@Builder,
Builder wrote:
The feelings here, politically, are that we can't trust either of the major parties, and the independents are selling out as well. Too much money flooding in from China, to corrupt the situation.
I've always like the Aussies.
Actually, this is just good commons sense, however, we find too often (at least here in the US and on A2K) that devotion to ideology wipes minds clear of sound judgment based on practical experience and replaces it with fancies that support wish-fulfillment.
If one is able to recognize that power corrupts within a certain group of the powerful what sense does it make that it does not have the same effect on any and all such groups? It doesn't, of course, unless you imbue all members of a given group with righteousness based not on demonstrated individual character but the ideology they embrace as a group. Conversely, it is only possible to come to the conclusion that the variation in morality that exists among members of any group is not present in a specific one due to the members' adherence to an ideology that seems to be in opposition to one's own.
In other words, one ideology is the expression of Good, while the other is the expression of Evil and the priests and acolytes of each are the personifications of the force that their ideology represents. It's childish and/or fanatical thinking but then neither small children nor fanatics are known for their common sense.
Clearly wide variations are possible between groups with relatively minimal membership, but again common sense and the law of large numbers tells us that, barring the intervention of supernatural forces of Good and Evil, such variation between groups numbering in the tens of millions is so extremely unlikely as to be virtually impossible. Even in a large group as close to a devotion to Evil as Nazi Germany, there were great variations in the levels of the morality of the German people. Unfortunately though, through one means or another, the most immoral or amoral among them came to obtain great power and were able to stamp out or cower those who would otherwise have never gone along with the atrocities committed in their names.
Now if you are of the belief that the group that is very loosely defined as the
Right-wing in this country is as essentially Evil as the Nazis or (if you claim not to subscribe to the idea that the universe actually contains dual and opposing forces of pure Good and pure Evil) is led by and consists of members so utterly selfish and devoid of empathy that they might as well be described as being evil, then it is not even really possible to give the rank and file the benefit of the doubt that can be granted to ordinary German citizens during rise and fall of the Third Reich. If the Koch Brothers are loose analogs of Hitler and organizations and groups like
Fox News, the
Heritage Foundation,
Americans for Tax Reform and the
Alt-Right (among others) are the rough equivalents of the Nazi's
Ministry of Propaganda, the
Ahnenerbe,
Freundeskreis der Wirtschaft and the
Sturmabteilung , there still is a marked absence of the sort of coercive power that enabled the Nazis to silence dissent. So rank & file Republicans must be willing accomplices, right?
Well, for the less than fanatical critics of the Right-wing (or at least those who wish to appear less fanatical while still preserving their damnation of conservatives) there is always the
kindly assessment that the right-wing Everyman is simply too ignorant to realize he or she is being deceived by the upper echelon of far-right demons and that his native bigotry (a by-product of his ignorance) makes him susceptible to the dark urgings of the Koch Brothers and their minions.
There will no doubt be charges of melodrama and hyperbole in response to this post but one only needs to review the succession of posts by
regulars bemoaning and castigating the moronic rubes of Alabama, the vile White Supremacists of the Deep South and wild Idaho and the ignorant Bible Thumpers in Texas who want to retard their children's education with Biblical nonsense,when they are not exploiting the poor but noble brown man illegally crossing their borders with Mexico.
Outside of A2K we find members of the Democrat's party organization bemoaning that GOP House Whip Steve Scalise was only wounded and not killed by a deranged left-wing Angel of Death, and an MSM Executive tweeting to her fellow true-believers that the slaughter in Las Vegas was somehow karmic justice since country music fans are all Republicans and all Republicans are responsible for the violent deaths of school children murdered in Connecticut by a deeply damaged lunatic.
And of course, there would be the "Republicans do this **** too!" argument if I didn't introduce it myself and quickly point out that it's pretty much my whole point:
They all do it. There are self-righteous fanatics connected to every ideology, just as there are a few decent proponents of everyone who truly believe in the value of their core principles.
When you read the article hightor linked as a criticism of neoliberalism you're reading the words of someone who overall believes not only that his ideological principles are the foundation of sound and effective policy but that they are anchored in virtue. He somewhat grudgingly acknowledges that what he defines as neoliberal policy has had practical success, but throughout the article, it's pretty clear that he believes that neoliberalism is bereft of virtue.
He writes of labor organization not only as a necessary apparatus for the practical outcome of wealth equity, but as something akin to a high calling in human development. His ideological premise is pretty much that there should not be a whole lot of economic disparity in the US and the State needs to be the guiding force of our economy because it is a vehicle driven by a democratically determined will of the people rather than a self-organizing system like the free market which, in his reality, is not truly free because neoliberals are controlling it.
All this is fine. I don't happen to agree with him for a lot of reasons, only one being that the notion that the State is merely the means for the people to express and enforce their will is ludicrous, but I don't regard him as a wolf in sheep's clothing who would really prefer an autocratic State that reflects the will of a privileged, powerful few (as with the Soviet Union and Communist China), as long as he could be among them. I don't automatically assume that because he embraces an ideology that can be described as leftist that his motivations are suspect and that his beliefs are insincere. Now there may be conservative who would. I'm not paying as much attention to them as I am to the leaders and advocates of an ideology with which I generally disagree and do not wish to see formulating national policy, and a great many of those people (including the author) seem unable to accept at all that the notions of self-reliance, small government, and a largely unregulated market and merit based economy can be anything but a facade used by a rich and powerful few who have inherited rather than earned their wealth and power to dupe the ignorant masses who don't realize that their interests aren't served by fantasies that they can earn and secure a comfortable life for themselves and their families without screwing other people every step of the way.
Do I think there is less corruption on the right than the left? Not really. Do I think there is less hypocrisy and insincerity and more principle based conviction? No, I do not, but while I acknowledge the right has it's fair share of fanatics who view the world in Manichean terms, I do think it is a bigger problem on the left because it's ideology is based far more on utopianism than that of the right. Conservatives are by nature more skeptical and less trusting of promises that don't have a proven track record to support them. They tend to always opt for the tried and tested rather than the new and unproven. In some ways, it is a limiting nature but it is less likely to lead to accepting things on faith and assuming the best in all. Some may argue that conservatives are opting out of a better way to live, and maybe they are, but it's yet to be proven so to them and faith and assumptions are a quicker route to fanaticism than a common sense, "show me" perspective.
I don't care who you are, if you are arguing that your side of the political spectrum, your tribe, is anything but marginally different in terms of the behaviors and motivations of it's most powerful leaders, you are a fanatic and you are helping to destroy this country. I vote for Republicans not because I think they are morally superior to Democrats, less corrupt and more honest. I vote for them because they are far more likely to establish and support policies that I think are best for me and my family and for the nation as a whole. If you are someone voting for Democrats for the same reasons we can only disagree on policy not engage in some metaphysical battle for the soul of the country. We will both from time to time vent about the worst examples of corruption and hypocrisy evidenced by the side we oppose and we will both, in accordance with good old human nature, exhibit a bias towards our tribes that is sometimes justified but often is not, however this increasing intensity of hatred that finds people on the right claiming that all liberals are deviants who hate America and its heritage and institutions or that all conservatives are selfish racists without a shred of compassion or empathy is, thanks to the leading voices on both sides, is creating an ever growing divide that will result in a fractured Union or an enviroment where a great many of us would prefer it that way.
