User Tag List

First 747555657585967 Last

Results 561 to 570 of 798

  1. #561
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I don't know much about Eliot actually (besides the name). I think when push comes to shove, distributism is left wing. Even if they themselves don't want the label, to be against laisse faire economics would be labeled left wing by their opponents.
    That's an odd way of describing what's "left" and "right", especially since for this to work would mean placing Classical Liberals(or "liberal conservatives") as the main representatives of the whole conservative spectrum. This also means ignoring the anti-captialist aspects that have existed among other strains of conservatives; who opposed laisse faire economics in favor of an embedded economy governed by higher moral principles. This kind of logic is behind much of Christian social thinking, including Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum. Marx even referred to this as "reactionary socialism".

    Concerning Distributism; the whole concept of "Left" and "Right" has largely been rejected as the superficial contest between Hudge and Gudge. This was a major point in Belloc's polemic the Party System. Thomas Storck, a contemporary Distributist, further articulates this concept in "The Superficiality of 'Left' and 'Right'.

    Here's a point he makes concerning trying to judge one's place on the ideological spectrum purely by its attitude towards laisee-faire:
    For example, the authoritarian regimes of the 1930s, such as Fascism in Italy and the governments of Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal, are considered to be on the Right. Yet the economic policies of these states, supposedly one of the key points in determining whether an ideology is left or right, were clearly unlike those of the libertarians or Reaganites. These regimes favored and practiced regulation of the economy, directly or via intermediate bodies, and, so they argued, for the sake of the common good. They did not accept, even in theory, the unregulated market or regard economics as outside political considerations. Whether or not the economic policies of Mussolini, Franco, or Salazar ever really served the poor and the working class, as their proponents claimed, is beside the point. What is important is that these governments’ approach to economics regarded the state as one of the chief forces for good in the economy. Yet if the European authoritarian states and the Anglo-American free-marketeers are both of the Right, what consistent economic doctrine does the Right have?
    Salazar was a great hero to the original Distributists, and in no way can one argue he was of the "Left".

  2. #562
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    More analysis of the Republican quagmire, why not?
    Lipstick on an Elephant.

    Anyone who turned to Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s “five stages of grief” to track the fallout from the Republicans’ 2012 defeat could see that Denial arrived right on schedule Election Night, when Karl Rove self-immolated rather than accept that Barack Obama had won reelection. Anger followed the morning after—with much Republican rage aimed at Mitt Romney, a loser so instantly maligned and deserted by his own troops that until he finally resurfaced this week for an interview on Fox News he might as well have been on a Mormon mission to Mars for all anyone knew or cared. What we’ve seen ever since is Bargaining, tinged with more than a touch of stage four, Depression. Republicans of various stripes are caroming like billiard balls among cable-news channels, op-ed pages, and WTF postmortem panel discussions, trying to identify a formula that might salvage a party embraced by 22 percent of the public, according to a USA Today–Pew survey in mid-February.



    It’s gotten so gloomy that at the annual House Republican retreat just before Inauguration Day in January, the motivational speakers included the executive who turned around Domino’s Pizza and the first blind man to reach the top of Mount Everest. Were the GOP a television network, it would be fifth-place NBC, falling not only behind its traditional competitors but Univision. Every postelection poll, with the possible exception of any conducted in Dick Morris’s bunker, finds that voters favor the Democrats’ positions on virtually every major issue, usually by large margins: immigration reform, gun restrictions, abortion rights, gay marriage, climate change, raising the minimum wage, and the need for higher tax revenue to accompany spending cuts in any deficit-reduction plan. Given that losing hand, what’s a party to do? It’s far easier for NBC to cancel Smash than for the GOP to give the hook to an elected official like Steve Stockman, the Texas congressman whose guest at the State of the Union was the rocker turned NRA spokesman Ted Nugent, best known for telling the president to “suck on my machine gun.” For every Todd Akin who fades, another crazy Stockman (or two) springs up. Strategies to work around the party’s entrenched liabilities have been proliferating since November 6, as Republicans desperately try to stave off the terminal Kübler-Ross stage of Acceptance.
    Christie-Huntsman for 2016! I'm working on a slogan for them. It's a little unpolished at the moment, but for now it goes like this: "Republicans don't have to be fucking insane!"
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #563
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    This is related to another issue that too often is overlooked; concerning how there are different forms of conservatives and different forms of conservative thought. There is no one "Right", just as there is no one "Left".

    A short video summarizing some of these different forms of conservatives.



    The Wallstreet Journal article I posted seems to be arguing in the manner of the "One Nation Conservatism" tradition(at least as outlined in the video).

  4. #564
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Hey @DiscoBiscuit, thought this would interest you and be relevant to this thread, from the Wall Street Journal:

    Republicans and Their Faulty Moral Arithmetic.

    IMO, this would help demonstrate a potential role social conservatism could play in the GOP's platform; for example how the promotion of strong families and communities can be an alternative way of helping the poor than what the Democrats propose in that field. Strong families and communities tend to look after one another, under the teaching of "love thy neighbor"(to use a religious foundation here).
    Yes I agree that these kind of policies would be a more effective use of the energy of social conservatives.

    If we could eventually roll gay marriage into this support for families, that would be even better.

    We could attach education reform to that, and we have the beginnings of a domestic policy agenda that will resonate with the modern electorate.

    I hope it doesn't take too long for us to make the policy shift.

  5. #565
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    More analysis of the Republican quagmire, why not?
    Lipstick on an Elephant.



    Christie-Huntsman for 2016! I'm working on a slogan for them. It's a little unpolished at the moment, but for now it goes like this: "Republicans don't have to be fucking insane!"
    New York magazine has a less than rosy opinion of Republican reform efforts... Say it isn't so.

    I might as well try to figure out what kind a president Obama has been by listening to Rush. His opinion on Obama would be about as unbiased as NYmag's opinion of Republican reform.

  6. #566
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    For example, the authoritarian regimes of the 1930s, such as Fascism in Italy and the governments of Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal, are considered to be on the Right. Yet the economic policies of these states, supposedly one of the key points in determining whether an ideology is left or right, were clearly unlike those of the libertarians or Reaganites. These regimes favored and practiced regulation of the economy, directly or via intermediate bodies, and, so they argued, for the sake of the common good. They did not accept, even in theory, the unregulated market or regard economics as outside political considerations. Whether or not the economic policies of Mussolini, Franco, or Salazar ever really served the poor and the working class, as their proponents claimed, is beside the point. What is important is that these governments’ approach to economics regarded the state as one of the chief forces for good in the economy. Yet if the European authoritarian states and the Anglo-American free-marketeers are both of the Right, what consistent economic doctrine does the Right have?
    So the other alternative to laissez faire is "Mussolini"? I'm not sure that's making much of a case. And as far as I know, the only social conservatives who supported that movement was a highly controversial papacy. Maybe there's some philosophical background I'm failing to recognize here, but all I see is a disaster.

  7. #567
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quite the trifecta of young Senators Mike Lee and Ted Cruz led by Rand Paul in a filibuster of Brennan right now. Not being killed by your own government without a trial is kind of a big deal.

    http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

    Interestingly this is front page of Huffpo and Drudge, but not a peep on CBS, CNN, or msnbc.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  8. #568
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    This is an interesting article from The American Conservative concerning the shifting political winds regarding the sequester:

    Is the tide turning for the GOP?

    Conventional wisdom in Washington is a creature of the daily news cycle. It can evaporate overnight. For now, though, the budget cuts known as sequestration are being spun as a victory for House Republicans. Officially, neither the White House nor the House leadership was in favor of the sequester per se. But Republicans staked out a position that, at least temporarily, was a win-win: if the cuts were averted, great; but if no agreement could be reached on how to responsibly replace the cuts, then they should stick.

    I’m still doubtful that the sequester will remain fully in place, but, in the meantime, it’s worth registering a couple of arguments that the sequester isn’t just a short-term win for Republicans. From this vantage point, the fiscal cliff deal was a high-water mark for Obama’s second term.

    The first is from GOP strategist and former House leadership aide John Feehery. He writes in The Hill:

    [T]he White House has gotten nowhere on its two biggest non-fiscal legislative agenda items, immigration and gun control. On the fiscal issues, the Republicans have succeeded in getting 98 percent of the Bush tax cuts made permanent. On spending, they have been successful in rolling back spending to 2009 levels. And what has the president achieved in these first two months of the new year? Outside of putting new Cabinet secretaries in place — and not without some controversy — he hasn’t accomplished much.
    It seems to me it’s a little early to break out the champagne, but Feehery has a point: President Obama himself conceded that this year is crucial for his second-term legislative agenda. In that light, two months really is a long time. If his fiscal leverage is gone, and the rest of his agenda a prisoner of Senate otiosity—well, that doesn’t bode well for 2014 and beyond, does it?

    Even more intriguing is Matthew Miller’s analysis in the Washington Post, in which Miller sees Obama’s agenda in the jaws of the “meaningless elite consensus” on fiscal responsibility. Since Obama rhetorically shares this consensus, and since voters see debt as a “values issue,” Miller writes, next week’s unveiling of a Republican proposal to balance the budget in 10 years could be a game-changer:

    Democrats can’t come close to [Rep. Paul] Ryan’s goal in a responsible way without raising taxes on people who earn less than $250,000 a year. That’s the one thing Obama will never do (sorry, but the president didn’t mean it when he said he’d tell us what we needed to hear, not what we wanted to hear). He, like Republicans, will leave that painful truth to a successor. …

    So what will they do? They can say balance isn’t important. They can say it is and fudge the numbers in a Democratic answer to the big Ryan fudge. Either way, these questions will expose rifts in the Democratic caucus that could keep the White House scrambling for months, as progressives rightly say we need to focus on jobs and growth, and centrists rightly say the party can’t be cast as fiscally irresponsible.
    I don’t profess to know what will happen six days from now, let alone six months.

    But I agree with Feehery and Miller in this sense: Democrats are in for a much tougher battle than most thought two months ago, and liberal skeptics of the fiscal-cliff compromise are starting to look prescient.

    The key, as I’ve been arguing all along, will be how wisely Republicans use their leverage: Will they get something in return for it, or will they bludgeon themselves with the lever?

  9. #569
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Brennan is the only guy worth serious questioning. Too bad they're idiots and blew their load on Hagel's face.

  10. #570
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    So the other alternative to laissez faire is "Mussolini"? I'm not sure that's making much of a case. And as far as I know, the only social conservatives who supported that movement was a highly controversial papacy. Maybe there's some philosophical background I'm failing to recognize here, but all I see is a disaster.
    Great way to miss the point. Have a nice day.

Similar Threads

  1. Former Republican staffer's extremely scathing critique of the Republican party.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 07:29 PM
  2. The Future of Microprocessors
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 04:23 AM
  3. Unity within the upper echelons of the Republican Party begins to crack.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. The Death of the Republican Party, Stardate Unknown
    By Wind Up Rex in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 01:58 PM
  5. Your Predictions About the Future of Psychotherapy
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 07:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO