?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Crazy People

theferrett started a fire in his blog recently by posting that he agreed with an article written by a concervative critising liberals.

Now I won't talk about the term liberal more than I already have, except to say this: Don't call anyone in the US left-wing. Please. The Democrats are, much like The Labour Party, still to the right of center in any political graph you care to draw. There is no such thing as a mainstream left-wing party in the US or UK. They are just more left than the right wing party.

Having said that -- I agree with the Ferret, the article is good. It shows how many stupid people there are on all sides.

Notice I said all -- This is not a two sided issue. There is not just two sides to chose from, you can disagree with both mainstream sides in politics and guess what? You can still be right. The point is more that extremism, whoever it is, is retarded.

The moment you say, mentally or otherwise, this is what is right because it is what I believe is right, and everyone else must be wrong: You're an idiot. You lose debating privilages. It doesn't matter if you thump a bible or call Rush Limbaugh worse than Hitler. You're an idiot, you are hurting your "side" and you are ignoring the posibility that you could be wrong, mis-informed, or just plain dumb.

There aren't two sides, stop acting like there are. I'm no more left-wing than I am right, and have views in both arenas, but I've been called a "liberal" before now. It is these people, be their religious right wing, or democratic liberal tree huggers that are dangerous -- not because they are wrong, but because they refuse to accept that they could be.

Comments

darkcryst
22nd Apr, 2005 21:53 (UTC)
I beg to differ. There is no such thing as mainstream right-wing party in the US.

It depends on how right wing you call ring wing. The Republicans are more right wing than our most right wing party, and The Conservatives here (the right wing mainstream party) while in some cases center-right, are pretty solidly in the right wing camp.

Basically if you define right wing how it is defined in the majority of the world... the Republicans are right wing. Your statement is basically demonstratably false.
razorboi
22nd Apr, 2005 23:03 (UTC)
Basically if you define right wing how it is defined in the majority of the world... the Republicans are right wing.

Consulting majority opinion and political graphs is not a good way to settle what constitutes right-wing.
darkcryst
22nd Apr, 2005 23:21 (UTC)
politcal graphs? You mean things drawn up by people who study politics? Who actually know about this sort of thing?

When the majority of academic political analysts say something about politics, I'd say thats a reason to take notice.

The Republicans are Right Wing. There is no argument here, by all definitions of the term "right wing" they are right wing. They aren't rabidly extremely right wing like say... the BNP are here, but they are still right wing.

There is no way you can justify saying that they aren't.
razorboi
23rd Apr, 2005 00:23 (UTC)
The Republicans are Right Wing. There is no argument here, by all definitions of the term "right wing" they are right wing.

What a convincing argument...

Here's one of the main problems with calling the GOP "right-wing". FDR was considered to be a member of the political left, not only by everyone who identified themselves with the political right in the 1930's-1950's - William F Buckley, Russell Kirk (regarded by many as the founder of American conservatism and the author of an definitive text on conservatism), Robert Taft, etc, - but by individuals who were politically centrist or leftist. The policies created by FDR, for the most part, receive the full backing, or at least resigned acceptance, by the current GOP. There is no talk among Republicans (save for maybe Ron Paul) of dismantling or opposing the administrative state created by FDR, as there was in the 1940-50's. On the contrary, there are a great number of Republicans who consider preserving social security "conservative." And the massive federal spending of George Bush puts FDR to shame. If FDR were alive today, he could very, very easily be a Republican. So if the GOP is "right-wing", then so was FDR. With the way things are going, Ralph Nader will be considered a jaded reactionary in ten years time.
darkcryst
23rd Apr, 2005 09:55 (UTC)
Right, NOW I see your point.

Like I said, they aren't extreme right wing, or even totally right wing in all areas. Talking about individuals is pointless however, as personal politics is often dropped in favour of party politics.

Also talking historically is pointless, as we are living in the present. However this also brings to light the pointlessness of just talking about left and right, as there are more directions than that. The modern republican party isn't just right wing - its rampently authoritarian. That -- in the modern "I can't see any more than left or right" type world adds to its percieved "right" status. Indeed, that makes sense on a linear scale, it only doesn't when you give it more dimensions.

However that still doesn't change the fact that by the majority of political analysts opinion the Republicans (and the Convervatives here) are right wing.

Also.. to add a rather trivial and sematic point, the right wing just means the right side of the part struture. In that case you could say democrats were left, because they are to the left in the present government arms.

Political parties do change positions, sometimes radiacally (see our own labour party, or even the concervatives over a long enough graph). But to say there is no mainstream right wing party in the US is demonstratably wrong. Denying the data, or dismissing it because you don't think its right, is not the same as the data being wrong.