|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 04/20/2004 : 10:27:07
|
|
I'd like to get a feel for what you think on this. What is politics for? Be as detailed or short as you like. Think conceptually or specifically if you like.
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 18:13:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
I'd like to get a feel for what you think on this. What is politics for? Be as detailed or short as you like. Think conceptually or specifically if you like.
There are many answers depending on what level you want to think about it.
One thing I would say about polititions is:
They are like security guards in an office building. They have no real power but if you mess with one who is into being a bully and wants to hassel you, you will have problems getting to your goal of the moment. |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2004 : 11:50:57 [Permalink]
|
Well, I seem to have NOT generated a lot of interest here. Perhaps I should be more specific or add a thought of my own.
The difference between conservativism and liberalism in the US is centered a great deal around differing ideas of what the government is supposed to do. You can think of politics in two ways: 1) The means or process of gaining control of the government or 2) The means or process of using the government to achieve social goals. If you take definition 1, politics is very simple and means the same thing for everyone involved. If you take definition 2, politics is much more and is specific to ideology.
IMO politics is certainly definition 2, thought many of us, in this age of cynicism, have abandoned that for the more jaded definition 1. We look on politics as dirty, self-serving, power mongering. But the truth is, politics is the means to shape society. In the past, idealsists approached the arena of government as the means to build something wonderful, to achieve fundamental lasting change for the good of all citizens and indeed of all humanity. Today we seem to have abandoned the possibility that good can be achieved at all through government.
Conveniently, this abandonment plays into the hands of the conservatives whose ideology is to have as little governmental interference in the machinations of business and the wealthy elite as possible. Politics from that standpoint has a simple purpose - hamstring the idealists to ensure the power structure remains as it is and their 'bread and butter' so-to-speak is not threatened. It's not personal, it's about security.
Conservatives got a good scare with the rise of communism, which quite literally advocated the removal and reallocation of wealth and power from the elite for the benefit of all citizens. Right or wrong, this was a direct personal threat against the elites of every nation around the world. Hence the grandomachy between capitalism and communism that raged throughout the 20th century.
Communism was the most extreme use of politics to 'change the world.' And while the changes were successful, the idealsist had their train hijacked but a new crop of would-be elites who created their own system for accumulating and preserving wealth and power. All that was positive was apparently drowned by the horrors of the new elite.
In response, conservativism in the rest of the world has taken the safest tack possible these days - discredit/defund/dismantle any and every socialst program in place to ensure no one ever believes the government can affect any kind of possitive change in society at all. Right or wrong, this is the surest way to preserve their interests and make the terror of sweeping social change ala the Oktober revolution an impossibility forever.
And so here we are today with absolutely no belief or faith in the ability to change society for the better by political activism. Those who stand to benefit the most from various social safety nets happily go along with conservative politicians in dismantling and destroying them with the absurd impression that government can't do anything right. And liberalism has become a slur, inviting immediate distrust among people who, if they read the definition without the word itself, would almost universally agree to the concept's intrinsic good for the vast majority of society.
Well, anyway, that's what I've been thinking about politics lately. I've been thinking of grand tradgedy and the loss of immense potential for good. I've been thinking of anti-progress and the backlash against compassion. Who would have thought? |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 04/21/2004 11:51:19 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2004 : 13:26:06 [Permalink]
|
Actually, your discussion of conservatism brings up (again) the very real problem of there being several types of conservatism, and they don't always go hand-in-hand.
There's fiscal conservatism, which appears to me to be a desire for the people to have more of their own money, and the government less. There's legislative conservatism, in which the fewer laws which exist, the better. And there's social conservatism, where people are left to make their own choices about the way they want to live.
Generally, Republicans today appear to be fiscally conservative, but legislatively and socially liberal (especially given that many of them appear to wish to legislate an end to homosexuality and abortion, for just two examples). And Democrats appear (to me) to be fiscally and legislatively liberal, and only somewhat socially conservative (and less so with each passing month).
As I mentioned in another thread, there really should be a discussion here regarding the differences between the terms "Republican," "conservative," and "right" on the one hand, and "Democrat," "liberal" and "left" on the other. These two sets of words, despite the impression one might get from CNN and newspapers, do not represent two groups of synonyms. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2004 : 19:27:25 [Permalink]
|
Hi Dave,
I think you've got social conservatism mixed up with libertariansim. The social conservatives, those who've gained a lot of power in the Republican party as epitomized by the christian right - the ones who want to stop abortion and make your children learn creationism in school - are NOT liberal - LMAO!!! What are you thinking liberalism IS???? Good god, liberalism is not about social control - it's about giving people the social freedom to do and be what they want. Libertarians are the extreme of socail liberals. They basically think people should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as they don't unreasonably harm others (an excellant idea IMHO). Oh and they are also governmental minimalists on all fronts, making them very fiscally conservative.
For reference, here's what Webster has to say about liberalism and conservativism:
Liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Conservatism: disposition in politics to preserve what is established OR a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
Now, considering the definitions, how in the world can you say social conservatism is where people make their own choices about the way they want to live?!?!?!? You have it 100% opposite! I see very little 'let people live they way they want' in Republican party policy. Consider the anti-gay agenda. Consider the anti-abortion agenda. Consider the efforts against stem cell research - - - all based on religous restrictions the Republicans, as lead by the born-again christian president GW Bush, wish to impose on the nation. There is nothing liberal about it at all.
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2004 : 21:24:28 [Permalink]
|
Well, both fiscal and legislative conservatism limit the government's power to affect the citizens, while a liberal use of governmental power does the opposite. By simple application of the same standard, social conservatism would keep the government from messing in people's lives.
The popular definitions of the words - what one might find in Webster's - do not appear to me to be good guides to what goes on in politics today. As you and I both noted, Republicans wish to use governmental power to limit people's rights. I maintain that that is a liberal use of power (akin to a liberal application of antifungal cream), and not a conservative one.
It is the use of the word 'liberal' to mean both "used freely" and "restrained," and the use of the term 'conservative' to mean both "restrained" and "defending tradition" which is confusing here, which is why I'm stressing that these definitions need to be hashed out in depth before real progress can be made in any discussion of these issues. Because if the government used its power conservatively towards social issues, it wouldn't be attempting to legislate religion. Yet, people who consider themselves politically conservative are attempting to do just that. It's the definitions themselves that are all screwed up, as far as I can tell.
And as I tried to get across, 'Republican' does not equal 'conservative' at all times, even by Webster's definition. Tax rebate checks neither "preserved what is established" nor did they demonstrate "gradual development." They were, instead, an abrupt destruction of what had been established by prior legislators. The war in Iraq was also not politically conservative. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2004 : 03:28:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, both fiscal and legislative conservatism limit the government's power to affect the citizens, while a liberal use of governmental power does the opposite. By simple application of the same standard, social conservatism would keep the government from messing in people's lives.
The popular definitions of the words - what one might find in Webster's - do not appear to me to be good guides to what goes on in politics today. As you and I both noted, Republicans wish to use governmental power to limit people's rights. I maintain that that is a liberal use of power (akin to a liberal application of antifungal cream), and not a conservative one.
It is the use of the word 'liberal' to mean both "used freely" and "restrained," and the use of the term 'conservative' to mean both "restrained" and "defending tradition" which is confusing here, which is why I'm stressing that these definitions need to be hashed out in depth before real progress can be made in any discussion of these issues. Because if the government used its power conservatively towards social issues, it wouldn't be attempting to legislate religion. Yet, people who consider themselves politically conservative are attempting to do just that. It's the definitions themselves that are all screwed up, as far as I can tell.
And as I tried to get across, 'Republican' does not equal 'conservative' at all times, even by Webster's definition. Tax rebate checks neither "preserved what is established" nor did they demonstrate "gradual development." They were, instead, an abrupt destruction of what had been established by prior legislators. The war in Iraq was also not politically conservative.
Oh, I see. You're using the words liberal and conservative to describe the manner in which government uses its power. Ok, your statements make sense in that context but I don't think that's how the terms are intended to be used when describing the liberal and conservative ideologies. While what you said makes sense in the microcosm of your statement, it's very confusing overall since you're using the opposite meanings compared to the generally accepted understanding.
I suppose if your intent is to communicate, they you'll have to accpet the common meanings of the terms. It's impractical to redefine them here and get everyone using your version of the vocabulary while the rest of the world goes on doing it's thing. But I'll grant you that the government such as it is does not currently behave like a conservative government, by any definition of the word. Nor can you call it liberal by the common definition - not by a long shot. Doing so, however, will raise an eyebrow or two - LOL. (mine's still up a little  ) |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2004 : 06:17:59 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
I suppose if your intent is to communicate, they you'll have to accpet the common meanings of the terms. It's impractical to redefine them here and get everyone using your version of the vocabulary while the rest of the world goes on doing it's thing.
Sigh. I wrote:quote:
...I'm stressing that these definitions need to be hashed out in depth before real progress can be made in any discussion of these issues.
While being misunderstood in one's own lifetime is allegedly a good thing for a writer, I think it sucks. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2004 : 07:22:41 [Permalink]
|
I've been thinking a bit more about your prior response, regarding the actions of the Bush administration and trying to understand them in the context of liberal/conservative. You mentioned the tax cuts, which are traditionally Republican policies, but you said not necessarily conservative. If you broaden the span of history you are willing to look at, you can call them conservative in that they ultimately are trying to roll back the government, reshape it if you will, to something like what it was pre-1913 when the income tax was put permanently in place. In that they are trying to undo virtually all the changes to government in America over the 20th Century and reassert the traditional government prior. Of course the changes they're trying to make are RADICAL and appear very quick, unless you consider that the process was begun in 1980 with the Reagan Administration, so has actually been underway for nearly 25 years. That's not fast at all.
Note: the key problem with this roll-back to pre-1913 government is that the Federal Govt did not have anything close to the financial commitments it has today. Without even discussing the Social Security and Medicare issues, which Conservatives would ultimately like to see go away altogether, the government still has enormous expenses it never had back then. The military alone - which is a Republican pet project - is an expenditure that will require the continuation of the income tax. Economic and education infrastructure subsidies are also key expenses that would not be wise for the health of the nation to discontinue.
Regarding the war, I think it's safe to say that invading Iraq is technically a very liberal action. Ignoring the pack of lies they used to sell the war to the public and looking at their true intent, you have to call it liberal. The hope was to create a democracy in the middle-east, showing everyone how good life can be if you just westernize a bit, which would lead to revolution and democracy throughout the region - the 'domino effect' is yet again guiding the US to war. (Failing that, at worst you have a dedicated ally centrally located in the mid-east with a government beholden to us.) The hope that you could create a democracy is "belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race." The removal of a brutal dictatorship is belief in "the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties." And it's very FAST change. Though liberalism usually shies away from invading and subjigating people to a certain way of life, the definition doesn't preclude it!
But the expansion of social control by the government based on religous principals is inherently a conservative action. They are trying to slow down or stop (via 'liberal' use of government power LOL) the progress of science and technology in key fields that conflict with traditional religous teachings. That is as conservative as you can get.
On the other hand, what do you make of the whole Medicare Prescription Drug law in this context??? It's key purpose, of course, was to protect and subsidize the pharmaceutical industry and get the 'old-people' vote at the same time. A brilliant political move, but is it conservative? Well, protecting the pharmaceutical industry from the coming backlash against rising medical costs is a conservative move - making sure nobody moves too fast to dismantle their cash cow. But helping out the poorer elderly to get the medicine they need via a big expansion to a socialist program is traditionally a liberal action. However, you could call it a 'sacrificial lamb' or 'hedging your bet' or a 'necessary evil' for achieving the afore mentioned protections and securing the upcoming election.
I think the key point here is that the Republican Party doesn't always behave conservatively. And without getting into detail, the Democratic Part isn't always liberal - in fact, I wouldn't call the party as we know it today very liberal at all. They're more like the Republicans of days gone by. . . . the US lacking any real liberal political institution. With the state that Politics is in today, there really isn't room for the idealism of liberalism. Somehow we've lost faith in our ability to make the country, and the world, a better place via government action (Except in the case of Iraq and the middle-east of course - and that's looking more and more like an exercise in further loss of that faith . . . ) |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 04/22/2004 07:28:09 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2004 : 07:41:01 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
If you broaden the span of history you are willing to look at, you can call them conservative in that they ultimately are trying to roll back the government, reshape it if you will, to something like what it was pre-1913 when the income tax was put permanently in place.
And if you broaden the scope even further, conservatives in the U.S.A. "should" be attempting to hand our governmental responsibilities back to England. Even further, and with any luck, we'll all be invited to join various tribes of American Indians. In other words, by expanding or contracting the timeline to an arbitrary point, one can spin the goals of conservatives how one wishes.
Since income taxes have been around for so long, and the early spring is known as "tax season," I would say that they are, indeed, a "tradition" now. Most Republicans appear to not be arguing for their elimination (and you appear to agree that they've got pet projects which would be untenable without 'em), that instead is more of a Libertarian goal. So that particular question would need to be answered by looking at tax rates since their inception, and seeing what rate goal the Republicans have now, to figure out if they are being politically conservative or not.
As to the rest of your post, see my previous post, please. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2004 : 08:22:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And if you broaden the scope even further, conservatives in the U.S.A. "should" be attempting to hand our governmental responsibilities back to England. Even further, and with any luck, we'll all be invited to join various tribes of American Indians. In other words, by expanding or contracting the timeline to an arbitrary point, one can spin the goals of conservatives how one wishes.
Dave - sillyness can arise whenever you take an idea to extremes. There's no point in going there as it doesn't invalidate the point not taken to the extreme. And it is NOT an extreme to have the goal of reducing the government's role to the pre-income tax days. From many perspectives, those were the 'good old days.' It's absurd and counter to meaningful discussion to lump that concept in with the idea of returning to Brittish rule and the further nonsense you wrote above. . . .
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2004 : 08:30:25 [Permalink]
|
Good grief!
Do you or do you not agree that it is not the goal of the Repulicans to eliminate income taxes entirely? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2004 : 10:38:57 [Permalink]
|
Truthfully, I do not know. I don't believe they could fund their pet projects directly via the government without income taxes. But perhaps the ultimate goal is to somehow turn those projects over to private interests, although I don't see how they could do that with the Military (on the other hand, much of the logistics and support in the military has been turned over to private interests already....). Just about everything else could go private though . . . . example - for highway projects, instead of paying taxes to the federal govt that are then distributed to the states for highway project subsidies, we would pay some fee to some private corporation that manages and maintains the local highways. . . . Instead of taxes to the government, we pay fees to a corporation which is supposedly more efficient and more honest than the government (yeah, right - that's the true fallicy in all this privatization nonsense). But in the end, it's still money out of our pocket whether you call it a tax or a fee. Smoke and mirrors. . . . In any case, it's conceivable that with enough privatization, and perhaps a national sales tax to supplement the drop in revenue a bit, the income tax could be eliminated.
BTW - Getting back to the actual topic of this thread, what do YOU think Politics is for?  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2004 : 11:04:12 [Permalink]
|
| Oh I dunno. I suspect that 'batty' thing has been with you longer than I. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
