Left Wing? What Left Wing?

Seems to me the world is heading in a mixed direction. THe folks with their heads secured firmly to their shoulders are mocked and scorned for having morals and values while the 'kill a cop rape a ho' rap artists are held up as the pillars of society. This is just one passing example. Others include the idea that anything and everything should be televised...except of course executions; but, that only gets a turn down from the liberal minded because of their disdain and distaste for the death penalty.

As to conservative outrage at liberalism and your blanket stupidity that it cannot be justified shows how weak and un-individualized (in other words...brainwashed) you are. Outrage at other ideas is what keeps the world spinning as ideas are presented both pro and con on all matters. Take that away and we become the twisted world found in Huxley's Brave New World. Is that what you really want?

The origins of the American political spectrum are actually very simple in comparison to the political development of other nations in the world. The present day "neo-conservatives" hark back to the Republican "radicals" of a hundred years ago, with their "forward policy" as expressed and enacted by Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. and Henry Cabot Lodge, and those among the Republicans and Democrats who supported a policy of American hegemony in the world. Small wonder that many American conservatives are less than enchanted with the neo-cons--American conservatives for most of our history have been isolationist in their international outlook, and the agenda of an organization such as the PNAC is not consonant with such a point of view.

George Washington was, by the standards of the late eighteenth century, a "radical" in many respects. However, his social and political views partook more of conservativism--only his attitudes toward slavery and democracy differentiated him from political conservatives of his day. Troubled by the inefficiency and injustice of slavery, and worried that a promise of manumission upon the settlement of his estate would threaten Martha's life, he arranged for the estate to pay pensions to the slaves (approximately 600, 300 coming with Martha's estate, which was a trust for her children--George took that trust very seriously), and the pensions were paid until well into the 1830's, more than a generation after his death. Politically, he continued to support the then radical notion of representative democracy and although often identified with the quasi-aristocratic ruling class of Virginia, he was opposed to elitist organizations, and rebuffed the Society of the Cincinnati (that society still exists today, in a feeble form, and wrongly claims Washington as their first President--he firmly and publicly rejected their organization). However, he fully and actively supported Hamilton's financial settlement, which, although fiscally responsible and economically successful, alienated a large portion of society, and was seen as a dodge to the advantage of bankers, financiers and merchants. In international affairs, he was clearly an isolationist, warning the nation against "foreign entanglements."

Jefferson is now identified in the popular imagination as a radical, and wrongly identified as the founder of the Democratic Party (party propaganda to identify themselves with an historically popular figure). His Democratic-Republican Party, usually just called the Republicans, actually was the antithesis of unrestricted democratic governance, and his failure to interfer with the Bank of the United States alienated the radical wing of his party, while his neglect of the Army and the excellent Navy created by Washington and Adams alienated those in the party who felt humiliated by paying tribute to the Barbary pirates, and those eager to export the revolution to Canada. But the Federalists remained a weak party, many of its adherents drifting away after the adoption of the Constitution and the ratification of the amendments known as the Bill of Rights. The Federalists, as was the case with the Republicans, had no local organizations other than the association of members in any community, and the Federalists were increasingly identified with the monied interests. By the time of the Monroe administration, the Federalists had become so weak that they found it difficult to field successful national candidates. The Republicans were weakened by the defection of so many disenchanted members, but with no credible opposition, Monroe ran unopposed in his second term.

Andrew Jackson changed all of that. He organized his political support from the ground up, putting his supporters in charge of organizing pricincts and counties. His initial defeat for national office lead him to spread the organization to other states outside Tennessee, and many of those more "radical" members of the Republicans joined enthusiastically in a program which they saw as a furtherance of the radical principles of the revolution. When he was finally elected to the Presidency, his Democratic Party (the ancestor of the modern party) was organized nationally along lines of political organizations as we know them. John Quincy Adams was as embarrassed by his defeat as Jackson had been earlier, but his attempt to organize a National Republican Party failed for lack of the local organization which had made Jackson's Democrats successful. But the lesson was not lost on young men in the nation who supported the policies of the now defunct Federalists, and the modern Republican Party would arise from the ruins of Adams' failed attempt. Conservative survivors of Jefferson's Republicans who had been suspicious of what they saw as the elitism of the Federalists joined with other "partyless" men to form the Whigs, taking their name from the merchant/banker party in England which had traditionally opposed the conservative Tories. The Whigs were only ever moderately successful, however, and the crucible of the Civil War killed off the Whigs and the remnants of the Know Nothings, and quixotically assured the survival of the Democrats as Southerners saw the party as a refuge from the once radical and by then dominant Republicans--Lincoln's party.

Modern European leftists descend from those who were defeated and brutally repressed by reactionary forces in Europe during the 1848 socialist insurrections. Asian radicals have taken their cues from Marxism in general and from Chairman Mao in particular. When Japanese radicals decide to oppose a new airport or a building project on environmental grounds, they put a tube of vasoline in their pockets (to protect the skin from tear gas) put a mask around the lower part of their faces, put on a helmet and a padded coat, and attack the police with bamboo staves. By international standards, there is no effective left operating in the United States--by international standards, our political organizations simply show varying degrees of conservatism. For that reason, i find it hilarious when people engage in slanging matches in the United States, accusing Democrats of being communists, and conservatives of being nazis. In the global political spectrum, Americans appear to everyone else to be firmly on the right.

By the way, for those who are little slow on the up-take, my previous post means that i basically agree with Wolf's summary analysis.

The above post is why I make myself read all of Setanta's posts and get mad when he posts drivel. I expect more than he is willing to give sometimes.

So terribly sorry that the American political spectrum doesn't meet your standards. No I'm not.

If you find these alleged 'Slanging' matches...did you mean slinging?...so hilarious why are you even here in this topic? Clearly you think you are better than the rest of us (definitely more so than those who do not agree with you) so why waste your time in this discussion? Oh, wait, that's right! You are the all knowing and sainted Setanta, leader and lord of the lunkheads and must set us all along the proper road of thinking...that is your idea of the proper road of thinking.

Dear lord. With the three of you please quit whining about who's more annoying? There's enough candy for everyone.

But I was so close to being nominated as "Most Annoying"

Well, i'll go along with that . . . which is why i reported your post in which you referred to me a personally deprecating manner. If you think disparaging your political beliefs constitutes a personal attack, i wonder that you can have any sort of conversation without getting into a fist fight--unless your notion of conversation is a mutual admiration socity.

If Setanta is the leader and lord of the lunkheads, how come I never see him at any of the meetings?

I was barred for using French in public . . .

We have meetings?

Tostitos, Cheesies and Doritos are on the menu for this week's get-together. And Dr. Pepper.





<I peeked into the cooler>

Yes we do - and quit sending me memos about the minutes, I just haven't typed them up yet, I'll get around to it. I keep losing the swastika key on my keyboard though, how the heck can I type minutes without it? I'll have to requisition a new one.

I can't deal with the pressure.

Haven't you been getting the e-mail notices? Look, what you need to do is call Gary at the lodge. Don't talk to Phil, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Gary can take care of everything. And if you go to the meetings you'll need to wear the funny hat. Oh, and we changed the secret handshake. Talk to Shelly, she'll set you up with that. And don't forget the fish fry on Friday.

There are close to 6 or 7 groups in most countries. To simply put them in two camps is ridiculous. In some issues I am far to the right and far to the left in others.

BBB


I'm more of a flat earth devotee than a leftie or a rightie. My only fear is of falling off the edge.

BBB

I've never heard of any country which had six or seven different lunkhead organizations. In fact, i'm willing to state outright that there is only one lunkhead lodge in the United States, and it's 200,000,000+ members are proud of their participation.

So that's why you're a centrist!

The earth really is round, you know, which is why those far-right freaks end up looking like they're on the left.

You're kinding missing my point. In fact, you've not only missed my point, you've missed your own point, which is even more frightening.

What I was getting at, is that the right-wing Conservative has nothing to fear from. The left-wing isn't in power and those left-wing parties that are in power have adopted so many right-wing policies they shouldn't be called left-wing in the first place.

Now, to your own point.

You made the point that there should be a diverse range of ideas and political ideologies. That's all good and well, but that was the point of my article. That the left-wing ideas are being abandoned solely for right-wing ideas, thus creating amonoculture like that of Huxley's Brave New World.

You then go on to insulting me, without realising that I am not completely left-wing and have some bizarre liberal-conservative hybrid ideas (such as putting people on Welfare to work in special temporary Government-created jobs, like cleaning the streets for one. London is just plain dirty. It needs more street cleaners).

Before that, however, you were effectively branding Conservatism as morally justified, whereas liberals are not. This seems to me to be Conservative-brain washing.



You then effectively say outrage is good, whilst effectively chiding me for my outrage.

No doubt you will then try to clarify yourself, saying that I'm completely in the wrong.

If I have to pick a type of Conservatism, then let me pick British Conservatism.