slug.com slug.com

24 8

If the "Left" labels anyone who's right-of-"Left" a member of the "far right", what could do wrong? How might non-Lefties get the Left to see things differently? Is it easier for moderates and conservatives to just go with it and call themselves "far right" than to try to explain the difference (yes, I'm joking)?

Thanks to @tigercake for the post: "After talking to co-workers who are clearly from the left (they believe in constructivism, ..." (and @chuckpo)

Admin 8 June 10
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

24 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

5

What works for me is to remain calm and keep asking questions about the other person's thoughts - or lack of - and usually they are unable to continue the discussion, make some attempt to insult me and walk away laughing to themselves thinking they have won something. I find it is best to keep in mind that in order to insult me, I must first value the others opinion.

5

The only thing that will make a change is to create the change and the most rabid will adjust to it in time. Must of the left is indoctrinated and young. Real life, especially when filled with opportunity and success will help them to be less insecure and time will help them to mature. If needed I try to use a totality of history to show the pain, blood and oppression that has been a constant in all cultures. Then show the evolution of western culture. Western culture determained that slavery was wrong and purged it. Western culture realized that women are equal deserving the vote, all rights in full. Western culture is removing the prejudice against gays and codifying it. Much of the world needs the lefts strident call of rights and Liberty but they are cowards. They beat up speakers on the campus. Spit on people in the streets in the nations that are accepting and constantly moving towards justice by the nature of the culture. The coward left refuses to engage the entrenched hateful cultures that demean women and gays because they will get their asses kicked or worse. These blatant contradictions in their behavior and the reality of history along with the folly of their mindless socialist policies and dogma must be demonstrated. Win and change the direction. M.A.G.A. and beat their arguements to dust until they get their piece of the pie and grow up enough to enjoy and cherish it....

Loved it!!!! That was the calmest, spot on answer I have heard to date. MAGA/ KeepAmericaGreatForever

5

For years now I've tried to explain the differences there to those I know who are left-leaning, some listen while others didn't care to. I haven't given up...

4

The center and center left needs to do more to call out the far left. I consider myself on the right. I try to argue using evidence and numbers to show how far the left has drifted. However it takes the center to admit that there is a problem and it is not on the right. Too often I find that the center is unwilling to step up and seems more concerned with a false compromise rather than the truth.
This is largely due, in my opinion, the the fact that the mainstream media still has such a lock on public sentiment. It is like they still want to be liked by the cool kid even though the cool kid is wrong. There is and has been a stubborn blindness to the far left actions.

4

I recently stopped caring what the left thinks I am. It really doesnt matter.

3

The label "right" is generally not appropriate in the context of US politics. Right implies the Eurpean concept of not changing or preserving the ennobled system of titles and aristocracy. Right also encompasses an idea of autocracy that is actually endemic in Leftist ideology. In the US, "conservative" is more akin to limiting the government's involvement in ones lives, and keeping it as small as possible. It is more individualistic, and holds Liberty in highest regards. By allowing the Left to use the label "right," conservatives allow the Left to define them as something, in the US, they are not. Fight everyday to not be defined by the Left as "right," and make sure to never label the Left as "progressives," but rather the as the totalitarian Leftists their philosophy demands. #conservatives

Interesting perspective. Thanks.

2

See this is a non sequitur, since a person on the left sees everyone to their right as "extreme" or "ultra rightwing, but that is merely name calling, not dissimilar of a person who seems themself an "Environmentalist" anybody less "environmentalist then themselves is a "flat earther" a "rube" or "backward".

What I am pointing out is that the goalpost always moves. If a person on the left jerks further left then suddenly those that are passed by the jerk are right wing, conservative or just outright "deplorable".

AOC is a dull example of this, she wasn't left wing enough in her own eyes so now she has to add open borders for all.

Note to that; the language always changes. From Global warming => climate change => Global catastrophe.

2

This is a legit question that needs to find a answer. Many of these folks are so deranged that facts are not going to matter. I try and start small, live by example and above all, be nice.

2

As a direct response, I have found those on the left (not even far left) to suffer very much from selective hearing, so whenever in 'discussion' with one, all you can do is just stick to facts. They usually try to deflect if on the left, and break into a rant if on the far left. Depending on the situation, I will either just keep stating facts, or I will simply just call them morons (why waste time with anything else).

I'm sure they think the same about me, but the problem is, if discussions are revisited, I will have gained more facts, whilst they still spew the exact same drivel, but add in some incredibly pointless activist style 'that fact is wrong because my Mum said so' kind of nonsense.

What I find more interesting is the illusion that the left are some kind of majority. The only genuine 'far' that applies is far from the truth. They just have big mouths.

We went through all of this in the late 70's early 80's, and whenever it really counts, they are rejected.

The majority do not get too involved in all the rhetoric, nor the political arguments, but what they do know is they do not want virtue signalling, economic incompetence and an inability to speak with anything other than blame someone else. Eventually the majority make this known, and the idiots (let's face it, that is what they are) simply go away, hopefully for another 40 years or more.

I am noticing that this time, the 'silent majority' are speaking up more than the previous occasion, and this is probably due to this time the loony left include the misledia, climate lies (yes, all sources of this BS have been caught in lie after lie) and policies inflicted with no permission or instruction, and so the harm this pandering is responsible for is having a direct hit. The result is that people do make a shift to the right, but as opposed to right being political right vs. left, it becomes right as in right vs. clearly wrong.

At the end of the day, this is all it boils down to, right vs. wrong.

Right on!

2

If you waste your time wondering how to respond to someone who’s a “Leftist”, you’re wasting your time.
They’re simply not going to listen to, or believe, anything that they don’t want to ... they don’t like ... that doesn’t their “narrative”.

2

Don't know about Europe but I do know there is no such thing as the "far right" in the USA. What the left would term the "far right" in the USA. White supremest, NAZI's, i.e. the convicted felon crowd are actually over on the left side of the spectrum politically except on immigration.
In the USA the right is Christian based. Biblical principle based. Founding principles of the USA based. Laws of nature and natures God based. Just plain common sense based. The free world that they created based.
That is where the war is. Between the free world and those and their minions who want to return us to the "natural order of things." The ruled and the rulers. They are not going to win but it would sure be helpful if a lot of people who don't want to be bothered to accept reality, would.

It's really hard to pin down exactly what is implied by right and left, if we're being honest. It gets used in so many different contexts, it's hard to know even what we're talking about. Do you think the church can go too far? I do. I think it's demonstrable. So, I'm not sure I'd say there is no far right. Things are even more confused when you consider we're a 'liberal--even progressive' society as a whole. I don't know about other languages, but English sure seems insufficient to distinguish between complex ideas with a lot of interaction or overlap. I think some of the time at least, we're caught arguing in the confusion. I was just having a conversation that included individualism and collectivism as demonstrated through social systems like capitalism or communism (communitarianism, which seems another re-labeling to ease the discomfort of using the term communism). I think we should take a week and hash out definitions, clarifying, and just making up some new damned words when it's warranted. How can we talk about the nuances of things when the language is muddled? It's not just here. I think you saw it come up frequently in the JP-Žižek debate. Everyone comes up against this problem. How do we go about calling a truce until we can create a common language that's appropriate to the breadth of ideas? Anyway, a tangent. I'd have to see your point more thoroughly laid out, but my initial reaction is you're giving the religious a free pass I don't think they've earned.

@chuckpo
I’m with you on the language thing. The way we change the meaning of words based on what we want them to mean, or how we feel or any other number of reasons is Satan’ playground. That I’m learning English comedian who dissects the way Americans use the words sh*t and a$$ is hilarious but right on about the absurd complexities of our language.

As far as the “church” going to far. Well that is back to the language thing. What does one mean by the “church.” If they mean the ancient institutions where the general public did not have or read Bibles. Then obviously that is not what I am referring to. I’m not even really reffering to today’s Bible illiterate public school educated American pastors. I am referring to a proper understanding of scripture and its influence in the creation of the free world that never existed beforehand. Pretty much the way the founders of The USA approached the subject. I don’t think they went to far at all.

@DanMartinovich, are you implying you know the Bible in a way other readers don't? I may be mistaking your meaning. You merely mentioned 'Christian', and that covers a breadth of belief--or even identity.

@chuckpo I am absolutely implying that generaly. Pastors and Christians in the later 18th and 19th centuries understood the Bible better than they do in the last half of the 20th century and the 21st. And, that a lot of this has to do with the mis-education they are receiving in the public’s school systems.

@DanMartinovich, that's going to be a tough sell. What makes your reading of the Bible other than just another interpretation? And, what in public education has specifically distored how people will interpret the Bible? In my day, we considered school and religious belief to be two completely separate things.

@chuckpo Of course it’s a tough sell. Ignorant people loath to think of themselves as such. Do a little test. Find a copy of an unedited version of Washington’s farewell address to the nation on the net. If you can comprehend it. Ie understand as he meant it to be understood, perfectly. Good for you! But think of today’s collage kids. Come on. To even enter an Ivy League college back then you had to read and write Latin, Hebrew and Greek fluently.

@DanMartinovich, I guess I'd have to see some arguments you lay out. I have to admit, I don't often run into something 'new' or revolutionary that is above challenge--especially where it concerns something very old. We've presumably been around religion for a long time and experienced the countless reinventions that turn out to be the same story with a slightly different spin (probably some comfort in that). But, the biggest issue is religion occupies the domain of belief and not the domain of knowledge, so I have a hard time seeing any reading as revealing some secret long-since-forgotten truth. BUT, my mind is open, and I'm curious--if you want to want to risk wasting a shot.

@chuckpo Your line sums it up. " But, the biggest issue is religion occupies the domain of belief and not the domain of knowledge"
There is a reason real Christianity, as it is known today occupies the domain of. belief. Because the pastors, the teachers, the evangelists etc, etc forsook the realm of knowledge and now are only left with the realm of belief. That is why Christianity today is so very broad but also so very shallow. Why it is so weak agsint the forces of evil where as in the past it overcome much greater and entrenched evil. Both culturally and nationally.

But your asking me to prove to you that is true. We don't have the time and I really don't think you have the heart for that. I gave you a little something though. to test your theory that today's generations know more about the liberal arts that the generation of the founders. Find and read an unedited version of Washington's farewell address. That speech use to have a school textbook devoted to it. Use to be considered the most important political speech in our nations history. A hundred years ago school kids studied it.
A shoot. I'll just post it for you.

@chuckpo
United States 19th September 1796
Friends, & Fellow--Citizens.

The period for a new election of a Citizen, to Administer the Executive government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person, who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken, without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation, which binds a dutiful Citizen to his country--and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my Situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, & continuance hitherto in, the Office to which your Suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives, which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last Election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed & critical posture of our Affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice, that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty, or propriety; & am persuaded whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions, with which, I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say, that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the Organization and Administration of the government, the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country, for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful & persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that, under circumstances in which the Passions agitated in every direction were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not infrequently want of Success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence--that your Union & brotherly affection may be perpetual--that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained--that its Administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and Virtue--that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection--and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments; which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a People. These will be offered to you with the more freedom as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the Attachment.

The Unity of Government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main Pillar in the Edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home; your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that from different causes & from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal & external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly & insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective & individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual & immoveable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our Country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits & political Principles. You have in a common cause fought & triumphed together--The independence & liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts--of common dangers, sufferings and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your Interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding & preserving the Union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal Laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of Maritime & commercial enterprise and--precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South in the same Intercourse, benefiting by the Agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow & its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish & increase the general mass of the National navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a Maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications, by land & water, will more & more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth & comfort--and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the Secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of Interest as one Nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate & unnatural connection with any foreign Power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While then every part of our country thus feels an immediate & particular Interest in Union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means & efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionally greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their Peace by foreign Nations; and, what is of inestimable value! they must derive from Union an exemption from those broils and Wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries, not tied together by the same government; which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments & intrigues would stimulate & embitter. Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown Military establishments, which under any form of Government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty: In this sense it is, that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting & virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of Patriotic desire. Is there a doubt, whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective Subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. 'Tis well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to Union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason, to distrust the patriotism of those, who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations--Northern and Southern--Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of Party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions & aims of other Districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies & heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render Alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal Affection. The Inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have Seen, in the Negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the Treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their Interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two Treaties, that with G: Britain and that with Spain, which secure to them every thing they could desire, in respect to our Foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those Advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their Brethren and connect them with Aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of Your Union, a Government for the whole is indispensable. No Alliances however strict between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions & interruptions which all Alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of Government, better calculated than your former for an intimate Union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice uninfluenced and un-awed, adopted upon full investigation & mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its Laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political Systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the People to establish Government presupposes the duty of every Individual to obey the established Government.

All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and Associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the Constituted authorities are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of Governments, as of other human institutions--that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing Constitution of a Country--that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses & opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion: and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a Government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of Liberty is indispensable--Liberty itself will find in such a Government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest Guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the Government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the Society within the limits prescribed by the laws & to maintain all in the secure & tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person & property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.

This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common & continual mischief's of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in Governments of a Monarchical cast Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate & assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its Administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional Spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, & constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient & modern; some of them in our country & under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of Free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric.

Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength & security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible: avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it--avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of Peace to discharge the Debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your Representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue--that to have Revenue there must be taxes--that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient & unpleasant--that the intrinsic embarrassment insuperable from the Selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the Conduct of the Government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining Revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith & justice towards all Nations. Cultivate peace & harmony with all--Religion & morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice & benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human Nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

]In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just & amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one Nation against another--disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate envenomed and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill will & resentment sometimes impels to War the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the Nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister & pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels & Wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification: It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions--by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained--& by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld: And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite Nation) facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition corruption or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great & powerful Nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens,), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause & confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations & collisions of her friendships, or enmities.

Our detached & distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one People, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or War, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European Ambition, Rival ship, Interest, Humor or Caprice?

'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign World--So far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it--for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements, (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)--I repeat it therefore, Let those engagements. be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all Nations, are recommended by policy, humanity and interest. But even our Commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing & diversifying by gentle means the streams of Commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with Powers so disposed--in order to give to trade a stable course, to define the rights of our Merchants, and to enable the Government to support them--conventional rules of intercourse; the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, & liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that 'tis folly in one Nation to look for disinterested favors from another--that it must pay with a portion of its Independence for whatever it may accept under that character--that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favors from Nation to Nation. 'Tis an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my Countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression, I could wish--that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our Nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the Destiny of Nations: But if I may even flatter myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now & then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischief's of foreign Intrigue, to guard against the ] Impostures of pretended patriotism--this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my Official duties, I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public Records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to You and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting War in Europe, my Proclamation of the 22d of April 1793 is the index to my Plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of Your Representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me; uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination with the aid of the best lights I could obtain I was well satisfied that our Country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest, to take a Neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance & firmness.

The considerations, which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe, that according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the Belligerent Powers has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every Nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of Peace and amity towards other Nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections & experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle & mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption, to that degree of strength & consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes Though in reviewing the incidents of my Administration, I am unconscious of intentional error--I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my Country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that after forty five years of my life dedicated to its Service, with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the Mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a Man, who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several Generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow Citizens, the benign influence of good Laws under a free Government--the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors and dangers.

@chuckpo
Been a long time since I read that. Only got half away through. My mind went blank. Just got home from work. Dear God that aught to be a textbook that all our public schools are forced to teach and study once more.. Fits right into the subject of this thread too.

2

I think part of the problem is illuminated by a rhyme from Ogden Nash

Who can tell
if a flea is a he or a she
only another flea

I'm not really familiar with all the flavors of liberalism, progressivism, socialism, et al. I'm confident they can't tell the differences between all our conservative tribes.

That's part of the reason we're all "alt right." They simply can't imagine we sincerely believe what we say.

Another reason is pejorative, but that'll take another essay.

2

Mockery is certainly appropriate and healthy. For those who can still see their reflection, it might prevent them from being totally lost.

[babylonbee.com]

2

To control language is to control thought

[ As the communists realized from the beginning, to control language is to control thought—not actual thought, but the possibilities of thought. It is partly through the successful efforts of the communists—aided, of course, by a world war which they did not a little to precipitate—that our parents thought in terms of elementary dichotomies. Left-Right, Communist-fascist, socialist-capitalist, and so on. Such were the “terms of debate” that we inherited. To the extent that you are not “on the Left,” they implied, then to that extent are you “on the Right”; if not a Communist, then so much nearer fascism; if not a socialist, then an advocate of “capitalism,” as an economic and political system. ] --Roger Scruton

2

The last thing I want to do is to accept the tag «far-right» they want to put on me. There is really a center on the political spectrum around which we find the left and the right. The left has lost since a while all perspective and condemn everyone who is contradicting them by labeling them as far-right. That's a rejection and an attempt to control the narrative.

once a certain amount reach far of either side causing the tilting point is what we need to lookout for, it will be complete chaos if we tall to the left, if to th right we fall, would be more of an organized dictatorship like Nazi Germany. .. the trick is splitting the the red sea, allowing us to make it straight down the middle to the otherside..

1

It can't be done. It's almost a comparable attempt of convincing a devout person of religion that it has it's own problems.

1

If there is a basic dichotomy that presently confronts us, it is between us—the inheritors of what remains of Western civilization and Western political thinking—and the purveyors of dichotomies. There is no such opposition as that between Left and Right, or that between communism and fascism. There is simply an eternal alliance—although an “alliance of the unjust” who are always ready to violate the terms that bind them—between those who think in terms of dichotomies and labels. Theirs is the new style of politics, the science which has in truth replaced “politics” as it has ever been known. Theirs is a world of “forces” and “movements”; the world perceived by these infantile minds is in a constant state of turmoil and conflict, advancing now to the Left, now to the Right, in accordance with the half-baked predictions of this or that theorist of man’s social destiny. Most of all, the dichotomizing mind has need of a system. It seeks for the theoretical statement of man’s social and political condition, in terms of which to derive a doctrine that will answer to every material circumstance.

Source:
1

Who are we talking about here?

I don't know Ricky - can you tell us what your idea of "right" is and what your idea of "far right" would be? and then tell us if you can what might be described as "far left" since you are clearly a leftist I think it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on these things. In your mind is there such thing as "far left"? Is that even possible to your way of thinking? Has Socialism ever "gone too far" in your opinion? Would you say that places like Cuba and Venezuela are examples of working Socialism?

@iThink, congratulations on the Can-O-Worms Award!

@iThink I like consulting the two-dimensional (social and economic [politicalcompass.org] ) view that @Peter_Lemonjello references below.

Most people are in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quadrants, at least according to American voter surveys (https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond [dataforprogress.org] [nymag.com] [niskanencenter.org] ).

If you divided each quadrant into quadrants this is where different political groups would generally fit:
-Establishment Democrats (left liberals) would be in the 3rd quadrant of the 1st quadrant
-The now rare "establishment" Republican (right liberals) would be just outside the 3rd quadrant of the 1st quadrant
-Trumpist Republicans (right populists or nativists) would be in the 2nd quadrant of the 1st quadrant
-Fascists would be at the authoritarian extremes of the 1st and 2nd quadrants of the 1st quadrant
-State communists would be in the 1st and 2nd quadrants of the 2nd quadrant, e.g., with Stalinists at the authoritarian extremes
-Social democrats (a.k.a. progressives) would be in the 3rd and 4th quadrants of the 2nd quadrant
-Democratic socialists would be in the 1st and 2nd quadrants of the 3rd quadrant
-Libertarian socialists (a.k.a. anarchists) would be in the 3rd and 4th quadrants of the 3rd quadrant
-The rare right libertarian (a.k.a. libertarian, in America) would be in the 1st and 2nd quadrants of the 4th quadrant
-The rare anarcho-capitalist would be in the 3rd and 4th quadrants of the 4th quadrant

In Europe and much of the democratic world, and in America until about 60 years ago, the acceptable political spectrum was on a horizontal axis between the 4th quadrant of the 2nd quadrant and the 3rd quadrant of the 1st quadrant.

With the advent of neoliberalism, that spectrum has shifted to the confines of the 3rd and 4th quadrants of the 1st quadrant.

When people on the left talk about the "far right," they are generally referring to Trumpists who have stretched the spectrum into the 1st quadrant of the 1st quadrant, toward fascist territory. They usually make this determination based on a person's social attitudes.

As previously mentioned, the 4th quadrant is not very common in the population, but it is over-represented among the very wealthy. That and the power of the internet to unite people with niche interests have conspired to make it over-represented on the internet. In isolation, people on the left might refer to someone in the 4th quadrant as economically far right. Furthermore, the political spectrum in this community, for example, is on a vertical axis between the 4th quadrant of the 4th quadrant and the 1st quadrant of the 1st quadrant.

Members of the IDW might be moderate on some issues, but they generally have at least one pet social issue that makes them an ally of Trumpists, for example. Moreover, their content is driven by the aforementioned funding by the very wealthy and skewed online political market. The resulting allyship might lead people on the left to refer to a whole network of such associated figures as far right.

Bernie Sanders' 2016 primary campaign has begun to restore the left of the American political spectrum back into the 4th quadrant of the 2nd quadrant. It has boosted democratic socialists like me, who have long been politically sidelined despite our numbers. Our ideal political spectrum exists on a curve between the 1st quadrant of the 3rd quadrant, through the 4th quadrant of the 2nd quadrant, and into the 3rd quadrant of the 1st quadrant. That is, democratic socialism is our workplace strategy, social democracy is our electoral strategy, and liberals are our essential political partner. While we disagree on tactics, we are ideological allies with anarchists and sometimes communists; and sometimes anti-war and civil liberty allies with right libertarians.

I would call democratic socialists and social democrats leftists; anarchists and communists far left; establishment Democrats and Republicans liberals; right libertarians right libertarians; Trumpists and anarcho-capitalists far right; and allies of Trumpists far right propagandists. I realize that opens me up to a charge of hypocrisy because I said that I might ally with an anarchist, for example, but the difference is I am not actively propagandizing for them or supporting them politically (matter of fact they don't participate in electoral politics). I only might apologize for them against the claims of the far right.

Has socialism ever gone too far? It's probably best to postpone that debate. I've already drawn a distinction between my socialism and that of the Soviet Union and China. Venezuela and Cuba are still a little bit too far on the authoritarian axis for my taste, Venezuela especially in the Maduro era. Nevertheless, I recognize the successes, failings, and extraneous factors in both countries. Moreover, no political system is immune from abuse of power and other failings.

@WilyRickWiles I don't want to work that hard Ricky - why can't you just give us a straight answer and tell us what you think...don't care what lemonjello has to say

@iThink Maybe this will help!

@WilyRickWiles I am not interested in looking at charts or graphs. I don't care what someone else says. I am asking you directly. Give your personal description of those terms: right, far right, extreme right - and if you can (which I doubt you can) tell us please if you think it is possible to be "too far left". Has the left ever in your mind gone too far? Lets not start with the big names like Stalin, Mao, Lenin...do tell Ricky did the Castro brothers go too far? What about Chavez and now Maduro. What about Antifa - do they go too far with their violence and destruction their physical assaults their arsons their chaos all in the name of what - socialism/leftist ideology. So don't try to evade the direct question Ricky - do tell. Can the left go too far - has the left ever gone too far in your mind?

@iThink OP was about definitions and so was the thrust of your reply. But clearly you'd rather parrot Peterson, et al.'s line about "the left going too far" than find common ground around those definitions. I already associated those terms with well-known ideologies. I already addressed Cuba and Venezuela to the extent that is relevant here. I already characterized communism and anarchism as far left. I already briefly commented on the tactics of anarchists like antifa.

Clearly anarchists relate to the state and property much differently than ordinary leftists--hence their targeted violence to property. Ordinary leftists engage in electoral politics and are reformists with respect to property. Moreover, anarchists and communists have been known to resort to violence against their political enemies--the former mostly against far right paramilitary groups who would curtail their liberties and the latter against powerful interests that threaten the authoritarian communist state. Again, ordinary leftists respect the state--and they are not authoritarian--so they use the law and nonviolent direct action to achieve their ends.

And certainly we know that the center, the right, and the far right too can "go too far." Was it not too far when Salvador Allende of Chile was overthrown and assassinated? Are not the far right acts of mass violence, akin to honor killings, at places of worship, schools, and government spaces going too far? Are not the economic shocks, poverty, and environmental spoilage that result from unrestrained capitalism going too far? Are not the global humanitarian crises caused by war, economic exploitation, and nativism going too far? Were not Jim Crow, redlining, and other forms of nativist discrimination in the past century going too far?

@WilyRickWiles I wanted for you to articulate in your own words - I know what Peterson said or asked but it isn't as if I hadn't already thought of the fact that there was never any coherent editorialized content on "extreme" leftism. I wanted your personal thoughts on that very topic.
I dare say you won't find me nor many other "right/center leaning" people who would defend extremist activity on either end of the spectrum.
It is rare (if it ever happens at all) that a leftist will fail to defend Socialism even in the face of abject failure such as seen in places like China, Venezuela, Cuba...
I have absolutely no hesitation calling out corruption, murder, genocide, ass murder no matter the political "ism" of the perpetrators.

@iThink If I had time I would hash out all the things that worked and didn't work in China, Venezuela, and Cuba, and which were the fault of what leftist ideas and which were due to unique economic conditions or external interference. Sure there are some leftists who are more cynical about American electoral politics and more defensive of farther left regimes, but that's not most democratic socialists or social democrats. I have no stake in their politics because it's not my politics. Those countries are not the European-style social democracies, the New Deal and Great Society programs in the US, or the places where workplace and other economic democratization has been successfully enacted.

I hope you wouldn't defend other extremist activity, but it's not uncommon for people on the right, particularly in this community to invoke violence against Muslims, Mexicans, Central Americans, and leftists, for example. Moreover, many of them voted for a President who regularly dehumanizes such people, sometimes invoking violence himself and echoing the manifestos of nativist killers like Anders Breivik--something he has in common with members of the IDW.

@WilyRickWiles "unique economic conditions or external interference" - yes this is what the Socialist/left likes to do when confronted with the repetitious and devastating failures of socialist regimes. Blame the failures upon "external forces and unique economic conditions" .

@iThink, hahahahahahahahaha. I'm not one to say I tol...errr...fuck it. Told ya so! Haha.

You can pick out the answers you were looking for--the ones you already knew, but ol' ricky won't give you a straight answer. He can't. It doesn't really matter. Power and control, and the far left ain't gonna get that in the proportions they seek by giving you power. There's power in the subterfuge.

@chuckpo I knew that going in but there is some derivative pleasure in tacitly pointing out that the emperor is naked as a jay bird.

@iThink, @chuckpo You guys are impossible to please.

@iThink You do realize that everything I posted was "my own words," right?

@iThink Aside from the tired "but Venezuela" debate, I think I exhaustively answered your question, even consulting a visual aid (which I later drew myself!) to make a complex subject easier to understand. But you don't seem interested in engaging. What did I leave out aside from possibly more detailed definitions of "social democracy," "democratic socialism," "liberalism," etc.? Do you really need me to define those?

Hey @MaskedRiderChris, how's #WalkAway going?

@Peter_Lemonjello Just admit y'all are just intellectually lazy JBP fanboys.

0

The TRUE LEFT is made up of about 1% of the people who are truly left, and control Billions of dollars. The 1% is holding up the FREE GOLDEN RING, distracting those that think they are Left, ie. free college, medical, food, housing and a wage for no work. The CRASH will come when the 1% puts that GOLDEN RING back in their pocket.
The TRUE RIGHT just want to be left alone. No bad feelings toward anyone.
And how would you draw that chart??????

0

Great and accurate chart. I've come to the conclusion that the left is only interested in controlling others and forcing all of us to live in their Utopia fairyland (nightmare). In pursuit of their goals, they willfully or ignorantly suppress anything, thought or speech, that even slightly differs from their narrative. There are increasing fewer sincere and more open-minded leftists - they more closely resemble trained seals. They even castigate classic liberals now. It's both sad and unnerving watching this happen. I'm a praying person and I used to not pray so much for our country or world leaders and such. That is changing now.

0

I've actually made an attempt to plot the dominant political ideologies on a 2 dimensional chart. I think a lot of our trouble communicating about the political spectrum stems from differences in how we would flatten such a chart onto a 1 dimensional line, because different lines have different centers.

For example, in recent decades, US politics has generally been confined to a line between left liberalism and right liberalism whereas European politics has generally been confined to a line between social democracy and what in the US would be the neoliberal center.

With the advent of Trump and Bernie, the American political spectrum is expanding in both directions. If you were to ask a rightist, they'd probably say that today's line runs between Stalinism and right libertarianism but should be confined between Trumpism and anarcho-capitalism.

A leftist on the other hand would acknowledge that most politics occurs between left liberalism and Trumpism, but that they are trying to expand its leftmost point to social democracy and maybe someday democratic socialism.

So where would you draw the line?

0

It reality, American moderates are the true far right. Conservatism is centrist. Alt-right, in my opinion is a product of the left. Rhetorically, the term was nationalized by Hillary Clinton. No Conservative that I know is Alt-right. White supremacists are hardly patriotic as their paranoia of Jews controlling this nation, and their hatred for Catholicism and African-Americans is not at all consistent with the American Right.

0

Yay umm don't think that I really care?

0

I don't believe its very smart for a person to allow all beliefs they have to be so easy for another to predict so easily.com/could be dangerous, making yourself very vulnerable to the manipulation of even outside sources. serpents gaining access to ones ear through radios and tvs

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:41335
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.