Who is more naive? The Left or the Right?

[Guest Peeves]

Everett Dirksen Quotes. A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

[bush_cheney2004]

....What is needed in the USA is another choice. a party that will represent the interests of the citizen, the taxpayer, and the future citizens and taxpayers.

Americans have more choices on the ballot than do Canadians.

[dre]

Maybe two new choices ? Really, when it comes down to it we're just all arguing about the check at a restaurant for the most part. Why do we need to inject so much identity into that question ? I don't know why. If you want to see real divisiveness, break rank with somebody who agrees with you politically, as I often see when I tell fellow left-of-centres that the government wastes money, that healthcare could be run better, that global trade is a good idea... I'm looked at with a certain glare reserved for the disloyal.

Well you cant just say "we need new choices"... You need a political system where a wide variety of different choices will naturally emerge. If you have that people wont get grouped into 2 camps anymore. To do this though you either need to add more democracy, or remove every single bit of institutional favoratism for the the existing ideological monopolies.

We need to stop structuring policital choice the same way that cable tv packages are structured, otherwise you get large segments of society that are basically disenfranchised, and break up these ideological monopolies, or politics will continue to get more and more divisive and bipolar.

[Michael Hardner]

Well you cant just say "we need new choices"... You need a political system where a wide variety of different choices will naturally emerge. If you have that people wont get grouped into 2 camps anymore. To do this though you either need to add more democracy, or remove every single bit of institutional favoratism for the the existing ideological monopolies.

I don't think that's what we need. We don't need to have parties fail every 5 years, or even every generation.

We need to stop structuring policital choice the same way that cable tv packages are structured, otherwise you get large segments of society that are basically disenfranchised, and break up these ideological monopolies, or politics will continue to get more and more divisive and bipolar.

"We" aren't doing that, people are choosing it. And when people choose something else then we'll be in a new era.

[dre]

I don't think that's what we need. We don't need to have parties fail every 5 years, or even every generation.

"We" aren't doing that, people are choosing it. And when people choose something else then we'll be in a new era.

No people are not choosing that. People pick from the options that they have, and in the US and more and more so in Canada they have two choices. Then we group society into those slots, and to get a certain channel you have to pick a package that might have channels you hate. You may not be able to vote for fiscal conservatism without also voting for foreign interventionalism at the same time even though those two things are diametically opposed. So youre forced to fit in one of two arbitrary slots or stay home. Its not because you wanted to pick one... its because a slot wasnt provided for fiscal conservatives that oppose foreign interventionalism.

But society didnt make things that way, any more than they created your basic or premium cable packages. Two fairly arbitrary choices were provided and people had to pick one or the other.

Some political systems are not like that. You pick from a large group of parties that generally have more defined planks. Business, labor, environment, civil rights, foreign policy, economics, social values etc.

We don't need to have parties fail every 5 years, or even every generation.

I think that would be a great thing myself as opposed having a small number of institutionally advantaged and well entrenched mega parties. I would like it better if the landscape was highly dynamic, with alliances in parliament changing constantly to reflect real voter concerns.

Edited March 6, 2012 by dre

[bleeding heart]

While I agree that the "left" and "right" terms are sometimes useful as shorthand, they are deeply problematic as descriptors, as many here have pointed out.

But even as phrased, and as discussed, the elephant stomping all over everyone is, as usual, ignored:

What about "centrists"?

Because first of all, since everyone is agreeing that "left" and "right" are troublesome labels, then by definition so is "centrist," since it absolutely depends on the existence of the two poles.

Further still, "centrist" is in each case a self-imposed label, in which the subject declares his or her own rationality, his or her elevated status in ideological discussions. "I don't go for the exremism of the Left or the Right," they sniff unctuously. And falsely. They do subscribe to it...very much so. A bit from one side, a bit from the other. The self-described "centre" is just as ideological, and often just as extreme, as are the left/right poles it sniffs about in superior fashion.

And good lord, everybody thinks that he or she is "rational"!

Edited March 18, 2012 by bleeding heart

[WLDB]

Im not a fan of the left-right spectrum. I find it a bit antiquated these days. But I'd say the idealists and the extremists on both sides are.

[Jack Weber]

While I agree that the "left" and "right" terms are sometimes useful as shorthand, they are deeply problematic as descriptors, as many here have pointed out.

But even as phrased, and as discussed, the elephant stomping all over everyone is, as usual, ignored:

What about "centrists"?

Because first of all, since everyone is agreeing that "left" and "right" are troublesome labels, then by definition so is "centrist," since it absolutely depends on the existence of the two poles.

Further still, "centrist" is in each case a self-imposed label, in which the subject declares his or her own rationality, his or her elevated status in ideological discussions. "I don't go for the exremism of the Left or the Right," they sniff unctuously. And falsely. They do subscribe to it...very much so. A bit from one side, a bit from the other. The self-described "centre" is just as ideological, and often just as extreme, as are the left/right poles it sniffs about in superior fashion.

And good lord, everybody thinks that he or she is "rational"!

I take centrism to be pragmatism...It could also mean that one might be conservative on some subjects (but not radically so) or socially democratic on others (but not radically so) all at the same time.And therefore,not beholden to any specific idealogy.

That doesn't seem so "extreme" to me,but perhaps it's because I'm such a disciple of the "Tao of Jack Weberism" that I can't fathom my own extremism?

Edited March 19, 2012 by Jack Weber

[Guest Manny]

Yeah but, centrism, what is it really? You're neither here, nor there... you're sittin in a tree, Jack!

[Jack Weber]

Yeah but, centrism, what is it really? You're neither here, nor there... you're sittin in a tree, Jack!

Is this an attempt at the,"If you don't stand for something,you stand for nothing!",drivel I hear from narrow minded idealogues all the time?

[Guest Manny]

Is this an attempt at the,"If you don't stand for something,you stand for nothing!",drivel I hear from narrow minded idealogues all the time?

It's the conundrum. Too far left, too far right. Too far in the middle...

[Jack Weber]

It's the conundrum. Too far left, too far right. Too far in the middle...

Perhaps for those who are idealogically driven...

[WLDB]

Is this an attempt at the,"If you don't stand for something,you stand for nothing!",drivel I hear from narrow minded idealogues all the time?

First time I saw Justin Trudeau speak he said "The other parties have rigid ideas and are not willing to compromise. The Liberals are offering compromise to Canadians." I thought it was a pretty funny line. Its basically "We dont have any ideas, but if we did we'd compromise them."

[Wild Bill]

First time I saw Justin Trudeau speak he said "The other parties have rigid ideas and are not willing to compromise. The Liberals are offering compromise to Canadians." I thought it was a pretty funny line. Its basically "We dont have any ideas, but if we did we'd compromise them."

Here's a line from and old song:

"I can play reggae. I can play disco. I can play anything you want!"

[Jack Weber]

First time I saw Justin Trudeau speak he said "The other parties have rigid ideas and are not willing to compromise. The Liberals are offering compromise to Canadians." I thought it was a pretty funny line. Its basically "We dont have any ideas, but if we did we'd compromise them."

That is definately the problem of the Liberal party...For a very long time it has only stood for whatever got itself elected..

That does'nt mean that a "Centrist" does'nt have definative positions...It just means that those positions might seem to be at odds with each other and eliminate any specific idealogical bent...

[bleeding heart]

I take centrism to be pragmatism...It could also mean that one might be conservative on some subjects (but not radically so) or socially democratic on others (but not radically so) all at the same time.And therefore,not beholden to any specific idealogy.

That doesn't seem so "extreme" to me,but perhaps it's because I'm such a disciple of the "Tao of Jack Weberism" that I can't fathom my own extremism?

Sure, I get what you mean. I don't think you're wrong. And we'vew had these discussions before (I am the dreaded bloodyminded, back under an even worse name).

Yeah, there are pretty obviously some extremes which belong, give or take, among Left or Right. But since so few of us are beholen to Black Bloc anarchists on one side, or conservative theocrats on the other, things get pretty complicated.