What political point do you support from "the opposition's" agenda?

[AreaCode707]

"I'm a _____ but I actually really agree with ______ from the other party's political agenda."

Fill in the blanks for yourself. I'm curious where we have crossover opinions in P&N.

 

[Fern]

Medicare (although I'd like to see the HC system improved so it would be more viable over the long term.)

I agree with NOT privatizing SS.

Fern

 

[Zebo]

I'm pragmatic but probably identify with left more and really agree with no corporate taxes that has been posited by the right. We tax people when they withdraw a check, whether it be work, dividends, capital gains, etc. Taxing companies hurts us in a global economy and people don't move usually.

 

[Moonbeam]

I appear to be a liberal and I don't like to waste money nor do I like debt. I also don't like the idea of giving help away without folk who receive it having to do something to make them feel they earned it.

Actually, I am not a liberal or a conservative but some third thing that recognizes that seeming paradox resolves itself at a higher level of understanding.

Here for example the liberal desire to help the poor and the conservative idea that it makes them lose self sufficiency is resolved by the realization that some folk have no self sufficiency and are in need, but can acquire self sufficiency by doing something that makes them feel they have to some degree done something to meet their own needs.

This insight depends on understanding human nature, that folk are basically good but have learned to be evil. You can give a bum forever and he will just take and take unless he has to do something other than being a bum. If he has to cook his own meal and the meal of somebody else, even if the food is free, he achieves something. Those who give have to do so without hope of success because self hate runs really deep and is very difficult to cure.

 

[Mani]

I am left of center but believe very strongly in personal accountability.

Also believe in fiscal responsibility but that's apparently not a republican or conservative value either.

 

[Craig234]

The problem answering this is that there are two 'right' agendas.

There's the 'real' agendas which is basically to put all the power and wealth into a very few hands, and wrong a lot of people when needed to do so.

Then there's the 'retail' agenda, the one used to sell the party to the voters, and the one that many Republicans are supporting.

I strongly disagree with the 'real' agenda and can't think of anything I agree with. We could find areas of agreement - like 'global nuclear war is bad', I *think* they have switched to now say that before many advocated a first nuclear strike decades ago - but it's not as if that's a real agenda item for them.

There's a lot more to agree with the retail agenda - the problem THERE is how many things they claim as if the left opposes them when they don't.

For example, the right loves to claim the phrase 'fiscal responsibility'. Now, nevermind the facts that it's the Republicans since Reagan who skyrocketed the debt, the Republicans who created the 'starve the beast' strategy because they found they can't get the people to support slashing programs for the people, so they use massive debt to force cuts. Nevermind it was under Clinton (and a Democratic Congress initially) who took the big Republican deficts to zero. We all say there's a big long-term debt problem.

Republicans also love to say the word liberty belongs to them. They're for Liberty, so the other side hates Liberty. Wrong. But I like Liberty.

Another issue that is confused is defense. The right likes to say they like a 'strong defense'. Well, who doesn't want the US not to be conquered?

The thing is, when you get into massive defense industry corruption and extracting hundreds of billions of dollars, when you get into training and sponsoring death squads overseas for our benefit, when you get into 'wars for power' such as the type PNAC advocated saying you have to trash another country from time to time to remind the world who's boss, those aren't exactly 'defending us from invasion'. So 'strong defense' isn't so simple.

I've long said '95% of what's said here about the left is wrong or lies' - that's the starting point for the discussion, the many straw men the right has.

I think most of us agree on a lot more than many think. Showing right-wing voters that their leaders aren't the benevolent servants they think and the progressive leaders aren't Chairman Mao is needed, not just pretending there's an agreed division of views between the sides.

Don't we all want:

Sensible government programs that help people that we can afford, investments that help our economy, enough defense for reasonable safety from foreign threats, services from the Cineter for Disease Control to raw scientific research to the FBI to enforcement of Civil Rights laws?

Don't we all oppose 'corruption', 'special interest' harming of the public interest, bribery, an excessive 'revolving door', lobbyists writing the laws and getting theirs passed, etc.?

So when Republican retail politics say they 'want excessive regulations removed', what if they're not being honest and calling good regulations that keep their donors from crooked activites? Can't I support what they SAY they want, 'excissive regulations removed', and not the excessive corrupt policy they're pursuing under the false name?

That's why it's not so easy so answer this.

Maybe if each side defined 10 or 20 agenda items for their side and the other side could say what they agree with.

How about TARP? A Bush-created program. Some would say corruptly implemented. So there are at least three positions - for TARP, against TARP, and for a modeified TARP.

Which one of those is the 'right' or 'left' position? It was one of the most significant policies in many years, hard to just say 'oh it's not left-right'.

Let has to distinguish blue dog Democrats from progressives, the right has to distinguish corporatist Republicans from Tea Party people.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

^tldr^
I'm an adherent of MoonPie but I actually really agree with the metaphysics derived from LunarBat's perspective.

I consider-myself a penumbraian

 

[Fern]

LOL'ing at Craig's post.

Fern

 

[Zebo]

The problem answering this is that there are two 'right' agendas.

There's the 'real' agendas which is basically to put all the power and wealth into a very few hands, and wrong a lot of people when needed to do so.

Then there's the 'retail' agenda, the one used to sell the party to the voters, and the one that many Republicans are supporting.

I strongly disagree with the 'real' agenda and can't think of anything I agree with. We could find areas of agreement - like 'global nuclear war is bad', I *think* they have switched to now say that before many advocated a first nuclear strike decades ago - but it's not as if that's a real agenda item for them.

There's a lot more to agree with the retail agenda - the problem THERE is how many things they claim as if the left opposes them when they don't.

For example, the right loves to claim the phrase 'fiscal responsibility'. Now, nevermind the facts that it's the Republicans since Reagan who skyrocketed the debt, the Republicans who created the 'starve the beast' strategy because they found they can't get the people to support slashing programs for the people, so they use massive debt to force cuts. Nevermind it was under Clinton (and a Democratic Congress initially) who took the big Republican deficts to zero. We all say there's a big long-term debt problem.

Republicans also love to say the word liberty belongs to them. They're for Liberty, so the other side hates Liberty. Wrong. But I like Liberty.

Another issue that is confused is defense. The right likes to say they like a 'strong defense'. Well, who doesn't want the US not to be conquered?

The thing is, when you get into massive defense industry corruption and extracting hundreds of billions of dollars, when you get into training and sponsoring death squads overseas for our benefit, when you get into 'wars for power' such as the type PNAC advocated saying you have to trash another country from time to time to remind the world who's boss, those aren't exactly 'defending us from invasion'. So 'strong defense' isn't so simple.

I've long said '95% of what's said here about the left is wrong or lies' - that's the starting point for the discussion, the many straw men the right has.

I think most of us agree on a lot more than many think. Showing right-wing voters that their leaders aren't the benevolent servants they think and the progressive leaders aren't Chairman Mao is needed, not just pretending there's an agreed division of views between the sides.

Don't we all want:

Sensible government programs that help people that we can afford, investments that help our economy, enough defense for reasonable safety from foreign threats, services from the Cineter for Disease Control to raw scientific research to the FBI to enforcement of Civil Rights laws?

Don't we all oppose 'corruption', 'special interest' harming of the public interest, bribery, an excessive 'revolving door', lobbyists writing the laws and getting theirs passed, etc.?

So when Republican retail politics say they 'want excessive regulations removed', what if they're not being honest and calling good regulations that keep their donors from crooked activites? Can't I support what they SAY they want, 'excissive regulations removed', and not the excessive corrupt policy they're pursuing under the false name?

That's why it's not so easy so answer this.

Maybe if each side defined 10 or 20 agenda items for their side and the other side could say what they agree with.

How about TARP? A Bush-created program. Some would say corruptly implemented. So there are at least three positions - for TARP, against TARP, and for a modeified TARP.

Which one of those is the 'right' or 'left' position? It was one of the most significant policies in many years, hard to just say 'oh it's not left-right'.

Let has to distinguish blue dog Democrats from progressives, the right has to distinguish corporatist Republicans from Tea Party people.

Even their retail agenda is for top 1%. They are rather open about it and don't try and hide it.

Some examples
Opposition to UHC aka national heath care - well it has to be paid for which raises taxes on (1%) and working people are no longer suitably intimidated by their employer (1%) to have to have that job so the wife/children get their meds.

Law and order - (only for the little guy of course, 3 strikes you're out, etc) They believe the only legitimate function of govt is to protect the haves and have mores (1%) from the have nots. We've talked about this before, left wants to throw money at problems well they throw prison at every problem.

War (aka strong on defense, but the best defense is a good offense) Expediency and fog of war gets no bid contracts for the 1%, and plenty of 1% get very very rich directly and indirectly (war is a racket is a good pamphlet describing this)

Low taxes so obvious. Of course they lower by 1%ers double what working ppl get to sell it but their aim is solely at the 1%ers and thier forms of income which is not wages.

I could go on but they don't try and hide behind retail at all IMO.