Political orthodoxy in American politics

InstaHate

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,980
Ratings
4,548
For the last couple of years, I was probably what Pauly Chase Pauly Chase would call a RINO. I guess if I had had to claim a particular identity, it would have been a Rockefeller Republican or Nixonian Republican (Nixon was on his way to being a great president before shooting himself in the foot!). I think doghouse doghouse probably is in a similar neck of the political woods. As a reaction to Obama, some of the features which defined the GOP in the 90s and early 00s changed. That’s all well and good, as parties should evolve. For me, I began questioning whether I wanted to continue identifying as a Republican around 2010 (and as of mid-2017, I no longer do), when the GOP decided stymieing the current president was its #1 priority, setting a new tone—and low—for American politics that the Democrats will I’m sure continue if they take the House. I suppose that, like McCain, I think the institution of democratic governance is more important than any policy, which is why the current political dynamics—manifesting in both parties—is so troublesome.

So this idea of RINOs, and the new Far Left branch of the Democratic Party, has made me wonder about the dangers of party orthodoxy. If we had a proper multi-party, parliamentary system, it would be less of a problem. But since we don’t, an intolerance for political diversity in political parties will only serve to further polarize the US and lead to more zero-sum politics.
 

Dropbear

Member in Good Standing
Messages
2,306
Ratings
1,214
I wish there were a Far Left in the Democrat party - I’d join it! All I see is a morass of self-serving liberalism.

My politics cover a lot of the spectrum- from FDR centerism to pretty hardcore libertarian-socialism. But growing up in a parliamentary democracy- I’m not into political purity and partisanship. You try to get your political viewpoint voted in to office each election and then you allow them to find common ground with other viewpoints and leaders.

Finally, as I get older and more pessimistic about the US, I’m increasingly looking for character in a leader. Obama and Webb aren’t close at all to me on most issues, but I’d trust them to do what they believe is best and honourable. That would still be an improvement over where we are today.
 

doghouse

King Of The Elite Idiots
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
9,964
Ratings
9,454
For the last couple of years, I was probably what Pauly Chase Pauly Chase would call a RINO. I guess if I had had to claim a particular identity, it would have been a Rockefeller Republican or Nixonian Republican (Nixon was on his way to being a great president before shooting himself in the foot!). I think doghouse doghouse probably is in a similar neck of the political woods. As a reaction to Obama, some of the features which defined the GOP in the 90s and early 00s changed. That’s all well and good, as parties should evolve. For me, I began questioning whether I wanted to continue identifying as a Republican around 2010 (and as of mid-2017, I no longer do), when the GOP decided stymieing the current president was its #1 priority, setting a new tone—and low—for American politics that the Democrats will I’m sure continue if they take the House. I suppose that, like McCain, I think the institution of democratic governance is more important than any policy, which is why the current political dynamics—manifesting in both parties—is so troublesome.

So this idea of RINOs, and the new Far Left branch of the Democratic Party, has made me wonder about the dangers of party orthodoxy. If we had a proper multi-party, parliamentary system, it would be less of a problem. But since we don’t, an intolerance for political diversity in political parties will only serve to further polarize the US and lead to more zero-sum politics.
I had to re read this once I got to my computer. Glad I did, because I initially thought you were calling Pauly Chase a Rockafeller Republican and I almost spit out my coffee.

Yes, and I generally still am, it's just that the Republican party has no room for that anymore. Like any self aware individual, I've definitely changed certain opinions when confronted with evidence. I'm believe that the only way to keep capitalism healthy is to increase the safety net, up to a guaranteed minium income. I absolutely do not identify as Republican anymore, it's been several years on that at least, even before The Orange Yeast Infection was nominated. I'm not Democrat either, though they have some centrist politicians that are much closer to what I would like to see than anything the Republican party puts out these days. Whoever is globalist is who I'm voting for.

Like McCain and yourself, the institutions of governance are what really matters to me, and so I will likely be voting almost 100% D or independent for the forseeable future.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
28,122
Ratings
13,910
this is why we need a third party and ranked choice voting.

Like McCain and yourself, the institutions of governance are what really matters to me, and so I will likely be voting almost 100% D or independent for the forseeable future.
you're not one of these decency and civility cranks, are you?

Whoever is globalist is who I'm voting for.
this makes me legitimately sad.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
28,122
Ratings
13,910
Borders are for inept pussies.
yes borders are an outmoded concept so are you for getting rid of U.S. states rights as well? or just nation state borders?

I am, but that's not what we are talking about. Our institutions are what protect us from the excesses of others. They are way more important than the people fronting them.
i know i was just curious. i have very little regard for institutions myself so i don't believe we're going to get anywhere on that.
 

doghouse

King Of The Elite Idiots
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
9,964
Ratings
9,454
Wait, you want borders but not institutions? Everyone is just going to respect these theoretical borders?
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
28,122
Ratings
13,910
Wait, you want borders but not institutions? Everyone is just going to respect these theoretical borders?
i said above that borders are an outmoded concept. i was wondering how you wanted to handle that here in the US?

i just have no faith in institutions. they're supposedly setup to protect us but, at least in this country, its nothing more than a way to wield influence and disenfranchise your group of choice.
 

doghouse

King Of The Elite Idiots
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
9,964
Ratings
9,454
i said above that borders are an outmoded concept. i was wondering how you wanted to handle that here in the US?
Ah, gotcha. We don't have borders here. You dont pass customs through state lines. To be honest, the U.S. federal system is almost a perfect analogue to what I want to see globally. Mostly autonomous local governance with coordinating entities. This is all predicated on the global hegemony of U.S./Anglo democratic institutions.

I could be persuaded to put up passport control in the Florida-Georgia line however.


i just have no faith in institutions. they're supposedly setup to protect us but, at least in this country, its nothing more than a way to wield influence and disenfranchise your group of choice.
They are protecting the shit out of us right now. They are by nature invisible, but if someone was let loose on the citizenry you'd know it. If you dont think Trump would summarily execute his opponents and dissidents if allowed you are high. There are so many protections built into the U.S. system it would take me a month just to type it all up for you.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
28,122
Ratings
13,910
Third, fourth and fifth parties with ranked voting could save America.
I wouldnt go that far. Ranked choice, term limits, etc are all fine and good but if we as a people continue to have the greediest and most awful among us as politicians then the system will never change.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
28,122
Ratings
13,910
Ah, gotcha. We don't have borders here. You dont pass customs through state lines. To be honest, the U.S. federal system is almost a perfect analogue to what I want to see globally. Mostly autonomous local governance with coordinating entities. This is all predicated on the global hegemony of U.S./Anglo democratic institutions.

I could be persuaded to put up passport control in the Florida-Georgia line however.




They are protecting the shit out of us right now. They are by nature invisible, but if someone was let loose on the citizenry you'd know it. If you dont think Trump would summarily execute his opponents and dissidents if allowed you are high. There are so many protections built into the U.S. system it would take me a month just to type it all up for you.
Well we do have nation borders but what i was wondering is why an arbitrary state line is a good thing but a nation state line is a bad thing. Youre pretty clearly a state guy.
 

InstaHate

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,980
Ratings
4,548
I wouldnt go that far. Ranked choice, term limits, etc are all fine and good but if we as a people continue to have the greediest and most awful among us as politicians then the system will never change.
With multiple parties and ranked votes, competition for votes becomes an actual force and politicians and parties will be more beholden to the voter than they are now (which is not at all).
 

Dropbear

Member in Good Standing
Messages
2,306
Ratings
1,214
With proportional representation (did I mention I grew-up in Aus?), preference deals and forming coalitions become paramount. People can cast a vote for ideological purity, but then accept that the final make-up of the chamber and bills past will reflect the median of public opinion.

I’ve been trying to read Öcalan’s democratic confederalism writings. If I understand it correctly, which is questionable, I think it might be a fair model for the US.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
28,122
Ratings
13,910
Eh? Not particularly. I'm in favor of autonomy rising as governance gets more local, but dont have any particular affinity for States per se.
So if that holds, and we've established a lack of borders are a good thing, why have states at all? Why does some poor broad in arkansas have to drive into oklahoma to get an abortion jus because a particularly high number of religious jackoffs decided to settle inside her imaginary state lines?
 

Pauly Chase

Hip Dairy Farmer
Supporter
Messages
5,910
Ratings
2,931
I was more liberal when I was younger, but as I got older, I've become more conservative; particularly economically. I think I am more progressive on social issues such as legalization of victim-less crimes.

The democratic party has become so far left in which it deters me from voting for them. I was not fan of Bush/Cheney GOP politics either. I think a third party is due, but the political ideology party for the third party, I am unsure.

I think I identify with most of Ben Shaprio's views with the exception of unequivocal unilateral support of Israel
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
28,122
Ratings
13,910
I was more liberal when I was younger, but as I got older, I've become more conservative; particularly economically. I think I am more progressive on social issues such as legalization of victim-less crimes.

The democratic party has become so far left in which it deters me from voting for them. I was not fan of Bush/Cheney GOP politics either. I think a third party is due, but the political ideology party for the third party, I am unsure.

I think I identify with most of Ben Shaprio's views with the exception of unequivocal unilateral support of Israel
Ben shapiro? Aw come on pauly!
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,980
Ratings
1,849
I was more liberal when I was younger, but as I got older, I've become more conservative; particularly economically. I think I am more progressive on social issues such as legalization of victim-less crimes.

The democratic party has become so far left in which it deters me from voting for them. I was not fan of Bush/Cheney GOP politics either. I think a third party is due, but the political ideology party for the third party, I am unsure.

I think I identify with most of Ben Shaprio's views with the exception of unequivocal unilateral support of Israel
With the liberals and left having become the establishment and that goes for Europe too, you find that the left has become authoritarian and ever more ridiculous as it comes up with cynical and sinister schemes to exploit identity politics, compel speach and smash the patriachy. It's the failure of the left and I sense with the courting of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez looks like the Democrats have taken a wretched turn into the cess pit that Corbyn has plunged the UK Labour Party into.

Even Yanis Varoufakis gets it:

 

doghouse

King Of The Elite Idiots
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
9,964
Ratings
9,454
My dad raised me never to trust a man with an umlaut in his name.
Jawohl.

So if that holds, and we've established a lack of borders are a good thing, why have states at all? Why does some poor broad in arkansas have to drive into oklahoma to get an abortion jus because a particularly high number of religious jackoffs decided to settle inside her imaginary state lines?
I'll preface by saying it's dumb to not be able to get an abortion anywhere.

There is no border between states. You don't pass through passport control. You can mail someone in another state a package with it going through customs.

If you have a better way to organize regional governance than states, I'm all ears. Whatever you chose to call them, you will end up with similar structures though. Personally, I think letting the shitty states be shitty is good too. Let them be dumb till their hearts content while the smart states advance.
 

InstaHate

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,980
Ratings
4,548
I get ROFL when I see people refer to USA Dems as Far Left
Not that I am advocating for democratic socialism, but I think Americans have done a poor job distinguishing between it and socialism, on the Right because there is no incentive to distinguish them and on the Left because, well, I have no fucking clue why they’re happy using democratic socialism and socialism interchangeably. Socialism involves government control over the means of production; democratic socialism does not. I’ve yet to meet a serious liberal advocating for the former (and I don’t count anyone under the age of 25 serious, regardless of party) and yet, with this new wave of politicians, people seem happy to be saying “yay socialism!”
 

doghouse

King Of The Elite Idiots
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
9,964
Ratings
9,454
Not that I am advocating for democratic socialism, but I think Americans have done a poor job distinguishing between it and socialism, on the Right because there is no incentive to distinguish them and on the Left because, well, I have no fucking clue why they’re happy using democratic socialism and socialism interchangeably. Socialism involves government control over the means of production; democratic socialism does not. I’ve yet to meet a serious liberal advocating for the former (and I don’t count anyone under the age of 25 serious, regardless of party) and yet, with this new wave of politicians, people seem happy to be saying “yay socialism!”
At some level, it's semantics I guess, similar to people using libertarian and Libertarian interchangeably.

There's a lot of socialistic policy in America already, like Medicare and Social Security (I mean, it has social in the fucking name), but we aren't a big S Socialist county obviously.

I dunno, everyone is a moron, so I don't know how you change that debate when there are many legitimate definitions and usages of a word. Rednecks are gonna put their "Socialism isn't cool" bumper stickers on their trucks while cashing food stamps. Que sera and shit.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,980
Ratings
1,849
That graph falls in the very fake graph zone....

There's a difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democrats. Lots of socialists in the UK and USA like to pretend that certain countries in Europe are Democratic Socialism in action. In most cases they are wrong, these are Social Democrats: a fair society with equal opportunities and capitalism working for the benefit of everyone with a welfare safety net. It's very easy to forget that many European countries have private medical care not based on the UK's NHS.
 

doghouse

King Of The Elite Idiots
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
9,964
Ratings
9,454
That graph falls in the very fake graph zone....

There's a difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democrats. Lots of socialists in the UK and USA like to pretend that certain countries in Europe are Democratic Socialism in action. In most cases they are wrong, these are Social Democrats: a fair society with equal opportunities and capitalism working for the benefit of everyone with a welfare safety net. It's very easy to forget that many European countries have private medical care not based on the UK's NHS.
That's exactly what that graph says. Glad you agree.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
28,122
Ratings
13,910
but I think Americans have done a poor job distinguishing between it and socialism
very true, which is why the DSA is never going to get anywhere, being yoked to the current democratic party as it is. the concept of democratic socialism seems like a bunch of half measures to me.

Socialism involves government control over the means of production
that's communism, not socialism.
At some level, it's semantics I guess, similar to people using libertarian and Libertarian interchangeably.
that's like saying there's a difference between asshole and Asshole.
There's a lot of socialistic policy in America already, like Medicare and Social Security (I mean, it has social in the fucking name), but we aren't a big S Socialist county obviously.
one can only hope we'll get there soon.
I dunno, everyone is a moron,
very, very true.
so I don't know how you change that debate when there are many legitimate definitions and usages of a word. Rednecks are gonna put their "Socialism isn't cool" bumper stickers on their trucks while cashing food stamps. Que sera and shit.
thats why the debate is so fucking stupid and nothing will ever be changed until there is a true third socialist party.
 

doghouse

King Of The Elite Idiots
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
9,964
Ratings
9,454
that's communism, not socialism.
A Socialist country is one using many communist means. It could be state owning some if not all of the means of production. One practicing socialist policies is not communist. You're doing the thing I just said.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
28,122
Ratings
13,910
A Socialist country is one using many communist means. It could be state owning some if not all of the means of production. One practicing socialist policies is not communist. You're doing the thing I just said.
no what i said was seizing the means of production in general was communist. owning some of the means of production is a completely different thing. i'm talking about the act, not the end result.

on a separate note, nationalizing certain industries would be an absolute positive for this country. i'd be happy to hear why you're against that.
 

doghouse

King Of The Elite Idiots
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
9,964
Ratings
9,454
on a separate note, nationalizing certain industries would be an absolute positive for this country. i'd be happy to hear why you're against that.
Because they are not very good at running anything and giving critical services to someone who will use them for political expediency is insane (see Venezuela, the Eastern Bloc, Brazil etc...)

I'd like plenty more regulation, especially in the healthcare sector, because the government is able to be a somewhat able regulator. But a regulator is a totally different skill set than an operator, and they really suck as an operator.
 

InstaHate

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,980
Ratings
4,548
After a very quick glance at a political science textbook, it seems like socialism refers to a system in which the means a production are owned by some collective (could be state, community, etc). So state ownership would be a specific form of socialism, communism (I guess?).

Regardless, socialism severely limits private ownership.

Though people like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders identify as democratic socialists, it seems they would more accurately be classified as social democrats. It also seems like this would be the smart thing to do.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
28,122
Ratings
13,910
Because they are not very good at running anything and giving critical services to someone who will use them for political expediency is insane (see Venezuela, the Eastern Bloc, Brazil etc...)
what? what does the current state of those nations have anything to do with being socialist economies? brazil isn't even socialist. most of these places are completely fucked due directly to american intervention.

even if that were the case, lets say we nationalized the power companies and internet here and let the local municipalities run them. why does the fact that they're being run on a local level and not-for-profit mean that they're going to be used as a political tool or even that they would be run poorly?

After a very quick glance at a political science textbook, it seems like socialism refers to a system in which the means a production are owned by some collective (could be state, community, etc). So state ownership would be a specific form of socialism, communism (I guess?).
well i thought you were referring to a completely state run system not a worker co-op. so in a textbook sense i'll have to chalk that one up to you.

Regardless, socialism severely limits private ownership.
excellent.

Though people like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders identify as democratic socialists, it seems they would more accurately be classified as social democrats. It also seems like this would be the smart thing to do.
smart in what way?
 

Dropbear

Member in Good Standing
Messages
2,306
Ratings
1,214
Lib-socs have varying formulas of community ownership of the means of production.

It’s a meme, but this does a fair job of grossly distinguishing between left and liberal, soc-dem and dem-soc:

2AA330CD-5B1F-4925-A45E-273FF6212E02.png
 

InstaHate

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,980
Ratings
4,548
what? what does the current state of those nations have anything to do with being socialist economies? brazil isn't even socialist. most of these places are completely fucked due directly to american intervention.

even if that were the case, lets say we nationalized the power companies and internet here and let the local municipalities run them. why does the fact that they're being run on a local level and not-for-profit mean that they're going to be used as a political tool or even that they would be run poorly?




smart in what way?
Social democracy just sounds like it would be more palatable to American voters than would democratic socialism.
 

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
1,940
Ratings
2,935
Social democracy just sounds like it would be more palatable to American voters than would democratic socialism.
Not if the educators and the media have their way. Imo there is a real push towards the far left, and on the back of that some aspects of communism have snuck in.

If you read the 45 goals of communism in the The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx you will see many of these goals have already been accomplished with the help of the education system, media and political leaders. There has been a significant leftward slide taking place since the 60's starting with the free love, women's lib, drugs and environmentalism movements, and it has become really notable in the last 30 years since the globalisation propaganda started being spread in the schools.
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists...-read-into-the-congressional-record-1963.html

The left involves many issues such as: environmentalism, multiculturism, open borders, poo pooing religion, increasing regulation/laws, restriction of free speech, globalisation, modern music and arts, increasing taxation, equality, loss of traditional gender roles, women's lib movement, single mothers welfare, pro abortion, same sex marriage or poo pooing the idea of marriage, pornography and many other things. All these things do serve a purpose to bring the entire spectrum of thinking to the left.

In summery...a break from tradition means a move to the left in at least some things such as social issues and often economic issues too. Ultimately it ties into spiritual issues and an issue of yin and yang that keeps us in balance with the universe. If we don't keep a balance we have the situation we do now...people no longer know their role in a family, and some don't even know what sex they are or even if they are human anymore. With the reversal of yin and yang we even get some men who think they are women and some women who think they are men, and now women play men's sports and men do women things. In the dharma ending period (now) the confusion of roles was going to happen, and with that becomes the end period before the renewal. See...now anything goes because the roles we play have been mixed up, and people are confused, and at that point our humanity is virtually lost because we no longer know how to act as man and woman.

My signiture goes into great depth about all this issue.
 
Last edited:

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,083
Ratings
3,265
After a very quick glance at a political science textbook, it seems like socialism refers to a system in which the means a production are owned by some collective (could be state, community, etc). So state ownership would be a specific form of socialism, communism (I guess?).
My understanding - which is a bit rusty - is that socialism was originally proposed as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Capitalism = private ownership of means of production, government not terribly involved in economy
Socialism = government ownership of means of production, government controls economy
Communism = government withers away as it becomes irrelevant, communal ownership of all resources.

If you read the 45 goals of communism in the The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx you will see many of these goals have already been accomplished with the help of the education system, media and political leaders. There has been a significant leftward slide taking place since the 60's starting with the free love, women's lib, drugs and environmentalism movements, and it has become really notable in the last 30 years since the globalisation propaganda started being spread in the schools.
Shooey, the information in your post is so incorrect it is difficult to know where to start.

Those goals are not contained in the Communist Manifesto. They were instead lifted wholesale from a conspiracy tract published in the 1950s or 1960s called "The Naked Communist".

Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848 - long before the things mentioned in those so-called "45 goals", such as the existence of the USSR, atomic weapons, Communist China or East and West Germany.

I certainly don't agree with everything on the left side of the political spectrum but I'd argue that society is, in general, much better off as a consequence of things such as women's liberation, environmentalism, the labour movement and so on.
 
Top Bottom