Left vs Right and Beyond

[Harold Squared]

Is it easier to eat with one chopstick or two? This simple thought experiment helps explain the methods of professional manipulators of popular opinion.

 

To elaborate, an issue is chosen and polarized using various methods of propaganda, leading the majority to enlist in either of two camps, both of which are effectively controlled from the top down, usually by the plutocracy.

 

Issues not selected by the plutocracy are literally off the table and exempt from scrutiny and public consideration.

[dimreepr]

True understanding is achieved via a complete education; so both chopsticks are required.

Edited July 8, 2015 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

The US doesn't have a Left.

[Harold Squared]

Republicans and Democrats, then. The history of these factions is a topic unto itself, I would think.

 

Hi, John, please elaborate if you are inclined.

[dimreepr]

Republicans and Democrats, then. The history of these factions is a topic unto itself, I would think.

 

Hi, John, please elaborate if you are inclined.

 

 

 

That’s like saying “the right and the ‘even more right’” which, I imagine, is what John alludes to.

[Harold Squared]

 

 

 

Thats like saying the right and the even more right which, I imagine, is what John alludes to.

Quite possibly. I've been around awhile and noticed a definite drift in the "conservative" direction, with some exceptions, over the past few decades.

 

Coincidentally, or perhaps not, living conditions have declined for most rank and file of both parties.

[John Cuthber]

Republicans and Democrats, then. The history of these factions is a topic unto itself, I would think.

 

Hi, John, please elaborate if you are inclined.

from the pov of most of the Western world, the American "Left wing" is actually a long way to the Right.

 

 

 

That’s like saying “the right and the ‘even more right’” which, I imagine, is what John alludes to.

Yes,. that's what I meant.

[Harold Squared]

So you think dimreepr has correctly understood your point of view?

 

I confess I am not a big globe trotter but living around Houston means the world comes to you, in a sense.

[dimreepr]

So you think dimreepr has correctly understood your point of view?

 

I confess I am not a big globe trotter but living around Houston means the world comes to you, in a sense.

 

 

It’s not about being correct; true understanding is born of mistakes.

[iNow]

Doesn't matter if you live in Houston or Seattle. By international standards, Democrats are mostly center-right and Republicans are ridiculously-right. We don't really have a true "left-wing" in the US, despite what conservative media and various talking head bloviating blowhards would like you to believe.

[Harold Squared]

I see. Well, would it be fair to say that the country has suffered as a result?

[Phi for All]

Quite possibly. I've been around awhile and noticed a definite drift in the "conservative" direction, with some exceptions, over the past few decades.

 

It seems like part of the professional manipulation mentioned in the OP. Corporations that can afford that kind of spin benefit from the lack of change conservatism spawns. It may not be the best thing for the market overall, or the best thing for the consumer, but it helps extend returns on investments when innovation is squelched.

 

Of course, corporate conservatism means picking and choosing when to exercise that conservatism. It's definitely good when arguing about taxes and regulations, but it's so awkward when it comes to subsidies.

 

I don't think most Americans understand conservatism. I think the pace of life is very fast, and they somehow think that putting the brakes on any way they can is the "safe" thing to do. In my lifetime, between 24/7 news and the new "conservatism" that sprang up in the Republican party after Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex, fear has sprung up everywhere. Parents can't let their elementary school-age kids walk home five blocks from the park, and yet we have more police and prisons than we did in 1965, despite overall crime being about the same. We have a prison-industrial complex now, that reams the taxpayers for everything from uniforms to food to bedding, all because conservatism tells us falsely that things have been going downhill for quite some time now.

[overtone]

all because conservatism tells us falsely that things have been going downhill for quite some time now.

The post-Nixon Republicans - and they are fascist, not conservative - made it so. It's like the local mob bosses owning the trucking companies and the road repair crews both - they make money running overweight trucks, and more money fixing the roads.

 

They drive wages down (wrecking the standard family), cut taxes on high end incomes (defunding the schools, burdening the middle class, etc), and make money building and supplying prisons.

 

 

 

 

I confess I am not a big globe trotter but living around Houston means the world comes to you, in a sense

One can read. And it doesn't.

 

Try this for establishing the scale: Hilary Clinton is and has always been a bit to the right of Eisenhower, ideologically (welfare reform, her opposition to single payer health insurance, tax policy, NAFTA, etc). Rachel Maddow is maybe - maybe - a bit to the left of Eisenhower (she has claimed to be an Eisenhower Republican ideologically, and that certainly fits her take on most issues).

 

If actual news of the world had come to Houston's benighted ruling class (white men 40 to 70), neither of those claims would be either dubious or surprising. And neither W or Cheney would have gotten anywhere near the White House.

Edited July 10, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

I see. Well, would it be fair to say that the country has suffered as a result?

Yes, for example, you have overpriced- under effective health care.

You also have a poor record of social mobility and a widening gap between rich and poor.

 

You also have a system that misleads you (collectively) about this.

Some of the ways it does this would be laughable if they were not tragic.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

It's not unreasonable to say that, at least part of the reason why you lost about 3000 people in the 9/11 tragedy wast hat the government had utterly lost track of balance and as only concerned with the dollar. .

[Harold Squared]

Yes, for example, you have overpriced- under effective health care.

You also have a poor record of social mobility and a widening gap between rich and poor.

 

You also have a system that misleads you (collectively) about this.

Some of the ways it does this would be laughable if they were not tragic.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

It's not unreasonable to say that, at least part of the reason why you lost about 3000 people in the 9/11 tragedy wast hat the government had utterly lost track of balance and as only concerned with the dollar. .

I don't know about that last bit. That seems more connected to our hideous foreign policy.

[MigL]

I find it laughable that at least two Brits ( John and Dim ) are criticizing American governments of the last 50 yrs and the state of the American middle class.

You went from being an almost still relevant "world power" to hanging on to America's coat tails in that period.

And how is your middle class doing ?

 

Why don't we analyze what the 'left' and 'right' did to England since the war, instead of always picking on Americans ?

[dimreepr]

I find it laughable that at least two Brits ( John and Dim ) are criticizing American governments of the last 50 yrs and the state of the American middle class.

You went from being an almost still relevant "world power" to hanging on to America's coat tails in that period.

And how is your middle class doing ?

 

Why don't we analyze what the 'left' and 'right' did to England since the war, instead of always picking on Americans ?

 

 

So instead of, at least, a semblance of balance you prefer to tip the scales?

 

Balance needs two equal sides not two equals on the same side.

[MigL]

No, I'm asking why the US is always the center of attention.

 

And why you and John criticize what American governments (whether 'left' or 'right' ) have done in the last 50 yrs, when in the same time period British governments have failed even more spectacularly.

[Phi for All]

No, I'm asking why the US is always the center of attention.

 

We're one big conflicted bag of mixed nuts.

 

We'll pay 2.5 times what the average country pays for healthcare, as long as we pay half of what the rest of you pay for gas/petrol. Too bad our emissions are going to cancel out your extraordinary good health!

 

We've subsidized our sugar industry for the last 200 years, and they have thanked us by keeping the price of US sugar twice as high as world average. There is a lot of entrenched crazy in the US.

 

Half the country is screaming about the other half being too liberal, when the rest of the world can plainly see we have practically ZERO liberal representation in our government. Every argument is equal, performed loudly, and always across a two-sided fence.

 

I wish we were the center of attention for some other reason, like, we stand up to the big banks and tell them nobody is too big to fail anymore. I'd go all John Wayne for THAT!

[Harold Squared]

Hey, at least we are smart enough to stay out of land wars in Asia.

 

Someday...

 

You guys are really great company for the most part, God bless you all.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Harold Squared

[overtone]

Why don't we analyze what the 'left' and 'right' did to England since the war, instead of always picking on Americans ?

The Americans most loudly claiming to be "picked on" are the ones least likely to be comfortable with an analysis of what the Right did to England this past generation or so.

 

One might start with the London bankers.

Edited July 25, 2015 by overtone

[MigL]

That's it overtone.

Spread the 'unconfortableness' all around.

 

Very few countries/governments/voters are above reproach.

[John Cuthber]

I find it laughable that at least two Brits ( John and Dim ) are criticizing American governments of the last 50 yrs and the state of the American middle class.

You went from being an almost still relevant "world power" to hanging on to America's coat tails in that period.

And how is your middle class doing ?

 

Why don't we analyze what the 'left' and 'right' did to England since the war, instead of always picking on Americans ?

OK, the current UK government is cutting social spending and yet it has had to double the national debt. It doesn't understands that there is more than one way to balance the books. Instead of collecting taxes, it has borrowed more than all the Labour governments put together.

The UK middle class isn't doing well- the working class is doing worse. The only group who are getting rich are those who were rich to begin with. Obviously, that's a natural trend-- you don't actually need the government to help do that.

 

There are lots of ways to look at economic growth, one of the easiest is GDP.

Here's how the UK and US per capita GDP compare

https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:GBR:DEU:FRA&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_pp_cd&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:GBR:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

So they have pretty much followed the same path. Our "communist" policies don't seem to have done much harm

 

 

And looking at just the UK you find things like this

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/uk-real-per-capita-gdp-19192001-where.html

 

So perhaps we should look at the effect of Left and Right on that

The GDP data for the UK is here (sorry, it only goes back as far as 1960- but feel free to find better data.)

https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:GBR:USA:DEU&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:GBR:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

 

Generally, GDP goes up

There are a couple of clear troughs from about 1980 to 1985 and 25007 to 2012

Both of those happened under Right wing governments.

 

The prolonged period of relatively steep growth was between about 1968 and 1979

Well, the very steep bit was 1976 to 1979 under Labour (Jim Callaghan)

Most of the rest of it was also under Labour.

There's a drop between 2007 and 2009 but that corresponds to an international world wide drop so it's a little unfair to blame Gordon Brown for it.

Under the current Tory government growth has pretty much flatlined.

 

The other interesting thing about that graph is that it shows thet the UK was catching up with the US untill the 2008 recession.

[overtone]

That's it overtone.

Spread the 'unconfortableness' all around.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that the bad stuff in these comparable countries, as in the US, should be blamed mostly on the incompetence and corrupt motivation of the authoritarian Right, and nobody but the supporters of this authoritarian Rightwing incompetence and corruption deserves much blame.

 

I'm not spreading blame around, like this guy who is trying to blame basically everybody: "Very few countries/governments/voters are above reproach" . I'm reproaching specific small groups, even individually nameable people, who did wrong and did harm.

Edited July 25, 2015 by overtone

[Phi for All]

I'm not. I'm pointing out that the bad stuff in these comparable countries, as in the US, should be blamed mostly on the incompetence and corrupt motivation of the authoritarian Right, and nobody but the supporters of this authoritarian Rightwing incompetence and corruption deserves much blame.

 

I'm not spreading blame around, like this guy who is trying to blame basically everybody: "Very few countries/governments/voters are above reproach" . I'm reproaching specific small groups, even individually nameable people, who did wrong and did harm.

 

I agree, and I think it's a very emotional approach to blame everyone evenly. It's designed to appeal to moderates and moderation, but in reality it covers up where the real blame lies, which is squarely with the authoritarian Right. It's more rational to assess where the damage has been done, who did it, and target the blame surgically where it belongs.