Asymmetry in political thinking

[cubby1223]

Yes, both sides sometimes resist compromise. As I've already said, this is not equal. While being uncompromising is generally a bad thing, the gap between the parties is so huge on this (as demonstrated in both that study and this thread) that pretending they are both equal is a damaging fiction.

You can go around and around talking about all the fluff, but it doesn't mean anything.

Obama is President, and his style of political action requires an enemy to fight against to advance his goals, advance the goals of the Democratic Party. It's pretty darn simple - you cannot portray the other side as the enemy working against you, then expect the other side to engage in compromises.

Conservatives don't like being portrayed as the enemy today just like liberals didn't like being portrayed as unamerican a decade ago just so the parties could wield muscle.

There needs to be a massive culture change in D.C.

But dang if I have any clue how to change the culture. I don't think anyone does.

Can't just say "be more compromising" and expect it to happen. Need to look deeper to the causes, and keep an open mind that "the other side" often has valid reasons for believing in what they believe in. Can't chalk everything up to Fox News brainwashing.



But the bottom line is anger and hatred motivates people to get involved and win elections. We have exactly the government we voted for.

 

[ivwshane]

You can go around and around talking about all the fluff, but it doesn't mean anything.

Obama is President, and his style of political action requires an enemy to fight against to advance his goals, advance the goals of the Democratic Party. It's pretty darn simple - you cannot portray the other side as the enemy working against you, then expect the other side to engage in compromises.

Conservatives don't like being portrayed as the enemy today just like liberals didn't like being portrayed as unamerican a decade ago just so the parties could wield muscle.

There needs to be a massive culture change in D.C.

But dang if I have any clue how to change the culture. I don't think anyone does.

Can't just say "be more compromising" and expect it to happen. Need to look deeper to the causes, and keep an open mind that "the other side" often has valid reasons for believing in what they believe in. Can't chalk everything up to Fox News brainwashing.



But the bottom line is anger and hatred motivates people to get involved and win elections. We have exactly the government we voted for.

So we have one party who is more willing than the other party to compromise, who do you think votes for them? Guess who the problem is then

 

[michal1980]

So we have one party who is more willing than the other party to compromise, who do you think votes for them? Guess who the problem is then

please define compromise.


For example.

The left comes in from a position that they want guns banned.
The right does not want gun rights restricted.

What compromise does the left give if they don't get guns banned right away? If they restrict gun access today, they have made progress towards banning guns. What has the right gotten in this compromise? nothing.

So its a bit disingenuous to say the right doesn't compromise, if you ask people to deny their fundamental beliefs, you should not expect much compromise. This current admin has been asking the right to give up fundamental belief after fundamental belief, and then you have the balls to say the right doesn't compromise?

 

[momeNt]

Normally I believe you're just trolling, but this is actually an insightful post.

Normally I just post to amuse myself with extremely partisan sarcasm, since nobody wants to hear about anarchy or libertarianism. Occasionally I will bust out my thinking cap though and wow this forum!

Thanks and you're welcome.

 

[momeNt]

Which part of the post is insightful? The parts where he equates Republicans with small government?

Not all republicans dogmatically want small government, but I would guess that the majority of the party has small government as their PRIMARY concern, which is ideological simply because it isn't something specific by nature.

I mean, look at it conversely, could you honestly even try and say the primary concern of a democrat is big government? It may be specific policies that are "big government" policies, but not big government itself, and dogmatically supporting any big government measure. Whereas you could easily say many republicans primary concern is to make the government smaller, and not really point out specific things.

It's been mentioned on this forum by liberals that grill Ron Paul supporters that they crumble when grilled on what specific policies they like. It's because they support him because he stands for smaller, constitutional government, that's what they like. Not because "Obama gonna pay my mortgage"

 

[Vic]

Not all republicans dogmatically want small government, but I would guess that the majority of the party has small government as their PRIMARY concern, which is ideological simply because it isn't something specific by nature.

I mean, look at it conversely, could you honestly even try and say the primary concern of a democrat is big government? It may be specific policies that are "big government" policies, but not big government itself, and dogmatically supporting any big government measure. Whereas you could easily say many republicans primary concern is to make the government smaller, and not really point out specific things.

It's been mentioned on this forum by liberals that grill Ron Paul supporters that they crumble when grilled on what specific policies they like. It's because they support him because he stands for smaller, constitutional government, that's what they like. Not because "Obama gonna pay my mortgage"

Whatever. I used to be as libertarian as they come, and then I spent 5 years of my life as a loss mitigation manager during the mortgage crisis. The one thing I learned from the experience is that no one wants Obama to pay for their mortgage as much as Republicans/conservatives/libertarians do. Ideology is a scam.

 

[dank69]

Not all republicans dogmatically want small government, but I would guess that the majority of the party has small government as their PRIMARY concern, which is ideological simply because it isn't something specific by nature.

I mean, look at it conversely, could you honestly even try and say the primary concern of a democrat is big government? It may be specific policies that are "big government" policies, but not big government itself, and dogmatically supporting any big government measure. Whereas you could easily say many republicans primary concern is to make the government smaller, and not really point out specific things.

It's been mentioned on this forum by liberals that grill Ron Paul supporters that they crumble when grilled on what specific policies they like. It's because they support him because he stands for smaller, constitutional government, that's what they like. Not because "Obama gonna pay my mortgage"

Republicans and Libertarians want small government in all the wrong places. They don't understand that government is our only defense against money. More and more every day the GOP has eroded the government's power to stop those with money, by making it the way it is now; the only way to get elected is to be backed by people with money. Now our politicians all owe favors to people with money. Another step in the wrong direction this week with the SC ruling about donations, and GOP shitheads are fucking cheering for it right before our eyes. Idiots. Every last fucking one of them.

 

[ivwshane]

please define compromise.


For example.

The left comes in from a position that they want guns banned.
The right does not want gun rights restricted.

What compromise does the left give if they don't get guns banned right away? If they restrict gun access today, they have made progress towards banning guns. What has the right gotten in this compromise? nothing.

So its a bit disingenuous to say the right doesn't compromise, if you ask people to deny their fundamental beliefs, you should not expect much compromise. This current admin has been asking the right to give up fundamental belief after fundamental belief, and then you have the balls to say the right doesn't compromise?

No the disingenuous part is the premise of your scenario. Democrats don't want guns banned, hell! Many of them are gun owners themselves (you know anything about gabby Gifford?). Rather, dems, want a decrease in gun violence. So now that we have an actual starting point and not one you made up or heard/read on your favorite propaganda source, go ahead and see if your conclusion is the same.

 

[michal1980]

No the disingenuous part is the premise of your scenario. Democrats don't want guns banned, hell! Many of them are gun owners themselves (you know anything about gabby Gifford?). Rather, dems, want a decrease in gun violence. So now that we have an actual starting point and not one you made up or heard/read on your favorite propaganda source, go ahead and see if your conclusion is the same.

Even if we accept that Dems don't want guns banned. A stance I strongly disagree with, there might be a few Dems that don't want guns banned, but in the long run they do. They have proven that time and time again by their actions when they have vast majorities.

But even if they don't want them banned. They want to restrict people rights with respect to guns. Republicans don't. The two ideology's are polar opposites.

Therefor republicans agreeing to any restrictions on guns violates there ideology. Democrats gaining any restrictions supports their ideology. Given that's the case why is it that republicans have to compromise on their beliefs, but the same is not asked for democrats.

 

[michal1980]

Not all republicans dogmatically want small government, but I would guess that the majority of the party has small government as their PRIMARY concern, which is ideological simply because it isn't something specific by nature.

I mean, look at it conversely, could you honestly even try and say the primary concern of a democrat is big government? It may be specific policies that are "big government" policies, but not big government itself, and dogmatically supporting any big government measure. Whereas you could easily say many republicans primary concern is to make the government smaller, and not really point out specific things.

It's been mentioned on this forum by liberals that grill Ron Paul supporters that they crumble when grilled on what specific policies they like. It's because they support him because he stands for smaller, constitutional government, that's what they like. Not because "Obama gonna pay my mortgage"

How do you not want big government when you want always support big government policies? The only small government policies liberals support come to gay rights, and women's right to murder. Past that they see the government as the answer to every problem.

 

[momeNt]

How do you not want big government when you want always support big government policies? The only small government policies liberals support come to gay rights, and women's right to murder. Past that they see the government as the answer to every problem.

There are some people that parrot democratic party policies through and through, but that would actually require someone to know all the policies, since the platform itself is not specifically "big government". It may be all policies that are indeed big government policies, but there is a distinction between the two, that's what the paper is pointing out I believe. That is how liberals and conservatives think differently.

 

[momeNt]

Republicans and Libertarians want small government in all the wrong places. They don't understand that government is our only defense against money. More and more every day the GOP has eroded the government's power to stop those with money, by making it the way it is now; the only way to get elected is to be backed by people with money. Now our politicians all owe favors to people with money. Another step in the wrong direction this week with the SC ruling about donations, and GOP shitheads are fucking cheering for it right before our eyes. Idiots. Every last fucking one of them.

Well that's your opinion, and it doesn't really pertain to this paper. Like at all. But it does point out that your concern is about money inequality, not big government.

 

[dank69]

Well that's your opinion, and it doesn't really pertain to this paper. Like at all. But it does point out that your concern is about money inequality, not big government.

Don't make my viewpoint out to be what it isn't. I'm not for 'wealth distribution' per se, I am just aware of how much power tremendous wealth brings, as I am sure you are, too. So tell me, if we don't ensure our government has the power to stand up for the little guys against billionaires and huge corporations that prize profits over public safety, who will stand up for them? Your militia?

 

[Attic]

"If there is any kind of deep, dark conspiracy, then it is certainly predicated on dividing the sheep into factions based on race, religion, etc. The Us vs Them attitude.

It is complete hypocorism to believe that others are sheep when you are the ones buying into the bigotry."


This is not directed at OP or anyone, it's just something I came across recently that ties into the political debate and ideas.

Generally I think the best answer to the troubles facing the USA and the people here, is to champion individual freedoms, rather than being divided and focused onto group based freedoms and issues. Solve individual freedoms and rights and you help everyone and also set a tone of tolerance for opposing ideas. Obama is quite bad at this, and is clearly a divisive and manipulative leader. Thats a horrible thing for a country that is seeking real change.

I hope the left vs right debate can be replaced by what works and doesn't work and why, but we are ruled in an increasingly divisive and manipulated manner so this isn't something that will just happen.

"The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -Lewis

I generally think you could ask folks of different political beliefs and either have folks see the robber barron as politicias and their friends, or as CEO's/wall street. I think it's based on power alone, dems and repubs have different ideas about where that power should be placed and/or tolerated, but neither seem to understand the general unyielding corruption that occurs from centralized systems because they only see it's evil in their opponents way of doing things.

The problem we face comes from leaders on the R and L of nearly every issue.

it’s troubling when we have to assume that everything we hear from any politician or any central banker is being said for effect, not for the straightforward expression of an honest opinion.

At this time it's best to assume everything we hear from these types is said for effect.

At some point I hope the term "left" and "right" will leave a bad taste in everybodies mouth once it is made clear that leaders on either side are serving special interests in nearly all cases.

The way forward is in free, moderate, and independent thinking. The left vs right will only keep the status quo in place.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Don't make my viewpoint out to be what it isn't. I'm not for 'wealth distribution' per se, I am just aware of how much power tremendous wealth brings, as I am sure you are, too. So tell me, if we don't ensure our government has the power to stand up for the little guys against billionaires and huge corporations that prize profits over public safety, who will stand up for them? Your militia?

The problem is that neither the government nor the "militia" so to speak is capable of really putting our interests over themselves. I've seen the government screw up so much with health care that any fool should see as counterproductive simply because it's big and dumb and it's primary interest is in retaining control for political purposes. On the other hand I work in a crushing environment which is also harmful to us as practitioners and ultimately against the people we serve. That's because bean counters with no understanding are in charge.

The thing which should scare us is that there is substantially no difference between the two. They have effectively merged into a single entity which is so huge and overwhelming that people don't realize they are talking about the same thing, the same mentality. Neither Democrats nor Republicans, liberal nor conservative, get their minds out of the fishbowl to see the cat with it's paw above their head.

 

[nehalem256]

How do you not want big government when you want always support big government policies? The only small government policies liberals support come to gay rights, and women's right to murder. Past that they see the government as the answer to every problem.

Actually it should be pretty obvious that having the government involved in more people's relationships is exactly the opposite of small government.

 

[dank69]

The problem is that neither the government nor the "militia" so to speak is capable of really putting our interests over themselves. I've seen the government screw up so much with health care that any fool should see as counterproductive simply because it's big and dumb and it's primary interest is in retaining control for political purposes. On the other hand I work in a crushing environment which is also harmful to us as practitioners and ultimately against the people we serve. That's because bean counters with no understanding are in charge.

The thing which should scare us is that there is substantially no difference between the two. They have effectively merged into a single entity which is so huge and overwhelming that people don't realize they are talking about the same thing, the same mentality. Neither Democrats nor Republicans, liberal nor conservative, get their minds out of the fishbowl to see the cat with it's paw above their head.

That bolded statement is false. We can "fire" elected officials on election day. We have zero power to control other people/corporations that are screwing the public in persuit of profit.

Now, with that said, the current state of government is FUBAR, because of CU and now the new ruling just adds to that. Democrats and liberal judges fought those. They continue to fight those. That is the ONLY issue that should be of anyone's concern on voting day. Anyone who doesn't vote Democrat for whatever reason, the blame lies squarely on your shoulders. Whether you sit on the sidelines because you can't see that simple difference between the parties, or worse, actually vote for the GOP in any election, you have only yourself to blame for the corruption in politics. The GOP doesn't even try to hide it. They are fucking proud of their ability to continue to give more advantages to the wealthy. Meanwhile, they have all the rubes believing that our problems stem from poor people gaming the system.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That bolded statement is false. We can "fire" elected officials on election day. We have zero power to control other people/corporations that are screwing the public in persuit of profit.

Now, with that said, the current state of government is FUBAR, because of CU and now the new ruling just adds to that. Democrats and liberal judges fought those. They continue to fight those. That is the ONLY issue that should be of anyone's concern on voting day. Anyone who doesn't vote Democrat for whatever reason, the blame lies squarely on your shoulders. Whether you sit on the sidelines because you can't see that simple difference between the parties, or worse, actually vote for the GOP in any election, you have only yourself to blame for the corruption in politics. The GOP doesn't even try to hide it. They are fucking proud of their ability to continue to give more advantages to the wealthy. Meanwhile, they have all the rubes believing that our problems stem from poor people gaming the system.

You are naive. You can fire an individual once every election cycle. You can't hold him or her accountable in any way during. You can't fire his ideology nor his party in any way other than in theory. You merely embrace ignorance. Your party is corrupt and self interested. You point at the GOP and you are right to do so. Meanwhile your party fights for power and control for its own benefit. You yourself are part of the problem, and I realized that with your defense of Obamacare. Remember that? The only answer you would accept was a "yes or no" on whether is was a direct harm in an isolated context.

Obama could have said "Aspirins should be given to treat cancer" and you could have done the same thing "Well are aspirins harmful to cancer patients"? I would have said no, and you would have moved on, satisfied that the GOP would have done worse.

So many are Uncle Toms and don't even know it.

 

[momeNt]

Don't make my viewpoint out to be what it isn't. I'm not for 'wealth distribution' per se, I am just aware of how much power tremendous wealth brings, as I am sure you are, too. So tell me, if we don't ensure our government has the power to stand up for the little guys against billionaires and huge corporations that prize profits over public safety, who will stand up for them? Your militia?

I believe that government has been a tool used by the wealthy and corporations to ensure their well-being more than it has been used to help the little guy. It will continue to support them, while throwing small little treats to the little guy to make them think that the small little upticks it provides actually outpaces the steady decline in quality of life and real wages.

You know why universal healthcare wasn't provided 50 years ago? Because it wasn't needed. So do you think that by providing it now we are actually progressing? It's more of a dead cat bounce than progress. The trajectory is still downward. But keep on thinking that the government has your interests truly at heart.

To try and answer the latter part of your post from an anarcho-capitalist perspective would take too much time, so I'll just leave that alone.

edit: As to the bold, I never said you were for wealth distribution. I said wealth inequality is a concern of yours. So your putting words in my mouth so it looks like i'm putting words in your mouth. I think I'm correct in saying that wealth inequality is a concern, i made no attempt to say that you would support wealth redistribution by the government. So yea.... good one.

 

[kia75]

Are civil rights up for debate? Is there a compromise to be had? Or should they be the rights of all, regardless of race, religion, and orientation?

Does that make Democrats ideologues, uninterested in compromise?

Civil rights have been up for debate and compromises have been had for over 200 years. This is an excellent example of Progressive thought, though not Democratic thought, because remember, it was the Democrats that held back Civil rights for decades.

Civil Rights didn't come fully formed at the birth of our nation. It actually went from Slavery is perfectly fine, to Slavery is ok if you don't mistreat your slaves, to Slavery is illegal but as long as black are seperate but equal everything is fine, to marriage between different races is illegal, to civil rights.

It was a long long long long long hard-fought process. And Progressives compromised in the past, and would compromise again.

Another example would be Women's rights. Most progressives are for full legal rights but they understand that the thought of a women being equal in Afghanistan doesn't fly. Instead they work for equal access to schools for little girls and equal access to birth control. The hope is that once these girls go to school and grow up they will lead the fight for equal voting rights in their community. They also might sacrifice girl's equal access to schools for enough food or water for a community, believing that if everyone starves or dies from disease then there won't be a chance for women to achieve equal rights in the future.


You're asking progressives to capitulate on battles already won, and nobody does that. But rather then an all or nothing plan, progressives try to do baby steps. They look at the main goal (Equal rights for women, civil rights, etc) and try to make as many forward steps as they can. No progressive will capitulate on a Women's right to vote in the US because that right has already been achieved. They will compromise on a women's right to vote if they can gain other things in other countries, with the hope that within the next few generations women gain that right.

 

[BoberFett]

Republicans and Libertarians want small government in all the wrong places. They don't understand that government is our only defense against money. More and more every day the GOP has eroded the government's power to stop those with money, by making it the way it is now; the only way to get elected is to be backed by people with money. Now our politicians all owe favors to people with money. Another step in the wrong direction this week with the SC ruling about donations, and GOP shitheads are fucking cheering for it right before our eyes. Idiots. Every last fucking one of them.

Right there, we have disagreement that will prevent any compromise.

Government is wholly responsible for giving those with money the power they have. Look behind the most hated wealthy people and you'll find government providing their money and power.

Government is the problem that bills itself as the solution.

 

[nehalem256]

Civil rights have been up for debate and compromises have been had for over 200 years. This is an excellent example of Progressive thought, though not Democratic thought, because remember, it was the Democrats that held back Civil rights for decades.

Civil Rights didn't come fully formed at the birth of our nation. It actually went from Slavery is perfectly fine, to Slavery is ok if you don't mistreat your slaves, to Slavery is illegal but as long as black are seperate but equal everything is fine, to marriage between different races is illegal, to civil rights.

It was a long long long long long hard-fought process. And Progressives compromised in the past, and would compromise again.

Another example would be Women's rights. Most progressives are for full legal rights but they understand that the thought of a women being equal in Afghanistan doesn't fly. Instead they work for equal access to schools for little girls and equal access to birth control. The hope is that once these girls go to school and grow up they will lead the fight for equal voting rights in their community. They also might sacrifice girl's equal access to schools for enough food or water for a community, believing that if everyone starves or dies from disease then there won't be a chance for women to achieve equal rights in the future.


You're asking progressives to capitulate on battles already won, and nobody does that. But rather then an all or nothing plan, progressives try to do baby steps. They look at the main goal (Equal rights for women, civil rights, etc) and try to make as many forward steps as they can. No progressive will capitulate on a Women's right to vote in the US because that right has already been achieved. They will compromise on a women's right to vote if they can gain other things in other countries, with the hope that within the next few generations women gain that right.

Sounds to me like you just described why liberals are more willing to compromise.

Compromise results in liberals slowly winning.

 

[kia75]

Sounds to me like you just described why liberals are more willing to compromise.

Compromise results in liberals slowly winning.

If you only look at where progressives have won, then yes. How is alcohol prohibition working out? What about putting the United States onto the Silver Standard? 40 acres and a mule? How are those progressive policies working out?

Death of a thousand paper-cuts is a valid strategy, but it's not the only strategy, and is no guarantee of success.

 

[dank69]

You are naive. You can fire an individual once every election cycle. You can't hold him or her accountable in any way during. You can't fire his ideology nor his party in any way other than in theory. You merely embrace ignorance.

Yes we can fire them once every election cycle. Which is more than we can do to corporations. That is the point. At least we have one thing we can do versus nothing.

Your party is corrupt and self interested.

Then why do all liberal judges vote against shit like CU? Keeping money in politics is in their self interest, right? So why wasn't CU a 9-0 decision? If every fence sitting idiot had voted D the past 35 years CU would have gone down differently. You have yourselves to blame and nobody else.

You point at the GOP and you are right to do so. Meanwhile your party fights for power and control for its own benefit. You yourself are part of the problem, and I realized that with your defense of Obamacare. Remember that? The only answer you would accept was a "yes or no" on whether is was a direct harm in an isolated context.

I wanted specifics on how Obamacare hurts because you were claiming that Obamacare was bad. You weren't claiming Obamacare was neutral. You were claiming it was bad. So sorry for asking you for specific reasons to back your claim.

Obama could have said "Aspirins should be given to treat cancer" and you could have done the same thing "Well are aspirins harmful to cancer patients"? I would have said no, and you would have moved on, satisfied that the GOP would have done worse.

So many are Uncle Toms and don't even know it.

Get over yourself. You fence sitting jackasses that can't tell the difference between the parties when it is staring you right in the face ALLOWED this to happen. Go ahead. Tell me why you think CU would not have ended different if D had been in power since 1980. Or maybe you're even worse than I thought and think CU ruling was good? LOL

 

[dank69]

I believe that government has been a tool used by the wealthy and corporations to ensure their well-being more than it has been used to help the little guy. It will continue to support them, while throwing small little treats to the little guy to make them think that the small little upticks it provides actually outpaces the steady decline in quality of life and real wages.

You know why universal healthcare wasn't provided 50 years ago? Because it wasn't needed. So do you think that by providing it now we are actually progressing? It's more of a dead cat bounce than progress. The trajectory is still downward. But keep on thinking that the government has your interests truly at heart.

All I can tell you is one party tried to keep money out of politics and one did not. You can draw your own conclusions and pretend they are no different.

To try and answer the latter part of your post from an anarcho-capitalist perspective would take too much time, so I'll just leave that alone.

I am guessing because you know how insane it will sound.

edit: As to the bold, I never said you were for wealth distribution. I said wealth inequality is a concern of yours. So your putting words in my mouth so it looks like i'm putting words in your mouth. I think I'm correct in saying that wealth inequality is a concern, i made no attempt to say that you would support wealth redistribution by the government. So yea.... good one.

Hey, when you phrase it as simple "money inequality" that makes it sound like you think I just don't want anyone to be rich. If that isn't what you meant, well, I can't read minds.