The Left simply loves dictators

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Re: Re: The Left simply loves dictators

Originally posted by Victor Galis




Wasn't Imran more conservative then?

Yeah and once upon a time back on the Firaxis forums he was even a pleasant cordial individual speaking politely on the behalf of Firaxis (toady that he was) against Yin26 IIRC.

Course this was all before he was libruhlized by the academia.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: The Left simply loves dictators

Originally posted by Victor Galis


I fail to see how that is a choice. Democracy in the Middle East would lead to theocracy right now. Look at what happened in Palestine. We're not so excited about democracy there anymore, now are we?

was the rise of Hamas the product of democracy, or of the authoritarian and corrupt rule of Fatah for the last 14 years?

And Egypt. One of the reasons the MB dominates the opposition, is cause Mubarak cracks down harder on the secular opposition. Mubarak is no fool, he listens to the conversation taking place in the US, and he knows the MB is a good thing to frighten us into supporting him.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

You are taking classical liberalism, which put freedom and lawfulness above all, and confusing it with the "right"

Classic liberalism. I have called myself a Kennedy liberal, and people here scoffed. But that is where I come out.

Which is why I would be equally strongly opposed to Saddam, Stalin and Hitler.

[lord of the mark]

"The Euston Manifesto
A. Preamble
We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.

The present initiative has its roots in and has found a constituency through the Internet, especially the "blogosphere". It is our perception, however, that this constituency is under-represented elsewhere — in much of the media and the other forums of contemporary political life.

The broad statement of principles that follows is a declaration of intent. It inaugurates a new Website, which will serve as a resource for the current of opinion it hopes to represent and the several foundation blogs and other sites that are behind this call for a progressive realignment."

[Ned]

LotM, I think Hitchens called himself a "neocon."

Regardless, Hitchens may favor a leftist economic-social agenda. But he also clearly favor democracy and freedom above that and is not willing to compromise democracy to achieve "equality."

[Sava]

People who generalize everything into "the left" or "the right" are woefully ignorant and I have no use for any of their opinions.

Having said that... there isn't an intelligent thought in this entire thread.

Politics is an extremely dynamic beast. Even if one were to look at American politics... to compare things today with things 20 years ago would be difficult. The issues are constantly changing, attitudes, culture, hell... even people change over time. There are many here who have drastically changed their views in their lifetimes.

So, any attempt to come up with some all-purpose political scale to describe everyone is doomed to failure. The best one can do is describe people's tendencies and group them into certain constituencies.

But to simply look at history as "left" and "right", or even as a two dimensional scale, is just pure idiocy.


Oh... and all Ned is doing is attempting to demonize people who he disagrees with. His recent threads are nothing more than a sad attempt to attack "the left" because he cannot debate real issues.

I don't feel offended by his nonsense because I don't support authoritarianism. And in American politics today, the segment of the population and the politicians with the most authoritarian leanings are the so called "conservatives"... the right wingers.

So Ned, you can praddle on all you want with your blather. It makes no difference to me. But it doesn't change reality.


But don't mind me. Carry on with your pointless discussion.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Classic liberalism. I have called myself a Kennedy liberal, and people here scoffed. But that is where I come out.

Which is why I would be equally strongly opposed to Saddam, Stalin and Hitler.

when i say classical liberal, Im NOT A. refering to the early 1960s

B. Im also not referring to libertarianism, as some do

When classical liberalism was formulated, a social democratic left was not yet really formed. Beating the old right was the agenda, and the issues that united classical liberalism were so based. Thats why when socialism emerged, classical liberalism divided into those who opposed it (business liberals, national liberals, what have you) and those prepared to ally with or compromise with it (progressives, mugwumps, Lloyd George Liberals, etc)

[Ned]

LotM, reading your last point seems to prove mine.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
LotM, I think Hitchens called himself a "neocon."

Regardless, Hitchens may favor a leftist economic-social agenda. But he also clearly favor democracy and freedom above that and is not willing to compromise democracy to achieve "equality."

you may think that but he didnt

"I have been flattered by an invitation to sign it, and I probably will, but if I agree it will be the most conservative document that I have ever initialled. Even the obvious has now become revolutionary. So call me a neo-conservative if you must: anything is preferable to the rotten unprincipled alliance between the former fans of the one-party state and the hysterical zealots of the one-god one."

Call me a neocon if you must - an expression of exasperation, NOT an affirmation of ideology. Hitch is anything but a neocon. Hes just saying that being mischarecterized that way, by some on the left, is less important than supporting democracy.


Honestly man, dont you READ what you post?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Regardless, Hitchens may favor a leftist economic-social agenda. But he also clearly favor democracy and freedom above that and is not willing to compromise democracy to achieve "equality."

Yes, like generations of Social Democrats.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


when i say classical liberal, Im NOT A. refering to the early 1960s

B. Im also not referring to libertarianism, as some do

When classical liberalism was formulated, a social democratic left was not yet really formed. Beating the old right was the agenda, and the issues that united classical liberalism were so based. Thats why when socialism emerged, classical liberalism divided into those who opposed it (business liberals, national liberals, what have you) and those prepared to ally with or compromise with it (progressives, mugwumps, Lloyd George Liberals, etc)

We still seem to agree. The socialists cared more about equality than liberty. The conservative cared more about protecting their vested rights than about liberty. The libertarian care more about liberty than either equality or vested rights.

[Victor Galis]

Re: Re: Re: The Left simply loves dictators

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Yeah and once upon a time back on the Firaxis forums he was even a pleasant cordial individual speaking politely on the behalf of Firaxis (toady that he was) against Yin26 IIRC.

Course this was all before he was libruhlized by the academia.

Or maybe he grew up I was conservative once, back when I was young and naive; well, maybe it was a knee-jerk reaction against communism.

was the rise of Hamas the product of democracy, or of the authoritarian and corrupt rule of Fatah for the last 14 years?

They ran a better, cleaner campaign. I totally believe Hamas won by not being Fatah and by actually caring about the people (or claiming to). Then Bush immediately decided to cut off aid and try to strangle the new democratically elected government all while spouting rhetoric about democracy in the Middle East. I don't think he gets the fact that if these were democracies, the Arabs would not somehow magically start liking us.

And Egypt. One of the reasons the MB dominates the opposition, is cause Mubarak cracks down harder on the secular opposition. Mubarak is no fool, he listens to the conversation taking place in the US, and he knows the MB is a good thing to frighten us into supporting him.

You think the MB couldn't trounce the opposition? Heck, even in America the GOP can use religion to make an issue out of small BS things like gay marriage, so and steer the debate away from Iraq. Never underestimate the power of fanatics.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
LotM, reading your last point seems to prove mine.

Im not sure what point you mean? that you are a Kennedy liberal? First, JFK was not particulary ideological, one way or the other - more of an opportunist, in the tradition of his family. Secondly im not real interested in how you charecterize yourself.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Call me a neocon if you must - an expression of exasperation, NOT an affirmation of ideology. Hitch is anything but a neocon. Hes just saying that being mischarecterized that way, by some on the left, is less important than supporting democracy.


Honestly man, dont you READ what you post?

I don't believe he was all that exasperated. He was gruding.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Left simply loves dictators

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Victor Galis

They ran a better, cleaner campaign. I totally believe Hamas won by not being Fatah and by actually caring about the people (or claiming to). Then Bush immediately decided to cut off aid and try to strangle the new democratically elected government all while spouting rhetoric about democracy in the Middle East. I don't think he gets the fact that if these were democracies, the Arabs would not somehow magically start liking us.

You miss the point. Fatah got to be what it is by being in power undemocratically. Authoritarianism is like drug addiction - withdrawl is painful, but the longer you stay on it, the harder it is to quit. And yes we cut off aid - so did Europe as well. Being democratic doesnt give you the right to support terror against a neighbor, or to end the peace process. The Pals have the democratic right to elect whom the want, and we have the democratic right to cut off aid. Aid is NOT a right. I dont know about Bush personally, but clearly there are folks in the admin, and plenty of democratization supporters outside, who understand that democracy wont mean the election of people like us. But it has a better chance than supporting tyrants, who only make them hate us more.

You think the MB couldn't trounce the opposition? Heck, even in America the GOP can use religion to make an issue out of small BS things like gay marriage, so and steer the debate away from Iraq. Never underestimate the power of fanatics.

I rather doubt that the secular opposition in Egypt would call for gay marriage, or the complete secularization of the state. You do realize the Egyptian state is not completely secular under Mubarak, dont you?