Defining issues of today's politics / Left vs Right

Take crime for instance okie..

You have hinted at the standard is Conservatives are against crime but liberals are for it.

Is that the standard you are proposing? Neither liberals or conservatives are PRO crime. Simply because someone is against crime does NOT make them conservative.

0 Replies

Quote:

Taxes were lowered in 1962, 1964, and 1965 to encourage more private spending and reach full employment; they were raised in 1966 and 1968 to help prevent inflation, but with a net reduction in the eight Democratic years. We will continue to use tax policy to maintain steady economic growth by helping through tax reduction to stimulate the economy when it is sluggish and through temporary tax increases to restrain inflation. To promote this objective, methods must be devised to permit prompt, temporary changes in tax rates within prescribed limits with full participation of the Congress in the decisions.

There it is in your own quote. Lower taxes to spur economic growth and jobs growth. Does not sound like a liberal idea today. In fact, trickle down economics was laughed at when Reagan proposed it, and it still is laughed at even though it works.

Actually, the economics subject is as good as any to illustrate the Democratic platform in 68 vs. today. I don't know if Humphrey believed in it altogether, but at least he gave lip service to the fact that Kennedy used a conservative idea and he recognized the fact that it worked. It acknowledged that the economy is not a zero-sum game, which modern liberals will not admit, or at least they will not admit in public. If you need more tax money, simply raise tax rates, that is the modern liberal scheme, regardless of whether it depresses the economy and actually reduces the tax revenue. To the liberal, the economy is static regardless of the tax rate imposed; the only thing for them to decide is what percentage of the economy that they want for taxes. They do not acknowledge tax rates as one of the more important variables that affects profits, economic growth, etc. Really brilliant thinking. I am being sarcastic.

P. S. Hillary Clinton proposes letting criminals vote. Is that anti-crime? My point about crime is that tougher crime enforcement is indeed a difference between conservative and liberal. Liberals are not pro-crime, but they are not very pro-enforcement. The 68 platform called for tougher enforcement. I hear liberals here all the time complain about building more prisons as opposed to more money for schools. As for me, I'm glad the people are in prison instead of on the streets selling drugs and robbing people. Theres enough as it is.

0 Replies

This is from the Democratic 2004 platform

Quote:

Cutting taxes for middle class Americans. First, we must restore our values to our tax code. We want a tax code that rewards work and creates wealth for more people, not a tax code that hoards wealth for those who already have it. With the middle class under assault like never before, we simply cannot afford the massive Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest. We should set taxes for families making more than $200,000 a year at the same level as in the late 1990s, a period of great prosperity when the wealthiest Americans thrived without special treatment. We will cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans and help families meet the economic challenges of their everyday lives. And we will oppose tax increases on middle class families, including those living abroad.

Wow.. Looks like the 2004 democrats were for tax cuts. You have to look at the philosophy okie. The philosohy hardly changed from 1968 to 2004. Tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The rich should have to pay taxes.

You make more lovely grandiose attacks on the liberals about how far left they have moved. Find the leftward movement in the 2004 or the 2000 party platforms vs the 1968 platform. Certainly the highly liberal candidates for President had a strong say in their platforms.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D2004
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D2000

Where is this coddling crime in the 2004 platform?

Quote:

Crime and violence. While terrorism poses an especially menacing threat to our nation, a strong America must remain vigilant against the scourge of homegrown crime as well. We are proud that Democrats led the fight to put more than 100,000 cops on the beat through the COPS program, and we will continue our steadfast support for COPS and community policing. To keep our streets safe for our families, we support tough punishment of violent crime and smart efforts to reintegrate former prisoners into our communities as productive citizens. We will crack down on the gang violence and drug crime that devastate so many communities, and we will increase drug treatment, including mandatory drug courts and mandatory drug testing for parolees and probationers, so fewer crimes are committed in the first place. We support the rights of victims to be respected, to be heard, and to be compensated. We will help break the cycle of domestic violence by punishing offenders and standing with victims. We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.

The 2004 platform reads a LOT like the 1968 one. More police, a crack down on drug crime,

Quote:

I don't see a large movement to the left... I see the same thing in both.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The 68 platform called for tougher enforcement. I hear liberals here all the time complain about building more prisons as opposed to more money for schools. As for me, I'm glad the people are in prison instead of on the streets selling drugs and robbing people. Theres enough as it is.

What in the hell do you think this means?

Quote:

We will further this campaign by attack on the root causes of crime and disorder.

and this

Quote:

Develop innovative programs to reduce the incidence of juvenile delinquency;

and this

Quote:

Rehabilitate and supervise convicted offenders, to return offenders to useful, decent lives

Then of course there is this..

Quote:

Promote the passage and enforcement of effective federal, state and local gun control legislation.

and this

Quote:

Intensified enforcement, research, and education to protect the public from narcotics and other damaging drugs:

Why don't you trot out more of your unsupported "things that liberals do" okie. They are pretty funny. (I am NOT being sarcastic.)

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Quote:
Taxes were lowered in 1962, 1964, and 1965 to encourage more private spending and reach full employment; they were raised in 1966 and 1968 to help prevent inflation, but with a net reduction in the eight Democratic years. We will continue to use tax policy to maintain steady economic growth by helping through tax reduction to stimulate the economy when it is sluggish and through temporary tax increases to restrain inflation. To promote this objective, methods must be devised to permit prompt, temporary changes in tax rates within prescribed limits with full participation of the Congress in the decisions.

There it is in your own quote. Lower taxes to spur economic growth and jobs growth. Does not sound like a liberal idea today. In fact, trickle down economics was laughed at when Reagan proposed it, and it still is laughed at even though it works.

Let me highlight the REST of the SENTENCE for you okie. It seems you have a problem with reading comprehension.

There is a rather large difference between cutting WHEN the economy is sluggish and cutting just to cut. Temporary tax cuts help the economy through increased deficit spending. The same effect could be achieved with no tax cuts but just more deficit spending. The 'liberals' today are for cutting taxes during good times. Seems they are MORE conservative today based on this argument.

Trickle down has never been proven to work. Tax revenues under Reagan didn't achieve pre tax cut revenues before taxes were raised. Today those on the bottom make LESS than they did before the tax cuts. That would be the exact OPPOSITE Of trickling down.

0 Replies

This entire discussion demonstrates the futility in ascribing today's political labels to the issues of the past. Was opposition to slavery liberal or conservative? How would George W. Bush vote on the tariff of 1857? How would Al Gore view the free silver issue? Would Howard Dean support Grover Cleveland today? Would Rick Santorum support Teddy Roosevelt?

Hubert Humphrey was definitely a "liberal" in his day, but then look at who was "conservative." In the realm of civil rights, Humphrey was to the left of Orval Faubus and George Wallace, but now everybody in politics is to the left of them as well (and even George Wallace eventually rejected strict segregationism). On certain issues, the left becomes the center, on other issues it's the right that is the new center. Social security was viewed by some in the 1930s (and even later) as tantamount to socialism; in the 1980s Ronald Reagan defended it. The Republicans used to favor a small military and isolationism (remember Bob Dole complaining about "Democrat wars?"); did that make them conservatives or liberals under today's definitions of those terms?

It's pointless to pin today's liberal and conservative labels on the politics of the past. The best that we can do is locate historical actors on the political spectrum in which they existed, not the one that we inhabit today.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

This entire discussion demonstrates the futility in ascribing today's political labels to the issues of the past. Was opposition to slavery liberal or conservative? How would George W. Bush vote on the tariff of 1857? How would Al Gore view the free silver issue? Would Howard Dean support Grover Cleveland today? Would Rick Santorum support Teddy Roosevelt?

Hubert Humphrey was definitely a "liberal" in his day, but then look at who was "conservative." In the realm of civil rights, Humphrey was to the left of Orval Faubus and George Wallace, but now everybody in politics is to the left of them as well (and even George Wallace eventually rejected strict segregationism). On certain issues, the left becomes the center, on other issues it's the right that is the new center. Social security was viewed by some in the 1930s (and even later) as tantamount to socialism; in the 1980s Ronald Reagan defended it. The Republicans used to favor a small military and isolationism (remember Bob Dole complaining about "Democrat wars?"); did that make them conservatives or liberals under today's definitions of those terms?

It's pointless to pin today's liberal and conservative labels on the politics of the past. The best that we can do is locate historical actors on the political spectrum in which they existed, not the one that we inhabit today.

Joe from Chicago, you make some obvious good points. And I think you clearly support my argument, for example by pointing out that Social Security was considered "tantamount to socialism," yet now anybody opposed to it is considered highly unusual and extreme. Parados, if you accept the argument that left means more government involvement in more programs, how can you not see the obvious fact that government is more involved now than ever. Here we have a supposed conservative right wing extremist in George Bush, according to some prominent Democrats now, instituting another liberal idea, the prescription drug program.

And back to the economics issue: "Taxes were lowered in 1962, 1964, and 1965 to encourage more private spending and reach full employment;..." Parados, please explain to me what this is again if it does not involve trickle down economics as part of the equation? If companies pay less taxes, they can invest in equipment and upgrades, and become more competitive, and sell more products, make more money, and hire more people. It seems that since you cannot grasp the big picture, the argument keeps being reduced to arguing over the smallest of points. So how about this point, what is it if it isn't trickle down economics? Taxes were lowered to encourage private spending, to translate for you, to spur the economy. Thats what Reagan did. Thats what Bush has done. At least in the last 40 years or so, I would say that is a conservative economic principle.

0 Replies

Ah well Joe, okie read what he wanted from your post and ignored the rest.

It seems you agree with him, that the US is more left today than 30 years ago, in spite of this statement. "On certain issues, the left becomes the center, on other issues it's the right that is the new center."

0 Replies

< As an aside, knowing that you all have focused on the USA:
Social Security really was considered "tantamount to socialism" - how would you call the 'inventor' of it, Bismarck (in 1883), who generally is thaught to be an 'ultra-conservative' (in US-English: an uber-conservative)?>

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Ah well Joe, okie read what he wanted from your post and ignored the rest.

I'm just surprised when anybody reads my posts.

parados wrote:

It seems you agree with him, that the US is more left today than 30 years ago, in spite of this statement. "On certain issues, the left becomes the center, on other issues it's the right that is the new center."

You're right; okie missed my point. Social welfare programs and civil rights are two areas where the left is now the center. But there are other areas where the reverse is true. For instance, it used to be a principle of American politics that Republicans were protectionists and Democrats were free-traders. Then Reagan came along, with all of those pointy-headed Chicago school economists in tow, and announced that free trade was good for business. Suddenly, free trade was a conservative position and everyone became a free-trader, including "new Democrats" like Bill Clinton. Now, the only ones who are raising the banner of protectionism are "old Democrats" tied to organized labor, like Dick Gephardt. So the center moved to the right on this issue.

And it is foolish to suggest, as okie does, that conservatives have always been in favor of small government and low taxes. In the 19th century, the Republicans (and the Whigs before them) were the party of big government, while the Democrats (as the heirs of Jefferson and Jackson) favored small government. The roles only became reversed in the 1920s and '30s, culminating in the New Deal.

Likewise, Republicans had traditionally been in favor of high taxes, at least when it came to indirect taxes like tariffs (e.g. the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930). With regard to the income tax, Democrats and Republicans had historically differed little (the highest peacetime marginal tax rates were enacted during the Eisenhower administration). And, of course, the very first federal income tax was enacted by a Republican congress and signed by a Republican president.

0 Replies

I thought we were arguing about left and right in today's context of the use of the term. As to how the meaning has shifted in history, that seems like another argument for another day. Here in America, the meaning to me is obviously bigger government, more solutions to problems by government, and more permissive social behavior which also relates to new government laws and policies to accomodate those social behaviors.

So I want all of you to honestly try to make the point that we've moved right on more issues in the last 50 years than we've moved left. I do not think its legitimate for the purposes of this argument to try to assert that small government is a liberal or leftist policy. It simply does not apply in the context of how the term is used now. I think the fact that even so-called conservatives are for policies that grow government, while liberals want even more policies that grow government even faster is proof enough that the society is drifting left. Reagan advocated the elimination of some of the bureaucracy, such as the DOE, Dept. of Education, etc., and of course the Democrats would not let him, but now you don't even hear such ideas of eliminating government bureaucracy as a viable proposal at all by so-called conservative Republicans, further proof of society moving further left.

I suppose everybody may have their definition of conservative. And then there is the popular political meaning of it. Just looking at the original root word, I would think it has a relationship to the word, "conserve," which has to do with playing things fairly close to the vest, conserving the status quo, don't rock the boat, maintaining traditional values, standing for enduring and lasting correct principles, moderation of policy, don't go to an extreme situation such as going into great debt, instituting radically different and wrong policies for which the outcome is not readily known.

Older conservative southern Democrats sought to preserve racial segregation. Having always been a conservative myself, I never supported such policies, my family never supported such policies, so I don't happen to claim those policies as anything that I could ever claim as a conservative. Racial segregation was not an enduring, correct principle, so therefore how could it be a legitimately conservative policy? I don't know if the terms, left and right, have always been synonomous with liberal and conservative? You historical observers, are they? Maybe we need some other terms here that can better define a more accurate portrayal of political policies? Terms that do not change with the times.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I thought we were arguing about left and right in today's context of the use of the term. As to how the meaning has shifted in history, that seems like another argument for another day. Here in America, the meaning to me is obviously bigger government, more solutions to problems by government, and more permissive social behavior which also relates to new government laws and policies to accomodate those social behaviors.

Quote:

The Left

Left and Right as political designations date to the French Revolution when the Jacobins sat on the left in the National Assembly and the Girodins on the right. The Left has come to mean movements, organizations, and intellectual or cultural tendencies that emphasize an egalitarian ethos, a utopian vision of social reconstruction, and a commitment to agitation and action to advance that ethos and vision.

Major Left-Wing Organizations in the Twentieth Century U.S

Only three left-wing organizations have attained mass followings in the twentieth-century U.S.: the Socialist Party of the United States (SPUSA), the Communist Party of the U.S. (CPUSA), and the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).

further reading and source (with lots of more infos!) American Left Ephemera Collection

0 Replies

okie,
The way you have defined liberal is a myth propogated by the right to demonize the other side. It really has little basis in reality.

Your argument that conservatives are for smaller govt and liberals are for bigger govt is not accurate. They are for DIFFERENT uses of govt. Conservatives are quite happy to have larger govt in the areas they support (military and jails to name 2 you have pointed out as being conservative) and want smaller govt in the areas they don't support, (social programs.) The opposite is true of liberals. Smaller govt is not restricted to one side only unless you redefine govt to only be govt if that side doesn't support it.

Bush's huge increases in military spending are hardly a result of a liberal ideology and neither were Reagan's. There have been times throughout history where both sides have been for or against bigger govt, for and against more taxes. It all comes down to how it promotes their ideology. We could well be seeing one of those shifts now. Conservatives are seeing bigger govt as a way to protect the US citizens from outside forces as well as to exert social control by affecting the way people act.

This leads us right back to the Nolan scale. Liberals are for economic control and social freedom, Conservatives are for social control and economic freedom. That has never changed over time. There are lots of variables in there but it doesn't make one side or the other for or against large govt. It only makes them for govt that supports their ideals.

The myth that the conservatives have propogated that only liberals are for big govt may come back to bite them since they are now using big govt to promote conservative ideas. Liberals will have no problem using that stick against the other side. Conservatives were happy to use the law and order stick against the liberals when Democrats were stuck in their own legal scandals. The reverse will now play out in that area too.

The idealogies have never really been for or against an evil but rather how they address the issues and propose to solve them.

0 Replies

I agree with some of your points, which actually argues for my position, that emphasis of government has shifted leftward. Conservatives see proper use of government to include defense and police protection as a couple of the primary purposes of government as outlined by the constitution, and inasmuch as defense budgets are necessarily expanded in order to protect ourselves in time of war and against threats of war, yes conservatives favor big government. But, as a % of GDP, defense has not grown, at least in part because of the huge commitments required to fund social entitlements and other social programs, as you admit are the favored use of government by liberals, which have increased relative to the expenditures of defense, police protection, etc. If you look at government expenditures, social spending has been increasing proportionately compared to the budgetary items favored by conservatives, and will continue to do so, which I think supports the argument I've been waging here.

http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/2003/factsfigs.html

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I agree with some of your points, which actually argues for my position, that emphasis of government has shifted leftward.

If someone said a duck quacked you would claim that it supports your opinion.

Social spending isn't an indicator in and of itself to define left/right. You have to look at what social programs and what they are doing and the reasons for the spenditures. Both sides are more than happy to coopt the other sides programs and try to subvert them. The reduction in welfare spending could point to a move right or it could point to decreased poverty. The increase in Social Security spending could point to shift left or it could point to an aging population that is living a lot longer than it used to.

You continue to pull facts out of the air and assign meaning without examining the context. It is really quite easy to pick a given starting date for one program and then a completely different date for another. Selective choosing will make any argument seem strong.

As Joe pointed out some areas have moved left and some right. You can't claim that the left movement proves your point while ignoring the rest. Case in point for the rightward movement, the deregulation and privatization of public utilities across the US. The increased incarceration rate also points to a rightward movement.

By the way, Humphrey's state of Minnesota allowed convicted criminals to vote in 1968. Their right to vote was automatically given back to them on completion of their sentence.

As for your claim that felon voting rights prove we are moving left. This is an interesting read. It seems some states have made it easier and some made it harder over the last 8 years.
http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/1046.pdf

0 Replies

parados wrote:

okie wrote:
I agree with some of your points, which actually argues for my position, that emphasis of government has shifted leftward.
If someone said a duck quacked you would claim that it supports your opinion.

Social spending isn't an indicator in and of itself to define left/right. You have to look at what social programs and what they are doing and the reasons for the spenditures. Both sides are more than happy to coopt the other sides programs and try to subvert them. The reduction in welfare spending could point to a move right or it could point to decreased poverty. The increase in Social Security spending could point to shift left or it could point to an aging population that is living a lot longer than it used to.

You continue to pull facts out of the air and assign meaning without examining the context. It is really quite easy to pick a given starting date for one program and then a completely different date for another. Selective choosing will make any argument seem strong.

As Joe pointed out some areas have moved left and some right. You can't claim that the left movement proves your point while ignoring the rest. Case in point for the rightward movement, the deregulation and privatization of public utilities across the US. The increased incarceration rate also points to a rightward movement.

By the way, Humphrey's state of Minnesota allowed convicted criminals to vote in 1968. Their right to vote was automatically given back to them on completion of their sentence.

As for your claim that felon voting rights prove we are moving left. This is an interesting read. It seems some states have made it easier and some made it harder over the last 8 years.
http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/1046.pdf

At least you admit now, in agreement with Joe from Chicago, that some issues have moved left. I should point out that you are guilty of the very same thing you accuse me of when you say, "The increased incarceration rate also points to a rightward movement." Obviously it may not indicate that at all; it may simply indicate higher crime rates due to more severe societal problems, such as broken homes, single parent homes, and basicly less moral guidance available for young people.

P. S. The bit about criminals being able to vote was a new one on me. I had no clue that was going on, and it mystifies me why such ill advised policy should be enacted.

Another P.S. I must have happened to hit on a hero liberal icon of yours, Hubert Humphrey. Sorry to insult you. You are certainly a dogged debator over this without a doubt.

0 Replies

Only 3 states have laws on the books that prevent those convicted of felonies from ever voting again. All the rest return the rights. Many of them return them upon completion of sentencing. 9 have a time limit or some other mitigating factor that prevents immediate return of rights. See the site I posted earlier
http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/1046.pdf

Hillary is hardly out of the mainstream in asking that those 12 states join the rest in returning voting rights to those that have completed their sentencing or in asking that the process be made simpler by restoring those rights automatically.

0 Replies

Quote:

§26-4-101. Persons entitled to become registered voters Exceptions.
Every person who is a qualified elector as defined by Section 1 of Article III of the Oklahoma Constitution shall be entitled to become a registered voter in the precinct of his residence, with the following exceptions:
1. Persons convicted of a felony shall be ineligible to register for a period of time equal to the time prescribed in the judgment and sentence.

Oklahoma appears to grant the right to vote upon completion of timeframe for sentencing. I read it that if you are sentenced for 7 and serve 5 you can't vote for 7.

0 Replies

Parados, I think your site says 600,000 ex-felons in Florida unable to vote in 2000 election!!! Is that a misprint? How many people live in Florida all together? I checked and its 16 million, which makes it almost 4% of the population or almost 1 out of every 25 people you meet down there on the street is an ex-felon!!!! Ex-felons must be everywhere down there. I don't think I plan to move there. Don't you kind of wonder about your party when one of the groups most likely to vote Democrat are ex-felons?????? I know "diversity" is one of the battle cries of liberals, but I don't know about that kind of diversity being an asset??? Of course Hillary's angle on this is, wow, we could have won if they could have voted. But actually, I don't think she wanted Kerry to win. That might have meant less chance for her in 08.

And thanks Walter for the following:

Quote:

The Left

Left and Right as political designations date to the French Revolution when the Jacobins sat on the left in the National Assembly and the Girodins on the right. The Left has come to mean movements, organizations, and intellectual or cultural tendencies that emphasize an egalitarian ethos, a utopian vision of social reconstruction, and a commitment to agitation and action to advance that ethos and vision.

Major Left-Wing Organizations in the Twentieth Century U.S

Only three left-wing organizations have attained mass followings in the twentieth-century U.S.: the Socialist Party of the United States (SPUSA), the Communist Party of the U.S. (CPUSA), and the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).

Do you agree that a translation of the above, especially in consideration of the term, "egalitarian," means the Left favors equal outcomes vs. the Right favors equal opportunities? That would fit much of what we see today. Translation: Left wants socialism or communism, which is equal outcomes. Right desires free markets and equal opportunities and equal rights for the individual to freely work for and pursue happiness in a free society, but no guarantee of equal outcomes.

All this brings up a question. Why can't Leftists in the U.S. be honest and admit they are socialists, or further along the political scale, communists?

0 Replies

Well, might be that your translation is correct. But did you talk about the politics of the Socialist Party of the United States (SPUSA), the Communist Party of the U.S. (CPUSA), or the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) before? I must have missed that.

0 Replies

Defining issues of today's politics / Left vs Right

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know