10 most rightist posters on poly

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Ned
Whatever history this country had in supporting "dictators," I assure you it was bi-partisan.

I don't think anyone disputes this point.

But the real goal of the left is to protect jobs. To the extent they are successful, they doom the companies that cannot stay competitive on costs to extinction. That is what is now happening to GM.

What a terrible thing to do! Damn the labor unions! We'd be super competative if we repealed all our labor, environmental, and minimum wage laws... we'd be a third world country, but our goods would be so cheap!

I admit that the unions have taken too much in some areas. Many unions are taking steps to rectify this, taking pay cuts and cutting some benefits to ensure that the companies stay competative enough to keep their employment. There's no doubt that the US needs to keep flexible to compete, but it's foolish to allow the complete destruction of our industrial base. Not only does that weaken us strategically, it also creates a displaced former working class, a class that now simply becomes low class.

This displaced, hopeless class will be the albatross around our country's neck, because its members will turn to crime, drugs, and welfare for survival. Gone are the days that the majority of people could find a decent job without a college degree. Many people simply aren't academic; with the death of industry, these people are shunted into service fields. Some luck out and get good jobs; most do not. Health insurance provides a good illustration about the degredation of the working class into simply low class. The reason that health insurance coverage is inadequate is because industrial jobs that provided health insurance have been replaced by service jobs without benefits. These low class people then either have to depend on the government for a handout to pay their health costs or go without. Loss of jobs creates more and more government dependents.

You are supposedly conservative. (I'd simply call you Republican. People think that Republicans are far right, but they're really only center-right... anyway, I'm digressing) As a conservative, how can you, in good conscious, support economic policy that increases dependence on government handouts? (I guess you do so in the same way that you enthuisiastically support sinking $500 Billion into Iraq. I find it funny that you support that, yet you'd probably march on Washington if we spent $500 Billion to improve our own country's infrastructure.) You seem to put hatred for unions over love of country. You're the type of "conservative" that I hate, the ones that are patriotic everywhere but the wallet. That sentiment is the primary reason I (and many other right wingers) will never vote for the Republicans. They put the interests of Wall Street over the interests of the common citizen.

[Provost Harrison]

I get the impression Ned that you really don't engage your brain before you open your mouth...

[Sandman]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'll take the 'fact' of today's working society over some wing nut's wonderland any day of the week.

As if conservatives think that today's society works...

[DarkCloud]

The people who want change are not limited to this forum. There's quite a few of them even when things seem to be working well, because it's not working for lots of people.

Maybe they should vote for someone like Nader or Perot, or start their own political parties and actually demonstrating that they 'care' about the governing of the US through investing time and energy researching positions, etc.- instead of b*tching, as notyoueither stated.

[DarkCloud]

Ned

Second, alone among US presidents, this president is calling for democracy in all the mid East. This has never happened before.

What Bush says is immaterial when the Arab people and government see that statement for what it truly is, as immaterial and senseless as his plan to send man to Mars or his new immigration propoal (which made tons of sense, but would never get past congress- and bush knew that.) Bush is just plying platitudes on the American people, attempting to gain votes and in the process is misleading.

As my examples stated, giving Pakistan, the Saudis, etc. as proof- Bush often says one thing and does another.

He knows, as I think we all do- that a new democratic Saudi gvt. will have no need of american bases in Saudi Arabia- those bases currently provide a lot of support should Saudi arabia have its government toppled by islamists.

And I think it should also be noted that Islamists will win democratic elections should they be voted in. And as far as Bush is concerned, that's against his best interests.

Also- Iran is much more democratic than Saudi Arabia, and Bush constantly berates it. Now, I and I think most people here would never want to live in Iran and because of its Council of Guardians and strict election laws, it cannot be called anywhere near as free as the US or European nations, but it lacks corruption, has 'free' elections and 'works.' Bush's lack of support for a democratically-leaning nation of that sort speaks volumes about his true intentions.

The american people want to hear about democracy, the middle easternern citizens want to hear about democracy, and so he says he's for democracy.

But he's not fooling anyone (outside of americans) that he really is serious about these movements, beacause these movements, as Iran demonstrates, are against american interest.

-PS: Just as a note to all: yes, I do recognize that Turkey possesses a relatively american-friendly Islamist reformist government, but that is an exception in a more westernized and advanced nation in that region. A nation such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Syria would expereince a very different style of governing should Islamists rise to power in those locations.

The people who oppose this policy are the Democrats. One has to conclude that they favor the status quo: dictatorships.

In what way do the democrats oppose this?

As far as I can see, they were against bush intervening in Iraq- and as we can see, intervention was done for illegal reasons- Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and the inspectors were in the nation when war was declared.

Democrats are also for working with other nations. Working with other nations ensures favorable trade policies. Good relations with other nations ensures that foreigners like americans and they buy american goods, and american culture. Good realtions with other nations means that they'll trade with the US in the future. Now, of course, most nations are pragmatic and they will trade as long as there is a market... However, for how long will they purchase american goods when american goods are increasingly becoming culture-only oriented?? If there is a good popular relationship, then yes, they'll purchase, if not- then they won't and the US economy will suffer.

So, the true patriot would seek an international coalition and to play by the rules of the UN instead of setting a terrible precedent for people to disregard the motions of the UN security council.

What is the US going to do in 10 years when China invades Taiwan?

The US has little legal recourse. It already set a precedent of disregarding UN proclamations, and China actually has a claim on the little island.

Bush and the neo-cons have created a terrible foreign policy situation.
-----

Starving? The typical worker working for a foreign company are getting paid very well by local standards. Their wages do indeed drive up labor costs rapidly in any country that allows foreign investment so that over time, their wages tend to be more on the Western scale.

In some markets, yes. But not in all. And manufacturers keep on seeking out the 'outside the law' markets that have subsistence-living workers.

And I see that you agree with me by my statment that as industrialization and production increase in a nation that eventually wages will rise in that nation... Therefore, that will drive up prices... and therefore since exporting something 1000 miles costs more than moving something cross nation 100 miles, the US will end up paying more for goods. This will happen, maybe not today, maybe not tommorrow, but within 30-50 years for certain.

The United States' time at the top of the world is nearing an end, China and India will soon surpass America- and America (to ensure its economic security), needs to do everything it can to ensure that it retains industrial might to meet their challenge for as long as humanly possible.

---

I'll echo wycoff's comments on your other points.

---
agathon- still getting to your response, sorry it's taking so long, but there are only so many hours in the day. And as you can see, I'm busy discussing things with Ned's Right in addition to Your Left.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Sandman


As if conservatives think that today's society works...

Once again, those are reactionaries and republicans- not conservatives.

a 'return to moral values and 4-6 children and 2 married people with a woman who stays at home' would be a reactionary demand.

a 'keep the family at 2.5 children and 2 married people who both work' would be a conservative demand.

[Ted Striker]

Darkcloud gets it.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Once again, those are reactionaries and republicans- not conservatives.

a 'return to moral values and 4-6 children and 2 married people with a woman who stays at home' would be a reactionary demand.

a 'keep the family at 2.5 children and 2 married people who both work' would be a conservative demand.

How are you going to raise the birthrate (America's is 2.08) in a 'traditional' manner? Or stop divorces in a 'traditional' way?

[DarkCloud]

..only responding to the 18:30 post, I'll get to the others later, agathon

No. You are getting it wrong again.

Liberals do not argue that change may be for the best. If we lived in a society that was consistent with Liberal values (e.g. non-racist, non-sexist, relatively egalitarian) no Liberal would want to change. In fact no conservative as you have defined it should want to change

I think you have set 2 definitions up for liberal.

One seems to consider Liberal Philosophy 'that of change'

another seems to consider policies that liberals have traditionally wanted to change (Ie: Legalize marijuana, etc.)


By stating that they are:

Liberals are determined by their goals, not their attitude towards change.

It quickly becomes apparent why we have had a conflict here.

I have been arguing that in
Society A a conservative may differ from conservatives in Society B. They will each hold different values that are conservative to their particular culture.

You however, seem to belive that there is some univeral Conservative culture that all conservatives must hold to. I completely disagree.

Conservativism is the status quo.
Liberalism is always change.

at least on the philosophical level.

A liberal could support slavery under my definition, because the policy would 'liberate labor from the nasty requirement that it must think for itself and by putting it under overlords could be better managed and productive'

A lot of the definition depends on how you word the terms.

That's one problem that I think our debate has run into. An essential disconnect on what we are arguing about.

[Agathon]

You however, seem to belive that there is some univeral Conservative culture that all conservatives must hold to. I completely disagree.

Well, there is, but that doesn't make a difference to my argument against your definition, which so far remains unrefuted.

You say that conservatism means staying the same, and the only intelligible way of making this into a poltical principle is in the way I suggested. Unfortunately, that way quickly reduces it to absurdity as a means of guiding action.

That's the argument. If you want to defend your belief, defend it against that argument. The rest is irrelevant.

Your characterization of Liberalism as merely the opposite principle to conservatism is simply false. Liberalism is a goal based political ideology – not a procedural fetish.

[Alexander's Horse]

list of 10 rightists aka a race to the bottom

[DarkCloud]

Okay agathon,

I guess I'll go to the dictionary now (I hate to do so since it's quite pedantic) but here's their definition of conservativism and liberalism:

conservativism - a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conservativism

(Basically the same definition I was giving you)

OR

Conservatism or political conservatism is any of several historically related political philosophies or political ideologies. There are also a number of Conservative political parties in various countries. All of these are primarily (though not necessarily exclusively) identified with the political right.

(Noting that it's not always identified with the political right- the left can also be conservative as we already discussed with democrats opposing Bush's Doctrine of foreign interventionism)

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/conservativism

---
Liberalism is much thornier and more difficult to define

(in all the definitions I read, it seems as though the two ideas of liberalism and conservativism are hard to define in opposition to each other simply because the two can very well be compatible. A conservative CAN be a liberal, and a liberal CAN be a conservative by the definition given below and by your view about freedoms, etc. and liberties in a society- in a society that already has gay marriage, the conservative would support it- but by the definition below, he would be a liberal)

Beginning in the late 19th century, liberalism started to become the governing ideology in various countries, e.g. in the United Kingdom. At the same time, liberalism became a major ideology in virtually all developed countries. As a result of being so widespread, the term "liberalism" began to evolve rapidly, and took on different meanings in different countries. In some countries, liberalism remained in its late 19th century form: limiting government involvement in private transactions of whatever kind, with government being devoted only to protecting against threats from abroad and enforcing civil order at home, along with maintaining a stable currency, based on a "sound money" policy.

However, with the coming of industrialization, a new wave of liberal thinkers began seeing government as a tool to encourage social progress and hence supported government action as a means to this end. This was a departure from the belief that government interventionism restricted liberty and thus inevitably retarded progress. The change led to a fundamental split in "liberalism" as a broad ideology.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/index.php#Usage_of_the_word_liberalism

---
I know this isn't a point by point response to your first post in response to my long essay, but is this sufficient for you? I'll respond point by point if You really want me to- but I think that this statement here really renders obsolete a lot of the quarrels that we both had over the definitions.

[DarkCloud]

Therefore as you defined above, yes, apparently if the defintion of liberal that I gave is the accepted one, they wouldn't necessarily always be for change- but that does not discredit the conservative position. For the conservative, what is working, continues to work. He is for gradual change- not radical change.

I suppose you're arguing that the liberal too is for gradual change, and yes, perhaps many liberals are.

But the reason that we haven't been agreeing is this simple fact:

the scope of the definitions of the twain do not match.
A conservative in that definition looks to find pragmatic policies that may or may not be ideologically determined. Remember, a conservative can either be right wing or not.

A liberal in that definition seeks to find exact policies that may or may not make sense in their implementation but which are ideologically determined.

[Agathon]

Therefore as you defined above, yes, apparently if the defintion of liberal that I gave is the accepted one, they wouldn't necessarily always be for change- but that does not discredit the conservative position. For the conservative, what is working, continues to work. He is for gradual change- not radical change.

I don't think you understand my argument. It doesn't depend at all on the meaning of "liberal", it just takes as its start your claim that conservatives wish to preserve tradition.

I've pointed out that if you adopt this as a rule to guide action it is basically the same as adopting a position of voluntary ignorance.

This is a philosophical argument, it doesn't have anything to do with what is in the dictionary or what people do, it is about the concept "conservative" as you defined it, and whether that concept is of any use in guiding political action. I've given reasons why it is useless as a guide to political action – that is the argument.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Agathon

once again proving that Bush is not a conservative on economic policies.

Give me strength. Private social security accounts a liberal plot?

IT's certainly not a conservative position since it's not a gradual change! The democrats want a gradual change. Not the republicans.

I think that the problem here is not that I'm allegedly redefining terms, but that you won't admit to yourself what some terms mean in the first place. The democrats are being CONSERVATIVE. They don't want to overhaul the system. Why does it hurt you so much to admit to that? It's an obvious fact.

and also demonstrating that while he may practice so-called 'moral conservativism' he is very open to disproving your statmeent that one can not be a social conservative/economic liberal since he is indeed an economic liberal in the sense that he seeks change and revision.

I've never said that no-one could believe it or try to be one, but only that the integration of social issues with economic policy means that it won't work.

I disagree. I think I've provided enough evidence before, but it should also be noted that some libertarians could be considered economically conservative and socially liberal. Also, if someone supports free trade, then he is being liberal. But he could very easily be against gay marriage. The two don't contradict each other.

The lovable democrats, however, are standing in the way of change, arguing that these accounts will not work- they are being... shall we dare say it? Oh, yes we shall- CONSERVATIVES.

OK. Why don't we play a game. Dark Cloud decides that words no longer have their accepted meanings.

See above. You don't seem to think that I'm redefining terms, when in reality you won't admit to yourself the full implications of the true meanings of the words.

Class interest? How so? In any greater degree than the Democrats?

The entire American legislature is composed of millionaires.

You may have noticed that most on the Left no longer have any confidence in the Democratic Party.

Fair enough. Explains why they're not voting.

However, Tom Delay (3rd most powerful Repblican) was an exterminator before he made it into the house- talk about rags to riches... and he's a republican.

One person? Clinton was the son of a handyman IIRC. But DeLay, who is the most corrupt individual in American politics, is a good choice when you want to illustrate the thrift and honest industry of Republican Party members.

Pray Pardon. I don't have the time nor the reason to go search out every senator and representative's past histories. :bow:

And the demonstration was about rags to riches, not whether Tom DeLay is a good person or not.

Meanwhile- John Kerry (rich rich rich.)

As for class interests- i would argue that would ONLY happen as an accident of one OBVIOUS thing.

1.) BUsinesses contribute money
2.) Richer people vote.

3.) poorer people dont' contribute money or pay attention to politics becasu they dont think that it concerns them.
4.) poorer people don't vote.

Because they know it doesn't make a difference.

And it doesn't make a differnece because they don't vote. Now, what happened in the 60's... people got out and voted- and thats wy things were changed. They agitated, they actually worked for change- and things changed.

Doing nothing accomplishes nothing.

If I didn't post replies, it's not like anyone would get any closer to wisdom. At least by posting there's a chance that someone will learn something.

Why create programs for people who don't vote in the first place? They're the dregs of society, unuseful to anyone.

You're the dregs of society for having an attitude like that.

Misquoting and misunderstanding. they're dregs because they don't vote. is the connected idea.

They basically coudl be argued as to have NO OPINION because they certainly aren't voicing it in a democratic way.

Well, they have a realistic choice between the pro-business party that pays no attention to them and the other pro-business party that pays no attention to them.

blah. 3rd party. Perot could have and should have won in 1992. He recieved 18-30% of the popular vote, If I remember correclty.

With the rise of Medicare, some argument can be made that the US is moving TOWARD a welfare state, but it most certinaly is NOT A WELFARE STATE.

You are changing the meanings of terms to suit yourself.

I'll repeat... It is, it just isn't as extreme as Germany. Neither is Canada, but all Western countries are versions of welfare liberalism. All have mixed economies and some form of the welfare state. Even the US.

Okay, I'll agree with that definition there. It has some form of the welfare state, but it's certainly no where near as clearly a welfare state as any of the other examples.

then of course 'disinflation' means nothing to you? the recession of the 70s, the discrediting and revision of many of Keynes theories (with looks back to the old way of doing things) and the rise of the New Economics?

This doesn't help your argument much. If both Keynes and the previous theory were wrong, it would be ****ing moronic to go back to either of them.

It could be argued that the pre-keynes theories at least didn't destroy society, therefore they could be gone back to. But I'll admit at this point- that would once again be reactionary, not a conservative policy- to return to older things.

Once again, as already argued- just because Bush misrepresents himself as being a conservative doesn't mean that he is one.

But the Republican Party? Give me a break...

You'll have to do better than this.

A party can have lost its way. Parties evolve and change all the time. The republican party is fast evolving into a party solely controlled by theocons- not true conservatives.