy, the font of all that is wrong.

And yet you cannot identify it, or articulate quite what you mean.

BM, I have been there/done that. I was once a Leftist. Now, I'm not.

This is a standard saw, the "I grew up" thesis, which is by definition easily countered by my own experience: I used to be conservative. Now, I'm not. Been there/done that.

I don't consider it important.

As for polemics: I suggest Christopher Hitchens. Superior in every respect. (I don't much agree with him either, in case you're wondering about "bias.")

Edited July 22, 2011 by bloodyminded