Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Political Stance?
I'm not sure how many of you are politically involved or have any interest in politics, but I'm just curious where you guys stand politically. No need to debate any stances, just trying to get an idea.
EDIT: I know this may not be totally fair to our European friends. I'm not too up on the political scene over there, but to my understanding American Liberalism is comparable to the "Labour Party". And that American Libertarians are "Liberals" in Europe.
EDIT 2: When I turn 18 by the way, I plan on becoming actively involved with the Cleveland Libertarian Party. And for this upcoming election (presidential), I will most likely vote either independent or libertarian.
EDIT: I know this may not be totally fair to our European friends. I'm not too up on the political scene over there, but to my understanding American Liberalism is comparable to the "Labour Party". And that American Libertarians are "Liberals" in Europe.
EDIT 2: When I turn 18 by the way, I plan on becoming actively involved with the Cleveland Libertarian Party. And for this upcoming election (presidential), I will most likely vote either independent or libertarian.
0
Comments
The labels are, indeed, a problem. This particularly true when attempting to compare the US and Europe - especially because 'Europe' is not a single unit nor are its political attitudes the same from country to country.
Here in the UK we have had something of a political revolution since the late 1970s. The old lines between Conservatives and Labour have been blurred. First of all, Matgaret Thatcher set out to destroy the power of the unions - and succeeded, particularly by violent confrontation with the National Union of Mineworkers. One of the results was the politicisation of our police force. Her government's fiscal policies were similar to your own 'Reaganomics' and succeeded in reducing desperately high unemployment and high inflation. The spin-off result was an erosion of workers' rights and run-away capitalism, increasing the gap between rich and poor. In addition, her policy of "right to buy" for social housing tenants destroyed the housing stock available to those on low incomes and has created a desperate housing shortage. Some of us used to joke that she was a Soviet 'mole', bent on the wholesale undermining of the British industrial base by the sale of state-owned utilities such as water, gas, steel and telephone.
Then, after her fall and a pretty disastrous interregnum under John Major, Tony Blair came to power. He had already managed to persuade the Labour Party to ditch one of its fundamental tenets, that of public ownership. This striking of Clause Four from the Labour Party constitution created what he called "New Labour". Many people (myself included) who had been life-long Labour supporters saw this as a cynical bid for power which simply continued and expanded Thatcherism.
It has become extremely difficult for those of us who still hold to socialist principles to find a political home. The only party, for example, which opposed the Iraq adventure is the Liberal Party which is unlikely ever to return to power.
Add to this that we now have an independent government in Scotland and a semi-independent assembly in Wales, both of which have strong nationalist elements, and you have a political landscape which is fracturing more and more.
What I shall vote at the next general election when it comes (we do not have fixed terms) is wide open.
I hope that this may help you to see how complex the picture has become.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html (Short)
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test (Longer)
http://politics.beasts.org/scripts/survey (Multnational)
They have some interesting questions, make you think a little.
I think the basic difference between a liberal and a conservative, as I have witnessed it in my own country, is that liberals believe people deserve better than they get whilst conservatives tend to think that people get what they deserve.
I'm wondering, Kind Pilgrim, if there are any British or Continental parallels to this, or am I just plain crazy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
This one is really interesting
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html (Short)
This is complete BullCrap. I took it, and boy, was it a humdinger of a crass oversimplifier. It asked very broad questions and only three answering options. It practically rated me as Rush Limbaugh! Yee Gads!! Pure Rubbish.
Now, for the next one, calling it "(Longer)" implies "Longer Form," which it IS NOT. It's a fine survey which puts me on the Libertarian Left, but just a few lines on the graph below Authoritarian Left. That makes more sense to me. http://www.politicalcompass.org/test (Longer)
I'll have to look at the last one later.
It's just that with respects to economic issues, I lean more conservative. While this may pass for heresy as the musician that I am, I don't believe that the arts should be supported by levies or tax payer dollars. I am against any such initiative to support my local art center. If the museum can't make it on its own, it should have to suffer that. They are part of the free market too.
I am also suspecious of the American welfare system as well, though I have yet to take a solid stance either way on it.
All that you've said above, esteemed Knight, is extremely consistent with Libertarianism. I'd say that you know where you stand very well.
But tell me, where would a thorough-going Libertarian stand on free and cumpulsory public education for children?
To my way of thinking, the arts are an integral part of our civilization, and education in them should also be fostered. Therefore, just as the government should fund the local Health Department (for obvious reasons), it might want to help support, for purposes of mental and social health, well-balanced (i.e., publicly financed) arts councils that help pay for museums and symphonies and travelling art exhibits and all the fine arts. But then, I am not a Libertarian, but a liberal.
What about my question about the difference between the tendency of Liberals to believe that people deserve better than they get VS. the Conservative propensity to think that people get what they deserve? Any thoughts.?.?
Believe me, I am interested in your opinions and observations, although I often find it hard to relate to teenagers. But I do have nieces and nephews who are teenagers with whom I have great comraderie. But then, I've known them since they were saplings...
EDIT: Oh, KoB, I see you posted a response to this in the last 40 minutes or so in the Why the current immigration debate pisses me off. thread
Thanks. I think you stated your position well and concisely. I'll want to mull it over awhile, though. But, between you and me and the gatepost I suspected that my version might need some major overhaul.
Interesting, though, that conservatives blame the government for meddling and the liberals blame it for letting things go all chaotic like.
It's certainly a lot more fun observing it with laughter than getting all caught up in it. Isn't it?
Fondly,
Nirvy
I'm sorry but I find your post about removing money from museums, flawed. should we allow all that is old to succumb to non-preservation??
You lost me when you stated that as a musician you were against the arts??? WTF?
sorry, I fail to get it....
I love music. I love literature. I spend much of my time at bookstores and at home reading. I'm not against the arts, I just think that its funding should be left to private individuals and enterprises. If the arts truly are vital, and I think they are very important, then people will support them of their own accord. If we simply rely on government to do everything, then where is the incentive to support the arts? But strip the government support, and people will be forced to support the arts, if they truly wish to keep them.
Go Barack! Go Hillary! Go John Edwards! Go Dennis!
No word yet, KoB, on where the thorough-going Libertarian would truly stand on free and compulsory education for children? It seems to me that that Libertarian rascal would let the brats stay at home or in the streets and let their minds atrophy.
Best of regards, young man, and I hope you're having a great summer.
Fondly,
Nirvy
EDIT: Oh, and BTW, here's my response to your response to my statement that Liberals tend to believe that people deserve better than they get whilst conservatives tend to think that people get what they deserve.
from the Why the current immigration debate pisses me off. thread:
It seems to me that you have yourself most correctly pegged as a Libertarian, and I take no issue with such clarity. Ortega said that Humankind has a mission on this earth and that mission is the mission of clarity. So I admire clarity wherever I find it, nay sometimes even worship it, if it's not unkind. However, I don't "identify" myself too strongly as a liberal, I just acknowledge that very strong tendency in myself. Let's not forget unclouded "Buddhamind" here. Or, as St. Paul would say, "Put on the mind of Christ." That is, No Mind. Identification ultimately is a trap, because We are Free, unfettered beings if we are truly who we really are —Unfettered by Identifications that separate us from others.
I'll admit, firstoff, KoB, that I think your statement is closer to the truth than mine, but I do believe that there are also psychological reasons for our having the political persuasions that we have. I believe that there are those who rejoice with those rejoicing and weep with those weeping, on the one hand. But on the other hand, I've known so many, even in the Church, who really resent the good fortunes of others and are happy when things go badly for them. It's a whole mentality.
THE QUESTION for me is, if there are suffering people and nobody's giving them sufficient help, why should the government be barred from stepping in? I mean, individual charity is very nice, but it's even nicer when the recipients of it aren't in abject poverty to begin with. That way, there's not so much resentment or jealousy shown to the poor recipients on the part of their neighbours when a litta bit of help finally comes petering down their way. On the social weal issues: That's where the Libertarians come across as callous and most irresponsible to me. Too much of a laisser-faire attitude to those in need (and too much self-indulgence when others need attention, too).
And back to mentality. I've observed over the years that every place I've ever worked, worshipped in, or what-have-you, has a mentality all its own and that it's hard to change it. It's kinda like a family trait.
Now if I am raised, say, believing that going to church on Sundays is something all respectable and good people do, I'll probably not vote for a non-churchgoing candidate for any office other than dogcatcher, because I've been doing the right thing all my life and those that haven't should be punished in some sort of way —never rewarded in any way. Sorta like that. Believe me, if I knew how, I'da have addressed the subject of sexuality and fidelity, &c.
Well, as Porky Pig (or was it Elmer Fudd?) used to say, "That's It for now."
If I see a man on the street that is thirsty .. I give him water .. regardless of what my or his political thinking says I should do.
The way of the universe not politics dictate my actions.
Good Day ...
That's great, feeling unattached to a label! However, that is not the same thing as not being part of a public movement for a good cause. One can certainly be unattached to the results of one's labours for justice whilst at the same time being devoted to a good cause. Indeed, that is the only way not to get caught up in the evil that opposes the good cause, for to engage evil in a hostile way is to let that evil invade your being. I'll choose Tolstoy over Marx any day.
If you see a man on the street who is thirsty, you give him water. What about those in need of medical care? Should they be given water or left out in the street to die?
Michael Moore's movie, Sicko, is a wonderful commentary on our country and how we have allowed the moneyed interests to write death sentences on the uninsured, many of whom are even willing and able to pay, but are uninsurable due to body proportions, myriad health conditions, &c.
The movie documents how in 1971 the Nixon Administration let these HMOs get started and how the American healthcare system has declined since then. This really is a sicko-led country that rewards HMO administrators and those who work for them to ensure that the for-profit insurance companies make huge amounts of money —to the detriment of the lives and health of our fellow citizens. A VERY MOVING FILM which every American has the Duty to view, I think.
EDIT: Well I'm finally getting around to the last Poll listed in Post 3 of this thread, one by Zopa Tenzing: http://politics.beasts.org/scripts/survey (Multnational)
It is a good poll, however it does ask several questions twice, sometimes just expressed differently. It also gives the option of not having an opinion, which is nice when you feel incompetent to have one, as I did when they asked me to rate statements such as:
Sometimes interest rates should be raised to reduce inflation, even if
doing so would cause a large number of job losses.
or
Small businesses are more important to the economy than large
corporations.
SOOOO SORRY, but I'm not an Economist.
It is immoral to be lazy.
Dealing with nuisance crimes like petty vandalism makes serious crime less likely.
Officials like public prosecutors should be directly elected rather
than chosen by the government.
Nor am I a moralist or policeman, although I have a lot of affection for policemen who are not moralists and perhaps some trust for moralists who don't wish to meddle in policing.
Having individual local representatives is more important than
electing parties in exact proportion to their support.
And, finally, nor am I intelligent enough to understand this question, let alone be entitled to participate in balloting.
On the whole, this survey rated me along the same lines as The Political Compass Poll, to the Left of Tony Blair on the Idealistic Left (although Blair is right on the line separating the Pragmatic from the Idealistic. I'm just a few lines on the graph below pragmatic. Who knows, if I were an economist, a moralist, and smart enough to understand the difference between local representatives and the parties they are beholden to, I might be on the Pragmatic Left?)
BTW, I'm on the same "Idealistic" line as Stalin and Hitler, although they're WAY RIGHT of me.
G** help us ALL!
The Augustinian, believing in basic human corruption, see government as having to regulate all aspects of human behaviour. The Pelagians believe in basic human goodness and want minimal government intervention.
I thought I might expand a little on this (Nirvana: you can take the blame!). First, here is a summary of Burgess's thgeory as set out in his novel The Wanting Seed - in my opinion a much better read than the more popular Clockwork Orange. This is from Wikipedia: Whilst I think it is, inevitably, somewhat simplistic, what interested me was the subtext that political doctrine is, in essence, 'faith-based'. This year, for example, we, in the UK, commemorate 200 years since the abolition of the transAtlantic slave trade. There can be no doubt that this parliamentary action was driven by a 'theology' of human equality, just as slavery itself was based on a 'theology' of human difference.
Adam Smith, the apostle of free trade, speaks of a 'hidden hand' of the market - a mystical view if ever there was one: the marketplace has its own rules and dynamics which, he believed, resulted over time in an equalisation of wealth by a trickle-down effect and enlightened self-interest. In this scenario, human beings will, without state intervention, arrive at the greatest good for the greatest number. In light of our current situation, we may want to question whether this is true. After all, for the first time, we now have a generatiuon, in the US particularly, whose life expectancy is lower than that of their parents: not exactly an improvement, I would suggest.
Of course, we have never seen a fully free-trade economy. Protectionism of farmers or steel or cotton or whatever is seen as the economic driver exists everywhere.
Nevertheless, the political process is often used as a method of regulating individual and corporate behaviour 'for the greater good'. This phrase worries me, I must admit. The great analyst Alice Miller wrote a wonderful book entitled For Your Own Good. Much damage has been done by those who believed that they were in possession of the rules by which others should live, whether as parents or as rulers.
We are constantly bombarded today with rhetoric about "democracy" but there seems to be little genuine debate about what is meant other than a one-person-one-vote approach to election of government which is then endowed with powers to make decisions on behalf of the said electorate. The system rests on a party political structure, as some have said here, which means that the person voting may be forced into accepting unacceptable policies alongside ones they desire. Not for nothing were some of the American revolutionaries opposed to the formation of political parties.
I believe that we are currently in a period of interregnum. Whereas national governments, whether monarchical or republican, were the holders of power and, thus, were the representatives of the social contract, this may no longer be entirely true. The growth and scope of multinational corporatism plus the advent of transnational inter-personal communication such as the Internet have yet to be subjected to real political analysis. It is possible that we will need to engage in revolutionary or evolutionary activity similar to that seen in the UK in the 17th, in the US and France in the 18th and in much of Europe in the 19th centuries to establish a just and peaceful society. Few could suggest that we have such a one at present.
In the dialogue, we, as Buddhists, bring a non-theistic dimension to an increasingly factionalised debate. We have a view of sentience which stresses interbeing, the connectedness of all that lives. Whilst human life is perceieved to be of great value, its connection with the rest of the universe is integral to our view. For some Buddhists, of course, the political dialogue is marginal: samsara is stressful by its nature so there is nothing to be done. Personally, I reject such a view. My understanding of the life and teachings of the Buddha is that he chose to act, to intervene, to teach. He didn't just sit and say: "It's all sh*t so there's no point trying to improve things". Just because we cannot achieve Utopia does not mean that we have any right to abandon the task.
Confronted as we are by extreme views and extremist actions, we can bring moderation and respect to the debate. We can speak for the voiceless, peacefully. We can work, as do such teachers as HHDL and TNH, for peace-filled and just soilutions to ineternational, national and ecological problems. We can examine the Noble Eightfold Path in the light of each politico-economic problem in order to generate creative solutions. They will not be permanent nor will they be perfect. We can only hope and work towards their being better than the mess around us today.
BTW, I have added to my last post my comments on the last Poll that Zopa Tenzing mentioned in Post #3 of this thread. I thank him very much for adding that added analytical dimension to our discussion.
Best of Regards to All as I take a short leave.
Fondly,
Nirvana
Yes, just like Governement subsidized postal service ..............
To act in a way that will help mankind one indeed must be free of the "Bullshit". That is basic buddhism and this battle is an inward one not outward. Be free and so act true to help all beings.
Michael Moore is not exactly famous for his unbiased well rounded jounalism. I hope he is not your key source of information.
Good Day ...
Yes, I am aware of such "differences" which is why I posted the sly winking smiley. In that I work for the government, I wouldn't wish them on anyone ........ who is actually looking for help, that is! :winkc:
Thank you for this, Bushinoki. It is another argument for my contention that standing armies are disastrous in the cause of peace, although I'm not sure you mean it like that LOL
You can't be serious! Standing armies are unhelpful? Surely, Chico Marx put it better than any one why we need standing armies....
Simon, standing armies are a double edged sword. A standing army of strength makes any enemy think twice about attacking, as the possibility of defeat and political humiliation may be too high. However, a standing army of strength means that the leadership of that army may make drastic mistakes about invading a country, whether or not that country really is a threat.
Now, as far as terrorists being the enemy, I'm for an armed and trained populace: eg, "Allah Akbar!", "That's great, you just tell him in person"
History gives us many examples of how dangerous professional armies can be. I have personally witnessed a military take-over of a Western nation: France in 1958 where I saw tanks surrounding the Assembly building and a brigadier general assuming power by military threat. It is a tribute to the French people that they managed to survive this third unlawful use of the army to usurp the elected government by the same extraordinary man, Charles de Gaulle. The outcome this time was positive but it was a near thing. We have witnessed the actions of the armed forces in South America and Pakistan among a number of others. It seems to me that we are fooling ourselves if we think that our own military commanders are somehow 'better' than these grubby foreigners - a typical xenophobic reaction. We just managed to avoid a military coup here, in the UK, some 30 years ago it would now appear.
In ancient history we only have to look at the fall of the Roman Republic to see how a charismatic military leader can change, for ever, the political structure. But, of course, we may once again comfort ourselves with the myth that we are more 'advanced' than they were!
On the subject of external threat, it is my view that presenting other countries with an armed stance and thousands of highly-trained, 24/7 armed personnel is, of its nature, a threat. The Dhammapada, at its veryt start, in the Pairs suggests to me that to threaten violence is to provoke violence. My reading of the Christian and Islamic scriptures confirms me in this view.
And I also accept that it is a view that is both eccentric and idiosyncratic. But what's new there? :hohum:
History shows much in the use of armies, not all was bad, evil or resulted in death.
What of the leaders, Kings, Queens, Presidents, Kommisars, etc., that directed armies into evil? Doesn't their demonstrated history indicate that leaders, and therefore governments are evil?
A gun is a collection of metal, wood and plastic parts. It has no qualities of being evil or good. It is a tool for use, just like armies are.
In other words, it is empty. At least until loaded!
Palzang
Now, as for the standing Army point, a SMALL standing active duty military is what you need. For your overall numbers, a large reservist/national guard type force works best. That's why over half of the US military is NG/ER. It's about having the strength available when you need it, not on call for when you want it.
Um, what ancient saying would that be?
Palzang
I like that one in particular and I'll try to get back to you on the author of that line.
I refer to my earlier comment and suggest that you spend a few minutes with The Dhammapada reading The Pairs.
"Those who live by the sword, die by the sword."
Palzang
It is a strange defence that moves out into others' territory and dubious rights that impede those of other people.
Now I want this war to end as quickly as possible, but I don't want mass genocide to ensue after the withdraw either.
Alas, the invasion forces have almost completely destroyed the economic and social infrastructures. Whether the troops leave tomorrw or in a few years, one AK47 per household will not provide light, heat, food on the table, clean drinking water or political institutions that are not split along sectarian lines.
There is much talk of the post-war Japanese and Germany models of reconstruction. This is, I regret to say b.s. The social, economic and political contexts are completely different. What is more, it should be remembered how much those reconstructions cost, how many millions were displaced and how long troops had to be kept as occupying forces. What is more, basic poltical and economic structures were maintained, whereas the alleged de-Ba'athification of Iraq left her with no army, no police force, open borders and looted treasures.
Oh, and the smaller villages that are without power and flowing water never had such things to begin with. The water and electricity in larger centers of population are regularly disrupted, but they are present and working.
The Pilgrim is an exception, of course.
Please let me quote one of his many offerings. In this US Presidential Election year, can we address issues more objectively —without resorting to ad hominem arguments or dodging the important issues by other rancorous means?
Bushi,
I can't wait to find out what it is! The suspense is killing me. Oh, I hope it's something good! Is it something good? How long do we have to wait to find out what it is? You'll tell us as soon as you're allowed to, won't you? (I think I've had too much coffee today.)
My father and I have been having these wonderful, varied political conversations lately. He's taken to sitting in the black winged back chair in my room as I sit on my bed propped up by pillows and we talk and talk and it's wonderful. He's mellowed greatly in his old age and is now a fully dedicated socialist and it's so great to share the same politics with him after all these years. He used to be a conservative which made me avoid any and all political conversation with him as I've always been a socialist. So we're making up for lost time now and I can't express in words how grateful I am to have the opportunity to spend this time with him before he dies. We're so fortunate it's crazy!
I still hold my position that Saddam was not an immediate threat. The war in Iraq could have waited five more years at least. But at least we know now that Iraq was in violation of UN Mandate, and this war wasn't a total waste.
As for all the secrecy, well, let's just say we didn't want to advertise to a dozen terrorist groups that there were the materials for making some serious dirty bombs or nukes lying around in Iraq, waiting for a buyer.