July 13, 2004

• I have met very few people on either end of the political spectrum willing to be intellectually honest about their beliefs. I've also found that those on the right are much less likely to be interested in other people's perspectives. Which makes sense, as conservatism, by it's very name, is an ideology based on resisting change. So... good luck.
• But... I also moved from New York to San Francisco because the latter wasn't liberal enough for me, so... shrug.
• uh, Daniel, don't you mean the former?
• Some people are on the Left. Some are on the Right. And some people are working to create AI.
• I would suggest you'll be lucky. Besides, perception of left/liberal very much depends on background. People who find Metafilter (for example) inadequately respectful of religion would be well advised to never spend too much time in New Zealand or much of Europe.
• When I hear people talking about left/right political biases, I always get this song stuck in my head.
• People who find Metafilter (for example) inadequately respectful of religion would be well advised to never spend too much time in New Zealand or much of Europe. posted by rodgerd at 01:21AM UTC on July 13 Amen to that, rodgerd (pun intended). America has got to be one of the most unliberal liberal democracies on the planet. On a wider scale, somewhere along the line the definition of freedom went from a permissive 'providing freedom by allowing you to do things' to a prohibitive 'protecting the freedom of others by stopping you from doing things'. This problem is not unique to America though.
• I find right site to be dittoheadish also. Free Republic is a perfect example. What I noticed is that most righties base their views on emotions. Some lefties are certainly that way also, but more of them are up on policy. It's sad how many on the right don't know who Ahmad Chalabi or what the Office of Special Plan was. Righties support the war in Iraq, but don't understand how the whole thing started. On a none internet level, registered many Democrats and Repubicans on which candidate is the lesser evil.
• "On a none internet level, registered many Democrats and Repubicans on which candidate is the lesser evil." Huh?
• As a Libertarian I probably fall under the broad generalization of "right oriented". Reason Magazine's Hit & Run is the the only one I read regularly. Another good libertarian blog-ish type site is Harrybrowne.org, the site of the LP's 2000 Presidential candidate. His postings are more essay style and lack a comment feature, so I don't think he gets awarded the blog buzzword. And to help further my vast Libertarian agenda, read this, this, and this(my favorite Harry Browne essays).
• To get back to the originl question, good luck finding anything on the American right that permits discourse. For that matter, the (mostly right leaning) daliy papers in New Zealand simply routinely refuse to print left-leaning rebuttals of their opinion pieces. For all the whining of the Wittys of the world, it seems the right has the most problem with allowing debate, the honourable exceptions of what is now the old guard (Eisenhower or Goldwater Republicans, for example) notwithstanding. We've got a culture war to win, people!
• Free Republic is a perfect example. What I noticed is that most righties base their views on emotions. Some lefties are certainly that way also, but more of them are up on policy. It's sad how many on the right don't know who Ahmad Chalabi or what the Office of Special Plan was. Righties support the war in Iraq, but don't understand how the whole thing started. . First, Free Republic is perfectly balanced by Democratic Underground. Extremism is in evidence on both sides of the debate. Second, I strongly disagree with the assertion that "Righties" are more emotional in their reasoning and conclusions. I believe "Lefties" are far less rational in their beliefs. Third, I know of very few "Right" bloggers who DON'T know who Chalabi is...most Right bloggers are extremely informed and up-to-date. Fourth, most Right bloggers and colleagues of mine (majority of them Right) know *exactly* why we went to war in Iraq, what caused the situation in the first place, and such. In other words, I disagree with just about everything in that paragraph.
• We've got a culture war to win, people! What do you mean "we," white man? /Tonto
• While I haven't seen a rightish blog that exhibits the same level of collegiality we enjoy here, it's certainly possible one exists. Honestly, I never went looking. In the meantime, debating about who's side of the ideological aisle is more emotional or less emotional seems moot - people hold beliefs, for various reasons, which may or may not be based in rational thought. If two people both believe that capital punishment is a proper method of punishing criminals, and one does so because of thoughtful, rational reasons and the other does because those scumbags oughta be killed, revived and killed again, it notes a quality of the believer, not the belief. Regardless of opinion (and keep in mind, that's what we are talking about here by and large - opinion, not engraved-in-stone fact), reasonable people on both sides will remain reasonable, while unreasonable people will continue to be unreasonable. We've seen it here - those with entrenched positions shown reasonable and credible disproving information, who state simply that despite this, they continue to hold their original belief. I think we ought to keep in mind a couple things. For one, it is unlikely (not impossible, but unlikely) that anyone's mind here will be changed substantively by something they read by someone philsophically opposite them; the best we may do here is state our individual, personal opinion and be done with it. Second, it's not a contest - no one wins anything by shouting down those who may disagree with a particular viewpoint, and doing so arguably makes this place incrementally worse (I don't think we need to type out a URL example of this, do we?); thirdly, are any of us SO SURE that our opinion is correct that we can safely discount completely the other viewpoint - or does the mere existence of an alternate viewpoint instead indicate that there is significant likelihood that there some aspect of our particular viewpoint which is in error - none of us know it all; every word we right here stems, therefore, from a conculsion drawn from imperfect data. And last, can we not look to Jefferson for guidance? "If [a] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814.
• So, why did we go to war in Iraq? 'Cause I don't remember hearing much, if anything, about the security and freedom of the Iraqi people until it was starting to become evident that maybe Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction? If it turns out that we went to war under false pretenses, will you be as harsh on the current administration for wrongs which there is great evidence of as you were on the previous administration for wrongs which there was little or no evidence for? I could almost buy the "we broke it, so we gotta fix it argument" considering that Rumsfeld and Cheney put Saddam in power way back when, so maybe they kind of had to remove him when he got out of hand. But if they screwed up so monumentally in the first place by putting a power-mad, genocidal f***tard in place back then, what makes you think their collective judgement got any better? If one candidate figuratively dodged the bullet by serving in the National Guard, while the other literally dodged bullets during a for-real they're-trying-to-kill-us war, which one has more character? And which one has earned the right to stand up and say "No more war"? We all know the penalty for treason during war is execution, and rightly so. What is the punishment for starting a war under false pretenses? Another four years? /not pissed at all.
• OK, now that that previous post is out of my system (sort of) and I really do apologize for being kind of an ass about it and being way off the point besides, I can recommend Tacitus as being a fairly reasonable conservative blogger.
• Good post, once again, Fes. Following on from drivingmenuts' suggestion, Red State at first glance to be an intelligent right-wing collaborative weblog.
• great post, squid! my brother is very right wing, and i'm always interested in trying to understand where he's coming from. unfortunately, his idea of discussion is screaming at me, "THAT'S A LOAD OF CRAP!" somehow i can't get him to elaborate WHY my viewpoints are "a load of crap." what i most wonder about the right is: how can they espouse less government, and yet support government intrusion into our most private issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.)? that's not a poke at the right, i'm genuinely curious as to how conservatives get their minds around those concepts.
• how can they espouse less government, and yet support government intrusion into our most private issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.)? This is what happens when you mix poltiics and religion, SideDish my dear. Traditionally Republican politics - less government, lower taxes, primacy of the individual, free markets, etc - have become melded with traditionally Christian moral precepts (anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, pro-increasing Church-State interaction, etc). It is here that the incongruences you mention come to the fore. As the Republican party increasingly defers to its religious wing, you'll see the older Republican party tenets pushed aside to inculcate the more traditionally religious/moral ideals. The Bush administration is a good example of that. Strictly speaking from a political standpoint, he's barely Republican, but he represents well the ethos of modern American Christian ideals. Each Republican and Conservative (and keep in mind, SideDish, that the two are not necessarily synonyms) decides for him or herself whether their moral code or their political ideology holds sway on any individual issue. I assume the same type of thing holds true for the Left on, say, the abortion v. capital punishment debate.
• his idea of discussion is screaming at me, "THAT'S A LOAD OF CRAP!" somehow i can't get him to elaborate WHY my viewpoints are "a load of crap." Some people have a more difficult time articulating their beliefs (especially those which are more felt than consciously decided) into coherent arguments. How few of us were lucky enough to have had a debate or logic class in this day and age! With your obvious communicative skills, perhaps a better discussion might not be "Why are my beliefs a load of crap?" as "Here's why I think my beliefs are not a load of crap..." Noblesse oblige, you know.
• I don't visit any right-wing sites (or left-wing, for that matter), I keep it straight-ahead news, hip hop sites and Monkeyfilter. Not sure if this is the right place to say this, but lately I feel like MonkeyFilter has become BushFilter. I'm honestly sick of hearing about what a jerk the man is, and I'm not his biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination. *shrug* And I suspect that's not going to stop until November (or for another four years, for that matter, depending on the way things go). But this constant right/left stuff sometimes makes me think my head is gonna explode.
• I don't visit any right-wing sites (or left-wing, for that matter), I keep it straight-ahead news, hip hop sites and Monkeyfilter. Not sure if this is the right place to say this, but lately I feel like MonkeyFilter has become BushFilter. I'm honestly sick of hearing about what a jerk the man is, and I'm not his biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination. *shrug* And I suspect that's not going to stop until November (or for another four years, for that matter, depending on the way things go). But this constant right/left stuff sometimes makes me think my head is gonna explode.
• Might it be that because this place isn't specifically a political website that we get a wider variety of viewpoints. Most people don't come here for the politics, they come here for the variety of links or whatever. A website like Free Republic (which I've never read, so I might well be wrong) on the other hand probably self selects its audience to the point that most people on it will share the same, or similar, viewpoints to the tone of the site.
• Not sure if this is the right place to say this, but lately I feel like MonkeyFilter has become BushFilter. Maybe, but then I've no interested in pretty much all the specifically American politics threads, and I don't find it that difficult to avoid them. They're outnumbered about 20-1 by other posts, after all.
• SideDish; My theory is that it comes from a deep well of shame. There really isn't much of anything to defend for the Republican right at the moment (incidentally, I don't believe that a right-wing Republican can convincingly call themselves conservative, but never mind) Recall this request put out by dsquared (here) a while ago "...give me one single example of something with the following three characteristics: 1. It is a policy initiative of the current Bush administration 2. It was significant enough in scale that I'd have heard of it (at a pinch, that I should have heard of it) 3. It wasn't in some important way completely fucked up during the execution." on preview, like Fes says
• thanks for those points, fes. that makes a lot of sense. as for my bro, yes, i'm trying to gently prod him to explain his beliefs -- so far, no go. sigh. but, interestingly enough, he's becoming more curious about the liberal point of view. i only wish the right and left could respect one another's viewpoints, with a genuine intellectual curiosity about the other. especially here in washington. a kerry-mccain ticket certainly would have made for an interesting atmosphere!
• But this constant right/left stuff sometimes makes me think my head is gonna explode. I propose we divide up arbitrarily into chimps, orang-utans and bonobos. The chimps will argue about modern issues and lifestyle change (sign language usage, diaper wearing, tamborine playing, masturbation), the orangs will debate ancient wisdom (bamboo shoot eating, grooming each other, using really skinny sticks to get those delicious black ants out of antholes, masturbation), while the bonobos will serve as a social pressure valve, bringing us all back to mutual understanding and respect (masturbation, masturbation, the occasional flung turd).
• "...give me one single example of something with the following three characteristics: Tax cuts. Now, you can argue with the impetus behind it, but they surely didn't fuck it up. There's probably other ones, but the Iraq War and issues with terror tend to overshadow a lot of the more mundane government stuff. i only wish the right and left could respect one another's viewpoints, with a genuine intellectual curiosity about the other. Some do! But they have always been the minority.
• you're right, fes. unfortunately the latest proof of that is our vice president's "fuck yourself" to a colleague. sheesh.
• I think I disagree Fes; they delivered the tax cuts, but the policy behind it, the rationale they gave, was effed up. The first policy reason was basically, the government can afford it, the deficit is under control Ooops. The second policy reason was economic stimulus. Ooops. The "bang for the buck" was, by most reckoning, only a fraction of what it could have been. hence, again, it doesn't pass muster.
• This one time, Bush touched me in my special place after gym class. It made me feel funny.
• Good points, but debatable. I have no love for the deficit, but deficit spending in times of economic downturn is considered good economic policy, and so far the deficit (large as it is) hasn't had any far-reaching deleterious effects. The economic stimulus is definitely occuring (bull market, unemployment down, interest rates increasing, inflation worries, etc). Bang for the buck? Your mileage may vary. I am solidly ensconced in the middle class, and my federal tax bill is lower (more than made up for by increasing property taxes, but nevertheless).
• ALso, getting back on topic. I'd say that Tacitus is a right wing blog with (some) progressive posters.
• Maybe a solution to the Bush/ElectionFilter complaints (which I think are justified) would be just to limit posting new stuff to an already existing Bush/ElectionFilter thread. I know a lot of monkeys are already doing this, but we're still getting a lot of it on the front page. On the other hand, we could wind up swamping and confusing some of the threads. BTW, when I say "justified," I just mean that I understand the frustration of non-Murrcan monkeys at seeing so many US-centric posts. While I feel that November is going to have a huge impact across the world and not just in the US, I know I'm getting sick of it, and I know I'd be even more sick of it if it weren't my country's election. By the way, my wife and I just bought our first house and are giggling with glee as we scrape wallpaper. As you were.
• From now on, I'm going to vomit in every thread that has to do with right/left polarity or any sort of meaningless labels. "how can they espouse less government, and yet support government intrusion into our most private issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.)?" Those who espouse less government while simultaneously supporting government intrusion into private lives do have a consistent viewpoint. Their viewpoint is that a society can only have a small goverment if it is a 'stable' society. They believe that it is the government's job to ensure that this stable society is achieved. If society is stable, then there is less need for government. They believe that if society adheres to more strict values that there will be less need for government programs like welfare. A stable society will take care of its own without government intervention and more people would have a work ethic and there would be fewer people in poverty. For instance, take the issue of family values. If everyone gets married and has children and values their family, then older people will be cared for by their children and not need social security. If parents couldn't get divorced, there would always be two parents to care for the children and we wouldn't need WIC. If churches were well-funded, then they would care for the homeless and needy (i.e. those who unfortunately find themselves without family) and we wouldn't need government programs to care for them. Thus, we have Bush's faith-based initiative. Of course, this view conflicts with individual freedoms, but that's why religious people tend to flock more to this viewpoint than non-religious people because religious values often have a more strict definition of societal structures.
• Fes, deficit spending in an economic downturn is usually good because it means that spending has INCREASED and that government money is being put into public works that will benefit all and create employment. This deficit spending was created by cutting taxes and not increasing spending. Public money is not being put into public works and employment is still down overall and the government has not created any work.
• And instead of meaningless words like 'left', 'right', 'liberal' and 'conservative', why don't we just refer to ideas, such as 'those who oppose abortion rights' or 'those in favor of the Iraq war'? It's much more specific and easier to stay on topic.
• I'll second that.
• Wow, out of 36 (there may be more since I opened the thread to take a look) there were only three or four that actually addressed my question, which was "do you know of any right leaning sites that allow progressive voices?" There's got to be more than Tacitus, Red State and Harrybrown out there, or are us lefties all so married to our opinions (myself included) that we just preach to the choir just as we accuse our right wing friends of doing? Am I just pissing in the wind (no, not on cats) about right wing sites with intellectual discourse?
• I should have said "answered my question" in the post above. Many folks tried to "address" my question.
• i don't find "left," "right," "conservative" and "liberal" meaningless. in fact, many folks self-identify with each.
• (oops! sorry, squid, back to the original question now.......)
• "On a none internet level, registered many Democrats and Repubicans on which candidate is the lesser evil." Huh? posted by squidranch at 01:52AM UTC on July 13 Sullivan, I read through the whole post, and all I could think at the end was "what did Sullivan mean in that comment way up there?!"
• or this blog, though maybe not as interesting as some of the others.
• SideDish, you and others may indeed identify yourself as many different things. The problem is, you each identify yourself as such for differing reasons. To say you're 'left' doesn't mean that you are anti-abortion. I know many people who would self-identify themselves as 'left', but who are pro-life. Libertarians consider themselves to be off the right-left spectrum altogether and in a corner of a political square. It is much easier to say how you feel about an issue or a person than to confuse the argument with arbitrary labels.
• A good example might be the 'pink-pistols'. That is a group for GLBT who are pro-2nd amendment. Members of the pink pistols are pro-gay rights, an affiliation that would put them in the same camp as many self-identified leftists. However, many 'lefties' would also be pro-gun control. Just because you self-identify as something doesn't mean that label has any meaning besides what you want it to mean.
• aren't 'anti-abortion' and 'pro-life' labels arbitrary just as well?
• PigAlien, don't forget log cabin republicans. Odd political bed fellows (pun intended) if I ever saw them.
• blogrot, if someone is anti-abortion, that means that they are opposed to abortion. it doesn't specify WHY they are opposed, nor to what extent. Therefore, it is not arbitrary, unless they simply choose to label themselves as such for no particular reason. Pro-life is a much more arbitrary term, which is why many pro-choice people hate the term. Just because you are pro-choice does not mean you are anti-life. In any event, 'anti-abortion' and 'pro-life' are much more specific terms than 'right' or 'left', 'conservative', 'liberal' or 'progressive'.
• By the way, everyone alive right now is an 'anti-abortion' because none of us were aborted. Unless some of us were abortions who somehow survived. Well, come to think of it, I guess we were all aborted at around 9 months of age; we just weren't killed in the process.
• or does the definition of abortion include death? in which case, we are all anti-abortions.
• PigAlien, I agree with you that the labels of left, right and moderate are inadequate to truly define one's political beliefs, but it is a useful tool to broadly identify with a group, especially in a two party system like the United States. Our political parties, as many folks have already elaborated on in this thread, have left, right and center branches yet all somehow identify themselves for example as republicans or democrats. The way the two party system has been rigged tends to molify the "radical fringe" of each party. This allows for two staggeringly similar political visions (i.e. Coke vs. Pepsi, Chocolate vs. Vanilla, Republican vs. Democrat) to hold sway. It all boils down to how much crap you can swallow from the party you more or less identify with. I myself am a social liberal, economic moderate, pro hand gun and assault weapon control advocate, pro separation of church and state, pro choice, on the fence about capital punishment small d democrat. There are lots of folks who are republicans who I admire like John McCain, but because of the religious conservatives who currently hold sway in the party, I can't see myself changing party affiliation. I personally would love it if we went parliamentary and allowed for smaller, more fringe-y political parties to have a voice.
• I too would love it if there were more choice in elections. The last presidential election I voted for Nader. This time it is like do I vote for the devil I know and dislike or the devil I don't know and would never vote for if there was a viable alternative? Two years ago when I voted for state representative, I voted for the green candidtate. The day AFTER the election I went to his web page and at that bottom there was a hit counter that read "36." So much for choice even in state elections...
• Liberal, Schmiberal! You guys are all right-wingers to the Socialists! More seriously, I agree that Liberal and Conservative have ceased being useful labels, and try to avoid using them. Has anyone found an alternative way of addressing this? ("Well, let's see- I'm Liberal on personal rights, Conservative on government regulation and economics, Green in my neighborhood, and Libertarian when it comes to foreign policy, so that makes me a Libcongretarian")
• pigalien, i stumbled across the pink pistols website awhile back -- what an interesting group! also, re: abortion "labels," many newspapers are adopting "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights" as the most neutral terms, as it keeps the word "abortion" as the main thrust. FWIW. oh, and what minda25 said re: sullivan's comment. what the hey, sully??
• oh, and here's a great column tracing the history of right vs. left bickering -- yes, it's all jim and shana's fault. via romenesko
• I'm waiting for f8xmulder to come through with some reccomended websites. Any suggestions Senior Mulder?
• uh, Daniel, don't you mean the former? Yeah typo. It's funny how sitting in front of a computer for 10 hours a day makes you want to KILL YOURSELF RGGH. Ahem. Left and Right, Liberal and Conservative, and yes, Democrat and Republican, are very useful labels that work well when describing the big picture. Yeah, there are always outliers, and people have complicated belief systems. But the thing about being in a country with 200 million people is that a group of a few hundred lesbian gun owners who are pro-choice but want to cut taxes doesn't actually amount to much. And the idea that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans is complete bullshit. If Gore had become president we wouldn't be in Iraq, the world wouldn't hate us, blah blah cliché. But there are hard numbers to back this (as was discussed in a recent MeFi thread), that what until very recently was the most significant difference between the two parties--their economics. Social issues are just the distractions that the Republicans use to get the people to vote them into office, where they can effect their economic policies that by and large do not benefit the majority of their constituents. It's hard to take someone (or a whole group of people) seriously when they can't even get self-serving right.
• Daniel, for the record I never said that Republicans and Democrats were the same, just very similar when you compare our two parties to the vast array of political parties in most parliamentary systems.
• How could they be similar when, for the vast majority of issues, they vote opposite of each other?
• Daniel, Republican and Democratic are completely authentic labels because they are the names of political parties. Left, right, conservative and liberal are not. Ask 100 people to define each of those terms and see how similar they are. Right and left are relative terms. They have no other meaning than "towards one direction away from a specific point in space." Liberal and conservative are relative as well. Mussolini might have been liberal compared to Hitler and Mao might have been conservative compared to Stalin. How you perceive right, left, conservative or liberal all depends on where you consider yourself to be on your own, self-referential spectrum.
• ok, perhaps 'completely authentic' is a bit overkill. they refer to something specific that is non-relative, how's that?
• You know, I actually agree with Squidranch (great name, by the way). I'm more or less a social liberal, an economic moderate, and while not pro-gun, I don't have a problem with those that want to own them. I don't even have a huge problem with religion in schools as long as it's not taught as a regular course because there were many instances in my youth where the church did positive things for my rural school. What I am anti- (and this goes for both sides) are the asshats at the extreme ends of either side. Neocons? Feh! Ultra-liberals? Feh Ptooiee!
• Because they agree on more things than they disagree on. Take a look at this list of political parties from Italy. They go from the far right to the extreme left. The majority of the members of the American two party system straddle the middle of the road, or at least they did until W came along. Still, for the most part, we don't have an extreme left, at least one with any voice. And for all the venom that I have for W, he ain't Hitler. I would welcome more view points, more parties at the table instead of this stifling two party system.
• Thanks for the props drivingmenuts. Like your handle too. Handle? Did I just write handle? I'm confused. Is this a CB or a computer. ...looks like we got us a convoy...
• A simple google search shows that there are as many, if not more "third" parties in America. The problem is with a nearly century old meme that third parties aren't worth supporting because there aren't enough people to support them, not with the system itself (which, if one of those parties showed that they have support, would get in on the funding and such).
• I agree that there are "third" partiesin the US, it's just that the way that the system is set up here makes it nearly impossible for them to gain any traction, especially nationally. In a parliamentary system even the smallest parties can have at least some power.
• Is 5% an unreasonable goal for third parties? That's the only thing that is holding any of them back.
• To get on the ballot, no that is not unreasonable. But for them to get past the voting blocks of Democrats and Republicans to get something passed is nearly impossible. Again, this system won't allow for radically dissenting views. Parliaments have to make concessions to the smaller parties. I guess you could argue that in our two party system each has to make concessions to their radical fringe, it's just that I don't see radical fringes here, at least on the left.
• Um, Dennis Kucinich for starters?
• hey squid - the US Parliment is for you!
• squid, I hesitate to say this, but I don't spend a whole lot of time on other blogs. Especially not bastions of right-wing thought websites, though I do especially enjoy Josh Claybourn and Ben Domenech; neither, however, are 'power hitters' in the blog world, not like Instapundit or Atrios. I believe I spend more time on websites like MoFi and MeFi, and I used to read CalPundit and Oliver Willis, but OW started getting to me. I occasionally pop in there, though. I think Kevin went and started writing for some mag; I've lost track of him.
• *begins to practice The Internationale on kazoo*
• And instead of meaningless words like 'left', 'right', 'liberal' and 'conservative', why don't we just refer to ideas, such as 'those who oppose abortion rights' or 'those in favor of the Iraq war'? It's much more specific and easier to stay on topic. I agree. I think the whole left/right thing is (partially) manufactured by the likes of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken and co. to help fuel book sales, TV ratings and ridiculous, shouting "conversations" on television. They're trying to make it sexy, so to speak, but the end result is that very few people can sit down and have a civil conversation about politics because they're being fed a constant diet of "us vs. them". After all, no one agrees wholeheartedly with every facet of one ideology. I've been called a neocon here, among other places, for being pro-military because, hey, I'm young and I've got a brother and some very good friends risking their asses with the Marines and Air Force. Pardon me if I support them. But I absolutely oppose the death penalty, I'm not a fan of Bush's tax cuts and I could care less about gun laws. Go figure. The bottom line is the constant right/left crap is completely ridiculous, and we as a nation really need to calm the fuck down with it.
• I still disagree about the labeling. I think Left and Right are perfectly useful and authentic, when describing our political landscape. The majority of people in the US are centrists, by the very nature of way the map is drawn, and things lie in either direction. Of course it's relative, but it's relative to a very real point--the average of all Americans. I mean, I think something like this political compass is far more accurate, but not nearly as rhetorically efficient as 'liberal' or 'conservative.' But as complicated as you want to make it, it all boils down to where you throw your votes. And the vast majority of Americans will split themselves in two, along party lines, LEFT and RIGHT of center. It's not particularly good for intellectual debate, but you have to understand that to understand how politics in the US works. BTW, here's my map.
• This is the smartest discussion I have seen in ages about politics and I can't pull nothing smart to add here. Anyway, mad props to all of you! Bananas! And Fes, I still wish you were a presidential candidate.
• You know a thread is played out on MoFi when somebody offers bananas to everyone.
• Sorry, Daniel, but that map is meaningless. There is no such thing as the center of american politics. First of all, it's immeasurable. Even if you use the metrics of voting, there are different voting systems which produce different results. No two people share the same political ideology. You say most people are either left or right of this imaginary center, but most people fall on both sides, not either side. But then, since we don't know what that center is, we'll never know who falls on which side.
• Oh, and when I refer to alternative voting systems, I am speaking of such things as the Hare system and Borda count, both of which are described in that link.
• PigAlien, I think you're missing the point of Political Compass. You're right that most people's beliefs don't neatly fit on a scale, but we've been taught to think in terms of opposites (left/right, liberal/conservative, etc.) and the Compass is trying to introduce another axis of polarity, and change the way people think about their ideology.
• zedediah, I'm not missing the point. The political compass is still thinking in terms of opposites. Just because you have 4 opposites instead of 2 doesn't mean you're no longer dealing with opposites. You've only made the equation more complicated, but no more accurate. One person can still hold opinions that would fall all over the political compass, but that doesn't mean you can 'average' out that person's political beliefs. Each belief a person holds is important and unique. For instance, just because I might hold 2 opinions that are 'left' and 1 opinion that is 'right' and 1 opinion that is 'authoritarian' doean't mean that my political beliefs average out somewhere in between. My 'right' political belief is still just as valid and important to me as my 2 left viewpoints and 1 authoritarian and those viewpoints are not diminished because I hold a 'right' viewpoint. It's simply faulty logic, no matter how much you want to twist and contort to try and justify it. Besides being faulty logic, it does promote an 'us vs. them' attitude.
• There is a center of American politics, and it encompasses MOST Americans. You know, bell curves, etc. It is measurable by definition. The Left and the Right carve up the curve, but most people, whether they're liberal or conservative leaning, exist very near to each other on the spectrum. This is why during national elections, the most important voters are the so called "undecided" voters and the swing states--and why both parties try very hard to expand their influence towards the center. And the horrible fact of averages is, if you're an outlier with very complex beliefs, you are very much in the minority, and you have a tiny voice in (national) politics. Anyone interesting is a statistical aberration. I think you're getting caught up too much on the labels issue. Labels are there because they're useful. Generalizations are generally correct. It's easy to point out a few exceptions, but they are very much exceptions. If you're trying very hard to think outside the box, perhaps you're trapped in one.
• But that's exactly what you are! Averaged out! Your beliefs MUST collapse into a choice! You have to pick ONE candidate! There's no quantum voting!
• Daniel, our present system says you have to pick only one candidate, but there is no metaphysical reason that people can't have a preference for multiple candidates or issues. See my earlier link to alternative voting systems. You keep mentioning the convenience of these generalizations, but refuse to acknowledge that these are arbitrary categorizations. All you have to do is to look at the numerous polls which come out every day. Those opposed to same-sex marriage can create a survey to show that the majority of americans oppose it, and those in favor can create a survey to show that the majority support it. It all has to do with how you phrase the question and how you lead the person being surveyed. On any one particular question you can show that there is a spectrum of responses and a bell-curve. However, when you begin to combine multiple issues, the equation becomes exponentially more complicated. The political compass is not 2 dimensional, it is infinitely dimensional. If you have 450 different political issues, then you have an equation that has 450 axes. There isn't a computer in the world powerful enough to compute a bell curve on 450 axes. Of course, 450 axes is completely arbitrary, and that's my point. Who decides how to measure these things? I am not the one who is trapped inside a box. I'm the one who realizes the box doesn't exist.
• No, no. The box is there. There is no spoon.
• why don't we just refer to ideas, such as 'those who oppose abortion rights' or 'those in favor of the Iraq war'? "All those in favor of the Iraq war are stoupid fucking morans." Hey, this could work!
• Remember when news announcers started referring to "environmentalists"? i.e. "But environmentalists said that dumping mercury into the school cafeteria could cause problems later." I remember thinking "WTF? Just because you don't want a chemical weapons incinerator in your town means you get a label? I mean besides 'sane'?"
• the Belgravia Dispatch is in depth, and has some knowledgable posters/bloggers in its midst.
• knowledgeable. knowl-edge-a-ble. blogRot no spell well.
• And Fes, I still wish you were a presidential candidate. Much as I'd like to oblige, I must echo General Sherman: If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. First, I haven't the money for a campaign, nor the support of a party, nor any taste for the beggary necessary to acquire either. And, ah, several (dozen) regrettable (and not-so-regrettable, edging into downright enjoyable) incidents in my misspent youth (and ofttimes equally misspent young adulthood, provided 'young adulthood' can extend well past 30, which I personally believe it can), of which any one might preclude me from ever being elected to public office. Thank you, though :)
• And, ah, several (dozen) regrettable (and not-so-regrettable, edging into downright enjoyable) incidents in my misspent youth (and ofttimes equally misspent young adulthood, provided 'young adulthood' can extend well past 30, which I personally believe it can), of which any one might preclude me from ever being elected to public office. That never stopped George Bush, Fes. (My satire is unstoppable)
• Fourth, most Right bloggers and colleagues of mine (majority of them Right) know *exactly* why we went to war in Iraq, what caused the situation in the first place, and such. Why did Bush go to war? If he really wanted to find WMDs then why did he kick the weapons inspectors out. The anser is simple. He was afraid that they weren't going to find anything. Han Blix was given the best U.S. intelligence and access to Saddam's palaces and wasn't finding shit. This war was never about WMDs. Third, I know of very few "Right" bloggers who DON'T know who Chalabi is...most Right bloggers are extremely informed and up-to-date. If that is the case then why haven't righties (besides the guys at Tacitus) been critical of the guy. David, do you believe that Chalabi is an honest guy? First, Free Republic is perfectly balanced by Democratic Underground. Extremism is in evidence on both sides of the debate. That would explain their racist attacks against Margaret Cho. David, why do you hate America so much? ;)
• Hitler!
• I do especially enjoy Josh Claybourn and Ben Domenech; neither, however, are 'power hitters' in the blog world, not like Instapundit or Atrios. Never heard of them. They can't be more popular than this blogger.