Showing posts with label US Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Politics. Show all posts

Tuesday, 19 July 2016

The skewing of the Political Specrum

I have been saying to my conservative friends - those who insist that they are just a bit right of center - that their views are skewed. Their perspective is distorted.  I'm talking about folks in the US who think that communism and socialism are the same thing (completely incorrect), and folks in Canada who think that liberalism and socialism are the same thing (equally incorrect).

For a while I was mystified by this obviously flawed perception - I mean, okay there are a lot of dummies out there, but for the most part, conservative people that I know personally aren't dummies, in fact many are quite smart.  So how do you explain a smart person being unable to tell the difference between two very different things? I mean socialism and communism are about as similar as sliced bread and a car battery. How can a smart person not see that?

I struggled with this for some time until about a year ago (or two?) I was engaged in a discussion on io9 or Quora with an American Republican who kept using the term "leftists" when describing people, and the 'leftist media' etc. I objected to the latter, but the former got me thinking. Clearly, there are few if any "leftists" in America. I mean the US Communist Party is and has been poison since the McCarthy era, and I wasn't aware of any actual official socialist parties in the US. So I asked him to please list some "leftist" organizations currently active in America. His answer threw me for a loop - he listed no fewer than 50 of them.

Well, the list contained the names of 50+ organizations. But they were all civil rights organizations like the NAACP, Kansas Commission on Civil Rights, National Voting Rights Institute, and many others. Egad!! Those are what he thought were "leftist" organizations? Then I had a eureka moment: It's all about perspective.
Have a look at this image:

On the left, we have the political left; on the right, the political right. Anyone who attended a single class of political science (or has ever strayed from the sports or funnies in a newspaper) will tell you that on the extreme left is communism (some would insist that we say 'ideal communism' but that's only a theoretical thing), and on the extreme right is fascism or nazism.

In a normal (or perhaps theoretical) world, we could map out where the American and Canadian political parties lay on this grid:


For the most part, they all tend toward the center, some being more left, others being more right, some more authoritarian, some less. I hope nobody is insulted by this map; I think it's fair from the perspective of the reasonable person, whatever their political leanings may be. Now to be honest, I really don't understand the Greens, so I just put them there for no reason. They actually don't interest me that much. Sorry.

So back to perspective. First, I have to say that I don't think there are many moderate conservatives or republicans anymore. Most of them have gone to the far right. This is a generalization of course- and while someone like Mitt Romney may actually be a moderate Republican, he has been soundly rejected by his party (and not just once), and does not represent mainstream Republican thinking today. Most Republicans are ideologically far to the right of Mr. Romney. So this movement to the right in and of itself affects the perspective of most Republicans - their position on the grid affects how they see others. I am focusing on the US Republicans here, but exactly the same can be said about Canadian Conservatives- at least the former Harper administration. The graph below illustrates what I mean:


For me, this explains a lot of things. How can a sane and intelligent person see different things, and think they're the same? By looking at them from a great distance.   From the far right, commies, socialists and dems look the same - so do those Canadian libs. They're all a bunch of "leftists"...

It's like looking at the Rocky Mountains from downtown Calgary. There are a whole lot of mountains over there, and they all look pretty much the same. Some a bit taller, some less so. Most are gray-green, lots have white at the top. And they're all way over there. They're all a bunch of "mountains"...

Wednesday, 5 September 2012

Cool election cartoon...

This was really funny:
I appreciate the comparison, a one-term Democrat president who was smart, but couldn’t work “the game” in Washington. There are two very big differences though, between former Democratic President Jimmy Carter and current Democratic President Barak Obama. 
One, Obama hasn’t lost yet. And I have to believe that he will be able to expose Romney and the Republicans in their zeal to grab power and lower taxes for the rich.
Two, their difficulties with Washington politics are very different. On one hand, Carter was an honest and naive man that refused to play the back room dealing games that make (used to make) Washinton run. Carter wouldn’t play ball, and nothing got done. His successor, Ronald Reagan certainly did know how to play the Washington game, and was very successful at getting things done. (Anyone remember the “Reagan Democrats?”) 

On the other hand, Obama faces an absolutely partisan, fanatical, and highly adversarial Republican party. There’s no “playing the game” with this lot. To get anything done, he needs to win the election, have big majorities in the Senate and Congress, and those Republican Tea Party crazies have to be booted out of office. Unfortunately, those conditions will never happen (not in the near term, anyway). And even if he wins a second term, he’ll have great difficulty getting anything done, no matter what he does. Quite a shame, really.
And an unfortunate shame for the world. For, as the great ship America sinks, the crew is too busy focusing on partisanism to notice that the water is rising to their necks...

Monday, 24 October 2011

WikiLeaks: Worth another look?

This bugs me: Wikileaks Claims Bank Blockade.

If true, this is very disturbing. Who were the types of people that were most bothered by WikiLeaks? Government and financial institutions. Now, there didn’t seem to be anything noble about WikiLeaks, especially based on the press that they received months ago. But the best way to shut up an annoying person is to discredit them, and point out where they have gone wrong in an unbiased manner. In that way, the “reasonable man” will likely stop paying attention to the discredited--in fact, in most cases this is exactly what happens; interest wanes quickly until there is no interest at all. However, if you force someone out of business, by using your influence or financial clout, one has to wonder why you’re stooping to this. Why try to accelerate the demise of a discredited party? Is there something true in the WikiLeaks rhetoric? This coordinated effort makes me think that there’s something to see there... Maybe we should all be taking a second look? http://www.wikileaks.org/ 
Or maybe even donate?

Sunday, 28 August 2011

Spitzer get sued


Sad state of affairs. If someone poops in the bathtub, and you say that they pooped in the bathtub (http://www.slate.com/id/2264632/). Then they just might sue you (http://www.advancedtrading.com/regulations/231500451?cid=nl_at_daily), even if it’s very clear that you in fact did poop in the bathtub...

Few will deny that Spitzer has done some great work over many years in shedding the lights on impropriety in US high finance. Pretty depressing to see some uber-rich clown take exception to it, and seek suit against him for doing it. The guy gets off on a technicality, and goes right for the jugular. (Why didn’t OJ go after those libelous bastards at the Los Angeles County prosecutor's office?)

I guess we should just jolly well let privileged people take advantage of their positions. If we have something to say, we should just shut up about it. Or else.