The Second American Civil War(opinion on split between 'left' and 'right').

[Jack Heinlen]

This is a bit simplistic, but I wonder what folks here think? This place sure feels like Fort Sumpter at times. :D

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35074

[Clipper]

Jack,

I think it is simplistic. I concider my self neither left or right, so what does that make me ? Some right opinions I agree with as well as left takes. I think most Americans have some leanings either way and BTW I hate being labeled.

[Popeye]

i yam what i yam.

[LeeG]

confusing the moon for the finger pointing at the moon.

develop an idea, then plug in supporting arguments to the point that the model is more important than what is being modeled.

[High C]

Originally posted by LeeG:
confusing the moon for the finger pointing at the moon.

develop an idea, then plug in supporting arguments to the point that the model is more important than what is being modeled.Insert shelf B into slot D. Fasten with bolt F. Turn upside down and align with opening.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LeeG:
confusing the moon for the finger pointing at the moon.

develop an idea, then plug in supporting arguments to the point that the model is more important than what is being modeled.Insert shelf B into slot D. Fasten with bolt F. Turn upside down and align with opening.</font>[/QUOTE]Interesting sex life you have there, JT ;)

[Jim M]

Modern American "conservatism" for many is the replacement for racism and sexism, which became uncool. It's a way of defining your identity, especially your group identity, and giving yourself permission to hate those who won't play ball. Hence the prevalence of ad hominem attacks.

[High C]

Originally posted by Jim M:
Modern American "conservatism" for many is the replacement for racism and sexism, which became uncool. It's a way of defining your identity, especially your group identity, and giving yourself permission to hate those who won't play ball. Hence the prevalence of ad hominem attacks.That was an ad hominem attack if ever I've seen one. :rolleyes:

[Meerkat]

You need to look up the definition of "ad hominium" then JT. It wasn't.

[Jack Heinlen]

Well, I don't know, but it seems to me 'conservatives' these days come in a variety of flavors, and 'liberals' exhibit much more group think.

I'm a conservative leaning libertarian. All I want is for the government to stay away from my wallet, my bedroom and the rest of my personal life as much as possible. I'm pro relief from our current drug prohibition, I think gay couples ought to have some legal sanction if they want it, gun control means learning how to use the gun properly, etc. LEAVE ME ALONE, within the bounds of bare necessity.

I think most who consider themselves liberal have a set of issues which define their politics. The author has laid this out quite well.

[Popeye]

just a second.. let me pull up a chair..

schruuunnk ascrunk. there. ok. go.

[Meerkat]

Gee Jack, ya think issues might be what defines politics? tongue.gif

[High C]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
You need to look up the definition of "ad hominium" then JT. It wasn't.Bull.

ad hom·i·nem ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

It was an illogical and personal attack, lacking substance or relevance, like much of your commentary on political matters. No wonder you didn't recognize it.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Meerkat:
You need to look up the definition of "ad hominium" then JT. It wasn't.Bull.

ad hom·i·nem ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

It was an illogical and personal attack, lacking substance or relevance, like much of your commentary on political matters. No wonder you didn't recognize it.</font>[/QUOTE]Now, this is an ad-hominium attack. Look carefully, I bet even you can tell the difference if you try! tongue.gif

I'd say you've made Jim's point quite well! :D

[ 10-16-2003, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Jim M:
defining your identity, especially your group identity, and giving yourself permission to hate those who won't play ball.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

The peculiarity of American politics is that it has not had much of a left/right divide. There was a peceptible left wing movement in the 20's and 30's but it was stamped on brutally in the 40's and the prosperity of the 50's and 60's gave it no encouragement.

Indeed, one of the things that I, a real Liberal, notice, is that the term "liberal" is used in place of "left wing" - as if Joe McCarthy will come and get you if you even hint that such a concept as "left wing" exists in America.

[High C]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
...like much of your commentary on political matters. No wonder you didn't recognize it.Now, this is an ad-hominium attack. Look carefully, I bet even you can tell the difference if you try! tongue.gif

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes indeed, that was an ad hominum attack. I meant for it to be. tongue.gif ;)

[Jack Heinlen]

Andrew,

How would you define left and right? It seems to me the point of this author's piece, simple as it is(simple is good atimes) to define matters.

I think the fires of radical socialism very much alive in this country, and I think they are rooted in Soviet infiltration...infiltration that goes to our intellectual history of the last three generations.

Call me silly, I'm sure of it. I'm also pretty sure that you will not see it, will call it silly, because you're as inculcated.

[ 10-16-2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Jack Heinlen ]

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Well, yes, Jack, I agree with you that the piece that you link to is indeed simplistic. I would go further and call it fluff; it has no more honest ideas in it than the average TV commercial.

Now, if you are suggesting that the only origin of radical left wing thought is "Soviet infiltration" then I really have to think where to start your education!

What do the following terms and names mean to you?

Wat Tyler?

John Ball?

The Peasant's Revolt?

John Lilburne?

William Walwyn?

The Levellers?

Robert Owen?

Francis Place?

William Cobbett?

Chartism?

Samuel Butler?

William Morris?

Christian Socialism?

Tony Benn?

Michael Foot?

Leo Abse?

The Fabian Society?

Radical socialism is by no means the same thing as Marxism; it can be furiously opposed to Marxism, firmly grounded in the Judaeo-Christian ethic, and espoused by devout Protestant Christians who hold to the literal truth of the Bible.

"When Adam Delved and Eve Span
Who was then the Gentleman?"

was the motto of the Peasant's Revolt of 1381. One of its leaders was John Ball, well known for saying:

"My Good Citizens: Things will never go well in England - no shall they ever - until all things be held in common, and the lords are no greater masters than ourselves".

[ 10-16-2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Andrew Craig-Bennett ]

[Jack Heinlen]

Heard of one or two, not read any in depth, Butler was an amusement in the past.

But what about the question? How would you define left and right better than the author?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Jack, I must apologise for editing my post, above, whilst you were replying to it; you may like to edit your reply. The writer's definitions are so specious that they do not deserve a point by point rebuttal, but I fancy that John Ball gives us a pretty good starting point for "left wing"!

[Jack Heinlen]

So, you won't answer.

[High C]

Originally posted by Jack Heinlen:
So, you won't answer.He can't answer. He doesn't live in this country, and his perceptions of our political struggles can only be so accurate, ehh?

The points in the story may be simple, but they are not simplistic. Nor are they inaccurate. They are reasonable points from the perspective of many Americans.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Oh, all right, then, but I fear that this will be tedious:

1. "The Left believes in removing America's Judeo-Christian identity, e.g., removing "under God" from the Pledge, "In God we trust" from the currency, the oath to God and country from the Boy Scouts Pledge, etc. The Right believes that destroying these symbols and this identity is tantamount to destroying America."

Even I know enough American history to know that "under God" and "In God we trust" are by no means as old as some of their adherents would like us to believe; as to the Boy Scouts, Baden-Powell certainly included the oath to God and Country and this is not even American - it is British!

2. "
The Left regards America as morally inferior to many European societies with their abolition of the death penalty, cradle-to-grave welfare and religion-free life; and it does not believe there are distinctive American values worth preserving. The Right regards America as the last best hope for humanity and believes that there are distinctive American values – the unique combination of a religious (Judeo-Christian) society, a secular government, personal liberty and capitalism – worth fighting and dying for."

"Religion-free life? Has the writer listened to any news from Europe recently? If he has done, which I am much inclined to doubt, he would know that there is currently a tremendous debate about the inclusion of specifically Christian references in the draft EU Constitution, likely to be resolved in favour of including them, in order to pacify Poland, a fiercely Christian country.

I see nothing uniquely American, or indeed unique at all, about the list of values he associates with "America". They will be found in pretty much every western European country.

Need I go on?

[Jack Heinlen]

Not your best offering Andrew. It's late, eh? We all fall down.

I know this debate is infuriating for someone born to socialism, but it's still a strangely plumed bird here--though less and less.

[High C]

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
Oh, all right, then, but I fear that this will be tedious:

1. "The Left believes in removing America's Judeo-Christian identity, e.g., removing "under God" from the Pledge, "In God we trust" from the currency, the oath to God and country from the Boy Scouts Pledge, etc. The Right believes that destroying these symbols and this identity is tantamount to destroying America."

Even I know enough American history to know that "under God" and "In God we trust" are by no means as old as some of their adherents would like us to believe; as to the Boy Scouts, Baden-Powell certainly included the oath to God and Country and this is not even American - it is British!
Andrew, this is a nonanswer, and irrelevant. Can you refute the point of that paragraph, which is that it is leftists who are working so hard to strip all reference to religion from public life?

If not they, then whom?

[Greg H]

The article is simplistic, selective, and written from a republican conservative point of view. It's hard to debate when bias is built into the language.

[Jack Heinlen]

Au contraire Greg, debate, or what passes for it, is almost always based on bias in the language.

And I note very few lining up to acknowledge how this author points to them, even though he strips them bare.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I think I have already offered plenty of evidence that many, many, people of a "left wing" political persuasion are believing Christians - you need look no further than Tony Blair - so the writer's contention is mere fluff.

I've also offered a pretty clear definition of "left wing" which predates the Communist Manifesto by 460 years.

[Jack Heinlen]

I'm not sure where the Christian reference came from, I'll have to re-read the article, but it's interesting how both the left and right claim Jesus.

He was ultimately compassionate, he came to fulfill ancient law. I take it as emblem of our unconsciousness.

But your response to the question, what costitutes right and left, is still weak. It's okay, I couldn't do it beyond the screed I posted.

[Bob Smalser]

I'm a conservative leaning libertarian. All I want is for the government to stay away from my wallet, my bedroom and the rest of my personal life as much as possible. I'm pro relief from our current drug prohibition, I think gay couples ought to have some legal sanction if they want it, gun control means learning how to use the gun properly, etc. LEAVE ME ALONE, within the bounds of bare necessity.
Anyway....I'll sign up for your political party, Jack.

Although I agree with Andrew on classic left wing as opposed to Bolshevism....small details easily overlooked by folks growing up at the height of the Cold War. We have had quite a number of communal religious sects over the centuries that would have agreed fully with Karl Marx.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Meerkat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
...like much of your commentary on political matters. No wonder you didn't recognize it.Now, this is an ad-hominium attack. Look carefully, I bet even you can tell the difference if you try! tongue.gif

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes indeed, that was an ad hominum attack. I meant for it to be. tongue.gif ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Well alrigthy then, ya flea brained, sister marrying, weasel spanking swamp rat that likes to look up little girl's dresses! tongue.gif

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Well, here are two definitions of "left wing":

"Things will never go well in England - no shall they ever - until all things be held in common, and the lords are no greater masters than ourselves".

John Ball, 1381.

"To secure for the producers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry and service."

Clause Four of the Constitution of the British Labour Party, from 1919, when it was adopted, until 1995, when Tony Blair abolished it. Ian Wright and I can both quote it by heart because it used to be printed on the back of Labour Party membership cards.

It was adopted to ensure that Britain did NOT go down the same path as Russia, by the way; Arthur Henderson, who proposed it, had seen the Russian revlution at first hand and did not like the Bolsheviks one little bit.

[Meerkat]

Bah, a pox on this left/right BS! I'm as opposed to the farest left "from each according to their ability, to each according to his need" credo as I am of the fascistic business control of goverment that is the result of the farest right's laissez fairism. The whole polarization crap overlooks some key virtues of both sides of the divide.

* If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately! There are some things for which a socialist model makes sense, including public health, sanitation, transportation, defense and a compassionate society's obligation to care for the infirrm and disabled.

* Business needs the space to be competitive, but not at the cost of environmental destruction and the death of freedom. (Too many opportunites have gone because it's impossible to compete or even coexist with big business. There are too few true constraints on capitalism and those that do exist are not well enforced.)

* Less government is good: no government is anarchy and chaos.

* Unreasonable restraints on individual expression is as harmful as no restraints at all.

* Guns are not bad, people are bad. Access to some guns should be limited and controlled, but they cannot and should not be banned.

And on and on. If I have to take on a label, call me a socially liberal fiscal conservative. Keep your nose out of my personal business and spend as little of my money as possible to pay for the things that we all need in common.

And, whether you're Democrat or Republican, stop breaking faith with and lying to me!

[ 10-16-2003, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

[Meerkat]

"To secure for the producers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry and service."
I would have thought that a communist idiologue would be quite comfortable with this credo.

"Popular administration" eh? Can I have bread and circuses with that? ;)

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Far from it, Meerkat.

The bit that no Communist could stomach is:

"... and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry and service."

When that was written, and indeed today, the "best obtainable system of popular administration and control" was, and is now, considered to be representative democracy by means of universal suffrage and the secret ballot.

Communists believe in a thing called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

And another thing. As a Liberal, I am very tired of the gross abuse of the word "liberal".

This is Liberalism:

http://www.bartleby.com/130/5.html

I would urge anyone who calls themself a "libertarian", and heaps abuse upon those they term "liberal", to read this. It will take a little time, but it is a thousand times more worthwhile than the citation that Jack started this thread with!

[High C]

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
And another thing. As a Liberal, I am very tired of the gross abuse of the word "liberal".

I would urge anyone who calls themself a "libertarian", and heaps abuse upon those they term "liberal", to read this.Literally speaking, the words mean roughly the same thing. Politically speaking, they are near polar opposites. This is nothing new. Political speech has always been twisted. We just have to stay abreast of the meanings du jour.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Not in my case or in my nation.

The conclusion that I really draw from this thread, and many others like it, is that political discourse in the USA is crippled by abuse of the language. This is dangerous to liberty, as JS Mill points out in the well known essay that I cite above.

[Jack Heinlen]

The conclusion that I really draw from this thread, and many others like it, is that political discourse in the USA is crippled by abuse of the language Yet you decry the attempt to define such terms, ala my original post. I don't agree with the author about many things, but he is attempting to draw lines around definition, the first redoubt against abuse.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Jack, I really do feel that he is doing no such thing, but is himself guilty of abuse, as in the examples that I quoted. He's just another Republican columnist, "spinning" for the Bush Administration.

Anyway, I shall shortly turn into a pumpkin; it's after my bed time.

[Jack Heinlen]

Good sleep to you Andrew, fine dreams.

[Jim M]

Modern American "conservatism" for many is the replacement for racism and sexism, which became uncool. It's a way of defining your identity, especially your group identity, and giving yourself permission to hate those who won't play ball. An impression, not an argument, like "patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels". Let facts be submitted to a candid world.

I am in full agreement with some people who call themselves conservative on many issues. But as to those who are the subject of my impression, reasoned argument is extraordinarly difficult since their aggressive ignorance is the mark of their essential defensiveness, if you can follow that. The same is true of many "liberals". Reasoned argument being unprofitable, the only alternative is the psychological approach. At least it's based on the judgment that what these people think is important enough to try to figure out.

All of this shows the ultimate inexpedience of responding in kind to ad hominem attacks. But as a matter of fact not opinion I state that the general pattern to be:

1. conservative opens with ad hominem attack e.g. "I wish all the liberals and feminists and environmentalists and multiculturalists were eaten by bears" i.e. an expression of hatred and bigotry masquerading as an expression of principle;

2. liberal responds "you are a pinhead which is shown by your own hateful and bigoted statements"

3. conservative replies "you calling me a pinhead shows you're no better than I." What they never seem to realize is that this reply does not address #2. So repeat 1-3 with minor variations until fatigued. My suggestion is to leave out "pinhead".

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Well, here is one foreigner's take on it all:

Citizens of other countries, most, if not all of which have a left/right divide in their politics, have long wondered about the USA, because it did not appear to have one. American politics, like baseball or American football, was a matter of passionate interest to Americans, but inscrutable to everyone else.

However, after one hundred and forty years, the South appears to have forgiven the party of Lincoln; the Dixiecrats are almost extinct and the Democrat Party is therefore no longer an alliance of Old South and Working Class. At the same time the "Patrician Old East" is no longer solidly conservative, thus Republican, but has turned more or less liberal, and California and the nearby states of the West have become increasingly conservative.

Put all this together and maybe, just maybe, we have a left/right divide in US politics which is of the type familiar to most other nations?

There are still distinctly American issues, such as the role of religion, and there is still a real aversion to anything actually Left, but there is a left/right divide now. Some might call it a centre/Right divide, but its there.

Perhaps?

[Jim M]

Andrew, this is a nonanswer, and irrelevant. Can you refute the point of that paragraph, which is that it is leftists who are working so hard to strip all reference to religion from public life? Uh huh, right. Leftists want newscasters to go jail for saying "religion".

No credible person advocates the removal of "all reference to religion from public life" because it would be impossible as well as absurd in theory, and in any case illegal.

So you must mean "Marxists" and "radical atheists" when you say "leftists". Why did you say "leftists"?

[Jim M]

William Morris? Designer of wallpaper, Arts & Crafts dude, a chair named after him, my advice: make the side rails parallel instead of the Stickley idea of the lower rail dropping an inch between the leg mortises, because that makes all the spindles a fractionally different length, a real PITA, I can tell you.

[Meerkat]

Andrew; One point: Media and political claims notwithstanding, California has never really been democrat/liberal, taken as a state. When I lived in San Francisco in the 70's it was described as an island of liberals in a sea of conservatives. The coastal cities, as with most coastal cities the world over, have always been more liberal than the conservative hinterland. The map of the recent CA recall election highlights this and shows that nothing has really changed in CA in the past 30+ years.

[Jim M]

There are still distinctly American issues, such as the role of religion, and there is still a real aversion to anything actually Left, but there is a left/right divide now. Some might call it a centre/Right divide, but its there.

Perhaps?
The US is radically different because of our constitution. Left/right in other countries is for all the marbles, for supremacy. Here it's for holding temporary office which has been deliberately crippled so as not to become supreme. Our idea is to deny permanent ascendancy to anyone, property owners, proletarians, anyone, by narrowly confining the powers of any one office, and by the device of declaring that certain rights cannot be violated by any office.

This is a negation of the stated or unstated basis of all previous governments in history, and many subsequent, including the very latest "This is a Muslim Nation" Afghanistan, the very newest nation proclaimed on this planet, which proclaimed themselves to be the embodied servant of some pinhead or other, some church, class, king, anything but the simple moral equality of man.

This means left/right or whatever has less territory to claim in America -- so long as the consitution survives. Unfortunately it also means that what remains to win is election to office, by lies if necessary, about whether you are really left or right or whatever. It breeds the overwhelming intellectual dishonesty of our politics, to say nothing of good old graft.

Hence the invention of the "liberal" as the object of the daily Five Minutes Hate or whatever it was in *1984*. It need bear no relation to "liberal" as understood in other times and places. Probably most useful when it doesn't. Gives it more scope, more flexibility. Like the now (ostensibly) discredited "Jewish intellectual" which could have been anyone from Karl Marx to Albert Einstein.

Sad to say, it's not right/left that counts, but how much fear you can create, and how well you can manipulate it. This does not depend on faithful adherence to settled definitions. Americans are great advertisers.