There is no true golden age, but that doesn't mean there haven't been times where the economics were better balanced.
Aye, under FDR for a start. There must be an infographic showing egalitarianism's rise and fall?
Economists have coined the term the Great Compression* to indicate the compression of the upper and lower tiers of American wages to be closer to each other. This was from the early 1940s through the late 1970s. This was accomplished through strong unionism, progressive taxation, and vigorous anti-trust enforcement. In other words, the sorts of things that are anathema to most modern conservatives.
*Any large-scale economic phenomenon will have the modifier "Great" applied to it by economists if they can get away with it.
Thank you. Knew we could rely on you @Crœsos. So, we need another Great Depression... some Jubilee eh? Well, roll on the next ice age maximum.
The Trump Presidency demonstrates that the GOP is an extreme, proto-fascist party in its current iteration. It is no longer a suitable representative of right wing politics.
The Republican party is the main right wing/conservative political party of the world's most prosperous and influential country. Excluding it seems like a lot of special pleading.
The arguments on this thread presuppose that "right wing" is fairly represented by the politics of the Republican Party in its present iteration or, perhaps, the neo-liberalism of the last thirty years.
I don't think this is fair. Conservatives have in the past governed economic systems that can properly be described as mixed economies. Why can't those conservatives represent the "right wing"?
All right, let's look at the Republican party of the past. Of course if you go back far enough the Republican party was kind of liberal, even radical, and committed one of the most egregious crimes ever against capitalism: the Emancipation Proclamation. $2.7 billion* of capital ($87.4 billion in 2020 dollars), destroyed at the stroke of a pen (and thousands of bayonets and artillery pieces). All those slave-backed mortgages held by banks, suddenly worthless. As you can imagine conservatives of the day were livid. There were even predictions such as @Makepeace's that this assault on free enterprise would reduce living standards, even among those who were formerly considered capital. Of course it's hard to put a monetary value on sentimental items like "not having your children sold to pay your owner's gambling debts", so I guess the proposition that African Americans were better off enslaved is at least arguable.
*Back of the envelope calculation based on the scholarly consensus that the total value of all American slaves was ~$3 billion in 1860 dollars and the 1860 census indicating that 90% of American slaves lived in secessionist states.
It seems to me that the fetishisation of freedom above all else has less of the Gospel about it than it does Milton's Satan. It is a creed that says not "let me be your servant" but "you're not the boss of me".
A lot of left-wingers in the past would be hardline right-wingers today: Bentham and Mill come to mind.
I don't know if Jefferson was left- or right-wing in his day: most of his political positions fit into the hard right Republican camp now as I understand it (and that's ignoring owning slaves). I presume he'd have looked askance at repealing Roe vs Wade though.
I don't know if Jefferson was left- or right-wing in his day: most of his political positions fit into the hard right Republican camp now as I understand it (and that's ignoring owning slaves).
There were three main intellectual traditions in the early American republic. There was, for lack of a better term, the New England tradition which said that we are building a shining city on a hill and anyone may join us, provided you accept certain intellectual precepts. There was what could be called the Kentucky tradition, a kind of "blood and soil" nativism where American-ness was inherited. Then there was a the Virginia tradition which focused on liberty, which was defined as property rights above all other rights (which is how slaveholding is sort-of squared with liberty). The American left is kinda-sorta the intellectual descendant of the New England tradition while the American right is mostly a fusion of the Kentucky (nativism) and Virginia (libertarianism) traditions.
I've always been confused by the notion that equal rights is a left-right issue. It's more an authoritarian-liberal axis thing.
Yes. This is an important distinction to make. Certainly in British politics, and I think (but, through my ignorance, with decreasing levels of certainty) in European and US politics we find that 'the left' is economically authoritarian and socially liberal (so fond of a state role in the economy, while happy for people to organise their personal life as they wish - without marriage or with same-sex relationships for example) while'the righ' is economically liberal and socially authoritarian (so wanting to get the state out of the workplace, but into the bedroom). This isn't entirely rational, but (a) is how it is and (b) leads to interesting conflicts where the personal spills over into the economic.
I don't like the term "economically authoritarian", but I get what you mean. I don't think a mixed economy is economically authoritarian at all. It just means that the scope of freedom of action doesn't include shafting people too hard.
Before Covid, US unemployment was under 4%, the lowest it has been since the 50s. Whilst I'll grant that the headline unemployment rate hides a lot of sins, I don't think "there's an oversupply of workers" is necessarily as true as you think.
. . . while'the righ' is economically liberal and socially authoritarian (so wanting to get the state out of the workplace, but into the bedroom).
Does "the righ[t]" really want the state out of the workplace? I'd argue that their willingness to use police (or the military) as strikebreakers, or their dependence on the apparatus of the state to enforce things like intellectual property rights, argues that the right is okay with state interference in the workplace, provided it's on behalf of moneyed interests.
I'm not sure that a view that employers are entitled to dictate any terms and conditions to their employees that they wish, up to and including their private lives, details of health insurance, and not giving them time off on election days, really counts as liberal on an authoritarian-liberal axis.
The idea that left-wing economic ideas are authoritarian in the way that having a higher age of consent for gay sex than for heterosexual sex was socially authoritarian seems to me to be stretching terminology to breaking point for ideological purposes. I suppose that makes me a linguistic prescriptivist.
Does "the righ[t]" really want the state out of the workplace? I'd argue that their willingness to use police (or the military) as strikebreakers, or their dependence on the apparatus of the state to enforce things like intellectual property rights, argues that the right is okay with state interference in the workplace, provided it's on behalf of moneyed interests.
Libertarians like to claim that the only appropriate use of government power is to enforce property rights. Using the police to prevent striking workers from obstructing the passage of those who wish to work would fall under that same umbrella. How much that's an honest philosophical position and how much it's self-serving authoritarianism might be open for discussion, though.
The arguments on this thread presuppose that "right wing" is fairly represented by the politics of the Republican Party in its present iteration or, perhaps, the neo-liberalism of the last thirty years.
I don't think this is fair. Conservatives have in the past governed economic systems that can properly be described as mixed economies. Why can't those conservatives represent the "right wing"?
I think we are presently in a phase where the right of politics is led by extremists, not by people who can be described as representing the mainstream. This is as unfair as using a Marxist writer for Green Left magazine to represent the left.
The Trump Presidency demonstrates that the GOP is an extreme, proto-fascist party in its current iteration. It is no longer a suitable representative of right wing politics.
I grant that European/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand conservatives have had successful mixed economies, but it seems here in America it is always the Democrats that have to stabilize the American economy.
It seems to me that the fetishisation of freedom above all else has less of the Gospel about it than it does Milton's Satan. It is a creed that says not "let me be your servant" but "you're not the boss of me".
BUt it isn't truly freedom, it is more that the fetishist wants the freedom to do what they want, even though it will be at the expense of others.
It seems to me that the fetishisation of freedom above all else has less of the Gospel about it than it does Milton's Satan. It is a creed that says not "let me be your servant" but "you're not the boss of me".
BUt it isn't truly freedom, it is more that the fetishist wants the freedom to do what they want, even though it will be at the expense of others.
It seems to me that the fetishisation of freedom above all else has less of the Gospel about it than it does Milton's Satan. It is a creed that says not "let me be your servant" but "you're not the boss of me".
He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
I suppose it could be argued that the Gospels have nothing to say about freedom, or Jubilee, but I wouldn't be the one to make such an argument.
It seems to me that the fetishisation of freedom above all else has less of the Gospel about it than it does Milton's Satan. It is a creed that says not "let me be your servant" but "you're not the boss of me".
He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
I suppose it could be argued that the Gospels have nothing to say about freedom, or Jubilee, but I wouldn't be the one to make such an argument.
I was referring to the supposed right to carry deadly weapons, to say whatever you like regardless of the impact on others, to cough freely and spread potentially fatal diseases. I would draw a distinction between freed from an unjust power relationship (such as slavery or coverture) and being free to do what you like without worrying about the consequences. It's the same distinction as between nationalism in a nation seeking independence and nationalism in an already-sovereign country.
It seems to me that the fetishisation of freedom above all else has less of the Gospel about it than it does Milton's Satan. It is a creed that says not "let me be your servant" but "you're not the boss of me".
BUt it isn't truly freedom, it is more that the fetishist wants the freedom to do what they want, even though it will be at the expense of others.
That's where the fetishist's rubber hits the road. boom-tish. I'm here all week ladies and gents.
I grant that European/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand conservatives have had successful mixed economies, but it seems here in America it is always the Democrats that have to stabilize the American economy.
The Democrats *are* conservatives, by any agreed definition of the phrase. The US's Overton window (increasingly the UK's too) has been dragged a long way right.
The arguments on this thread presuppose that "right wing" is fairly represented by the politics of the Republican Party in its present iteration or, perhaps, the neo-liberalism of the last thirty years.
I don't think this is fair. Conservatives have in the past governed economic systems that can properly be described as mixed economies. Why can't those conservatives represent the "right wing"?
I think we are presently in a phase where the right of politics is led by extremists, not by people who can be described as representing the mainstream. This is as unfair as using a Marxist writer for Green Left magazine to represent the left.
The Trump Presidency demonstrates that the GOP is an extreme, proto-fascist party in its current iteration. It is no longer a suitable representative of right wing politics.
When describing an ecosystem, one normally includes the species living in that ecosystem and not the extinct ones that used to make it better.
Is it, though? It's always been acknowledged that there'll be winners and losers at life: I think the left's view is that being on the wrong end of circumstances (however arrived at) shouldn't be a life sentence of poverty and deprivation - not that all must have the same.
Is it, though? It's always been acknowledged that there'll be winners and losers at life: I think the left's view is that being on the wrong end of circumstances (however arrived at) shouldn't be a life sentence of poverty and deprivation - not that all must have the same.
Basically yes. Left days we need business but business. Should be fair to their employees. Having a full time job you should be able to pay for your needs for f not a little more.
It's always been acknowledged that there'll be winners and losers at life: I think the left's view is that being on the wrong end of circumstances (however arrived at) shouldn't be a life sentence of poverty and deprivation - not that all must have the same.
It is not as if the left is a unified monolith. There isn't a set of official doctrines one has to sign up to. There are things that disqualify one from counting as left (believing that inherited wealth is deserved and that the poor should know their place, for example).
It's always been acknowledged that there'll be winners and losers at life: I think the left's view is that being on the wrong end of circumstances (however arrived at) shouldn't be a life sentence of poverty and deprivation - not that all must have the same.
It is not as if the left is a unified monolith. There isn't a set of official doctrines one has to sign up to. There are things that disqualify one from counting as left (believing that inherited wealth is deserved and that the poor should know their place, for example).
I thought a lot of Labour members agreed with those 2 things, <sarcasm>.
There are things that disqualify one from counting as left <snip>
The longer I live, the more I wonder if that's true. All politics seems tribal to me. It is shocking to see how quickly (at least in the US) the left and right can switch positions on such "basic" notions as whether military action is good or bad, debt is good or bad, individual rights are central or irrelevant, etc., depending upon which side is making the decision. In politics, it is far from obvious that there is such a thing as a core belief, at least to me.
Is it, though? It's always been acknowledged that there'll be winners and losers at life: I think the left's view is that being on the wrong end of circumstances (however arrived at) shouldn't be a life sentence of poverty and deprivation - not that all must have the same.
The longer I live, the more I wonder if that's true. All politics seems tribal to me. It is shocking to see how quickly (at least in the US) the left and right can switch positions on such "basic" notions as whether military action is good or bad, . . .
"Military action" is a very broad concept and can apply to a lot of things. This comment reminds me of the facile accusation that George McGovern was a hypocrite for opposing the Vietnam War because he'd been a bomber pilot in the Second World War. It seems some people can't wrap their heads around the idea that supporting some military actions does not necessarily translate into supporting all military actions.
The same is true of the other examples you cite. It's not contradictory to support deficit spending under recessionary conditions (for example) and oppose it under other economic conditions.
Right. Your side embraces the virtuous uses of each, while the other tribe is the dark side. I recognize that changing circumstances can change one's priorities, but the point you are denying is that the main change in circumstance is often nothing more than who is in charge. If you can't see that with your tribe, try looking at the conservative run to deficit hawkishness when they are no longer in power. Hypocrisy is always more visible from afar.
Right. Your side embraces the virtuous uses of each, while the other tribe is the dark side. I recognize that changing circumstances can change one's priorities, but the point you are denying is that the main change in circumstance is often nothing more than who is in charge. If you can't see that with your tribe, try looking at the conservative run to deficit hawkishness when they are no longer in power. Hypocrisy is always more visible from afar.
I'm not a big believer in the Conservation of Political Hypocrisy, the idea there is always an exactly equal match for every hypocritical thing one political side does in actions by their counterparts. Sometimes this is referred to in the shorthand "bothsidesism", which is the lazy assumption that you don't need to do any kind of political analysis at all, you can just say "eh, they're both equally bad in exactly the same way" and not have to think any further.
For example, you state as if it's a scientific truth that the side out of power will always run to deficit hawkishness. This isn't stated as a piece of analysis but as if it's an obvious cosmic truth. Thus there's no need to explain Bill Clinton's surpluses (for example).
I'm not a big believer in the Conservation of Political Hypocrisy, the idea there is always an exactly equal match for every hypocritical thing one political side does in actions by their counterparts. <snip>
For example, you state as if it's a scientific truth that the side out of power will always run to deficit hawkishness. <snip>
. . . the main change in circumstance is often nothing more than who is in charge. If you can't see that with your tribe, try looking at the conservative run to deficit hawkishness when they are no longer in power. Hypocrisy is always more visible from afar.
You cited deficit hawkishness specifically as an example where support was dependent on being in or out of power. For something you didn't say, you said it pretty clearly.
. . . the main change in circumstance is often nothing more than who is in charge. If you can't see that with your tribe, try looking at the conservative run to deficit hawkishness when they are no longer in power. Hypocrisy is always more visible from afar.
You cited deficit hawkishness specifically as an example where support was dependent on being in or out of power. For something you didn't say, you said it pretty clearly.
The grand switching between "Deficits will destroy this country!" and "Deficits don't matter" takes place within the GOP, and depends upon which party controls the white house. It's bothsidesism to project it on the Democrats.
I read tclune as only accusing the Republicans and not the Democrats of inconsistency on the budget deficit. That does, however, mean that he hasn't given any example of Democrat inconsistency. I suppose he could be thinking of targeted drone strikes.
I read tclune as only accusing the Republicans and not the Democrats of inconsistency on the budget deficit. That does, however, mean that he hasn't given any example of Democrat inconsistency. I suppose he could be thinking of targeted drone strikes.
Why would you suppose that? Opposition to drone warfare in general has typically ranged from tepid to non-existent among Democrats in positions of power. Opposition to specific instances of drone warfare exist, but are typically tied to the specific circumstances involved, not drone warfare per se. Kind of like how it's not hypocritical to support one war and oppose a different war (unless you claim to embrace some kind of all-purpose pacifism).
I read tclune as only accusing the Republicans and not the Democrats of inconsistency on the budget deficit. That does, however, mean that he hasn't given any example of Democrat inconsistency. I suppose he could be thinking of targeted drone strikes.
Why would you suppose that? Opposition to drone warfare in general has typically ranged from tepid to non-existent among Democrats in positions of power. Opposition to specific instances of drone warfare exist, but are typically tied to the specific circumstances involved, not drone warfare per se. Kind of like how it's not hypocritical to support one war and oppose a different war (unless you claim to embrace some kind of all-purpose pacifism).
I think the issue with drone strikes is the tendency to blow up the target's family, friends, and anyone within 50ft.
I read tclune as only accusing the Republicans and not the Democrats of inconsistency on the budget deficit. That does, however, mean that he hasn't given any example of Democrat inconsistency. I suppose he could be thinking of targeted drone strikes.
Why would you suppose that? Opposition to drone warfare in general has typically ranged from tepid to non-existent among Democrats in positions of power. Opposition to specific instances of drone warfare exist, but are typically tied to the specific circumstances involved, not drone warfare per se. Kind of like how it's not hypocritical to support one war and oppose a different war (unless you claim to embrace some kind of all-purpose pacifism).
Opposition to warfare in general is not a Democrat thing. It was the Democrats who escalated the Vietnam war and the Republicans who elected a president based on ending US involvement
I just finished Obama's A Promised Land. His final chapter was on the Bin Ladin raid. They considered several options on how to execute it. A bomb strike? Obama thought that would not work because it would have caused collateral damage and we would still have no proof Bin Ladin would of been killed. Some proposed a drone strike and Obama did not accept that for the same reason. They chose to do a Seal Team insertion in spite of the risk to Americans.
Seems to me the current president has also used drone strikes sometimes without much consideration of the consequences. I for one believe he gave the Israelis permission to assassinate the Iranian nuclear scientist. I wonder how much logistical support we gave them.
I read tclune as only accusing the Republicans and not the Democrats of inconsistency on the budget deficit. That does, however, mean that he hasn't given any example of Democrat inconsistency. I suppose he could be thinking of targeted drone strikes.
Why would you suppose that? Opposition to drone warfare in general has typically ranged from tepid to non-existent among Democrats in positions of power. Opposition to specific instances of drone warfare exist, but are typically tied to the specific circumstances involved, not drone warfare per se. Kind of like how it's not hypocritical to support one war and oppose a different war (unless you claim to embrace some kind of all-purpose pacifism).
Opposition to warfare in general is not a Democrat thing. It was the Democrats who escalated the Vietnam war and the Republicans who elected a president based on ending US involvement
Those parties really can't be equated with today's Democrat and Republican parties. The Southern Strategy was yet to really take hold, and would result in a complete flip of the parties' positions in many areas.
Why would you suppose that? Opposition to drone warfare in general has typically ranged from tepid to non-existent among Democrats in positions of power. Opposition to specific instances of drone warfare exist, but are typically tied to the specific circumstances involved, not drone warfare per se. Kind of like how it's not hypocritical to support one war and oppose a different war (unless you claim to embrace some kind of all-purpose pacifism).
Opposition to warfare in general is not a Democrat thing. It was the Democrats who escalated the Vietnam war and the Republicans who elected a president based on ending US involvement
Why would you suppose that? Opposition to drone warfare in general has typically ranged from tepid to non-existent among Democrats in positions of power. Opposition to specific instances of drone warfare exist, but are typically tied to the specific circumstances involved, not drone warfare per se. Kind of like how it's not hypocritical to support one war and oppose a different war (unless you claim to embrace some kind of all-purpose pacifism).
Opposition to warfare in general is not a Democrat thing. It was the Democrats who escalated the Vietnam war and the Republicans who elected a president based on ending US involvement
I read tclune as only accusing the Republicans and not the Democrats of inconsistency on the budget deficit. That does, however, mean that he hasn't given any example of Democrat inconsistency. I suppose he could be thinking of targeted drone strikes.
Why would you suppose that? Opposition to drone warfare in general has typically ranged from tepid to non-existent among Democrats in positions of power. Opposition to specific instances of drone warfare exist, but are typically tied to the specific circumstances involved, not drone warfare per se. Kind of like how it's not hypocritical to support one war and oppose a different war (unless you claim to embrace some kind of all-purpose pacifism).
I think the issue with drone strikes is the tendency to blow up the target's family, friends, and anyone within 50ft.
Which from a Machiavellian military POV is better than just collateral.
I've always been confused by the notion that equal rights is a left-right issue. It's more an authoritarian-liberal axis thing.
Seems to me that rights is a libertarian vs authoritarian thing, but equal is a left vs right thing.
Under the authoritarian left, all are equal in having no rights. Under the libertarian right, all have rights and are consequently in that sense equal.
Is there a libertarian left these days ? Or is that corner of the diagram underpopulated ? By chance ? Or because collectivism is inherently restricting of freedom ?
Comments
Thank you. Knew we could rely on you @Crœsos. So, we need another Great Depression... some Jubilee eh? Well, roll on the next ice age maximum.
The Republican party is the main right wing/conservative political party of the world's most prosperous and influential country. Excluding it seems like a lot of special pleading.
All right, let's look at the Republican party of the past. Of course if you go back far enough the Republican party was kind of liberal, even radical, and committed one of the most egregious crimes ever against capitalism: the Emancipation Proclamation. $2.7 billion* of capital ($87.4 billion in 2020 dollars), destroyed at the stroke of a pen (and thousands of bayonets and artillery pieces). All those slave-backed mortgages held by banks, suddenly worthless. As you can imagine conservatives of the day were livid. There were even predictions such as @Makepeace's that this assault on free enterprise would reduce living standards, even among those who were formerly considered capital. Of course it's hard to put a monetary value on sentimental items like "not having your children sold to pay your owner's gambling debts", so I guess the proposition that African Americans were better off enslaved is at least arguable.
*Back of the envelope calculation based on the scholarly consensus that the total value of all American slaves was ~$3 billion in 1860 dollars and the 1860 census indicating that 90% of American slaves lived in secessionist states.
I don't know if Jefferson was left- or right-wing in his day: most of his political positions fit into the hard right Republican camp now as I understand it (and that's ignoring owning slaves). I presume he'd have looked askance at repealing Roe vs Wade though.
There were three main intellectual traditions in the early American republic. There was, for lack of a better term, the New England tradition which said that we are building a shining city on a hill and anyone may join us, provided you accept certain intellectual precepts. There was what could be called the Kentucky tradition, a kind of "blood and soil" nativism where American-ness was inherited. Then there was a the Virginia tradition which focused on liberty, which was defined as property rights above all other rights (which is how slaveholding is sort-of squared with liberty). The American left is kinda-sorta the intellectual descendant of the New England tradition while the American right is mostly a fusion of the Kentucky (nativism) and Virginia (libertarianism) traditions.
Yes. This is an important distinction to make. Certainly in British politics, and I think (but, through my ignorance, with decreasing levels of certainty) in European and US politics we find that 'the left' is economically authoritarian and socially liberal (so fond of a state role in the economy, while happy for people to organise their personal life as they wish - without marriage or with same-sex relationships for example) while'the righ' is economically liberal and socially authoritarian (so wanting to get the state out of the workplace, but into the bedroom). This isn't entirely rational, but (a) is how it is and (b) leads to interesting conflicts where the personal spills over into the economic.
Before Covid, US unemployment was under 4%, the lowest it has been since the 50s. Whilst I'll grant that the headline unemployment rate hides a lot of sins, I don't think "there's an oversupply of workers" is necessarily as true as you think.
Does "the righ[t]" really want the state out of the workplace? I'd argue that their willingness to use police (or the military) as strikebreakers, or their dependence on the apparatus of the state to enforce things like intellectual property rights, argues that the right is okay with state interference in the workplace, provided it's on behalf of moneyed interests.
The idea that left-wing economic ideas are authoritarian in the way that having a higher age of consent for gay sex than for heterosexual sex was socially authoritarian seems to me to be stretching terminology to breaking point for ideological purposes. I suppose that makes me a linguistic prescriptivist.
Libertarians like to claim that the only appropriate use of government power is to enforce property rights. Using the police to prevent striking workers from obstructing the passage of those who wish to work would fall under that same umbrella. How much that's an honest philosophical position and how much it's self-serving authoritarianism might be open for discussion, though.
Oh, wait.
A very PSA reading.
I grant that European/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand conservatives have had successful mixed economies, but it seems here in America it is always the Democrats that have to stabilize the American economy.
A fair rough definition of libertarianism.
Is it wrong to interpret this post in reference to its immediate positioning after my post about the Emancipation Proclamation? One could make the case that the Gospels have a lot to say about freedom:
I suppose it could be argued that the Gospels have nothing to say about freedom, or Jubilee, but I wouldn't be the one to make such an argument.
I was referring to the supposed right to carry deadly weapons, to say whatever you like regardless of the impact on others, to cough freely and spread potentially fatal diseases. I would draw a distinction between freed from an unjust power relationship (such as slavery or coverture) and being free to do what you like without worrying about the consequences. It's the same distinction as between nationalism in a nation seeking independence and nationalism in an already-sovereign country.
That's where the fetishist's rubber hits the road. boom-tish. I'm here all week ladies and gents.
The Democrats *are* conservatives, by any agreed definition of the phrase. The US's Overton window (increasingly the UK's too) has been dragged a long way right.
When describing an ecosystem, one normally includes the species living in that ecosystem and not the extinct ones that used to make it better.
Whereas equal outcome is left.
Basically yes. Left days we need business but business. Should be fair to their employees. Having a full time job you should be able to pay for your needs for f not a little more.
I thought a lot of Labour members agreed with those 2 things, <sarcasm>.
The longer I live, the more I wonder if that's true. All politics seems tribal to me. It is shocking to see how quickly (at least in the US) the left and right can switch positions on such "basic" notions as whether military action is good or bad, debt is good or bad, individual rights are central or irrelevant, etc., depending upon which side is making the decision. In politics, it is far from obvious that there is such a thing as a core belief, at least to me.
Aye, even the left lacks the gospel.
"Military action" is a very broad concept and can apply to a lot of things. This comment reminds me of the facile accusation that George McGovern was a hypocrite for opposing the Vietnam War because he'd been a bomber pilot in the Second World War. It seems some people can't wrap their heads around the idea that supporting some military actions does not necessarily translate into supporting all military actions.
The same is true of the other examples you cite. It's not contradictory to support deficit spending under recessionary conditions (for example) and oppose it under other economic conditions.
I'm not a big believer in the Conservation of Political Hypocrisy, the idea there is always an exactly equal match for every hypocritical thing one political side does in actions by their counterparts. Sometimes this is referred to in the shorthand "bothsidesism", which is the lazy assumption that you don't need to do any kind of political analysis at all, you can just say "eh, they're both equally bad in exactly the same way" and not have to think any further.
For example, you state as if it's a scientific truth that the side out of power will always run to deficit hawkishness. This isn't stated as a piece of analysis but as if it's an obvious cosmic truth. Thus there's no need to explain Bill Clinton's surpluses (for example).
I did not say either of these things. Impressive!
You cited deficit hawkishness specifically as an example where support was dependent on being in or out of power. For something you didn't say, you said it pretty clearly.
Apparently not clearly enough for some.
Why would you suppose that? Opposition to drone warfare in general has typically ranged from tepid to non-existent among Democrats in positions of power. Opposition to specific instances of drone warfare exist, but are typically tied to the specific circumstances involved, not drone warfare per se. Kind of like how it's not hypocritical to support one war and oppose a different war (unless you claim to embrace some kind of all-purpose pacifism).
I think the issue with drone strikes is the tendency to blow up the target's family, friends, and anyone within 50ft.
No, the problem has been, and always will be, the extra-judicial nature of target identification and assassination.
Seems to me the current president has also used drone strikes sometimes without much consideration of the consequences. I for one believe he gave the Israelis permission to assassinate the Iranian nuclear scientist. I wonder how much logistical support we gave them.
Those parties really can't be equated with today's Democrat and Republican parties. The Southern Strategy was yet to really take hold, and would result in a complete flip of the parties' positions in many areas.
Really? Because I'm pretty sure that Republican presidential candidate deliberately sabotaged an attempt to end the Vietnam War. We've even got it on tape.
All things are true.
They get nothing but help from their greatest ally and supporter, including at least tacit approval of their impunity.
Which from a Machiavellian military POV is better than just collateral.
Seems to me that rights is a libertarian vs authoritarian thing, but equal is a left vs right thing.
Under the authoritarian left, all are equal in having no rights. Under the libertarian right, all have rights and are consequently in that sense equal.
Is there a libertarian left these days ? Or is that corner of the diagram underpopulated ? By chance ? Or because collectivism is inherently restricting of freedom ?