Originally Posted by wtrg8

This country needs to graduate more Doctors/Nurses before we destroy another industry with a Chinese type single payer health insurance program. .

Actually,the People's Republic has a for profit healthcare system.

I made the suggestion to make the Federal Government workers health system the model, why not

I wouldn't mind that so badly. Another approach could be to gradually lower the Medicare age from 62 to birth. Considering the cost factor, we wouldn't have to get there in just one year. We could knock off a few years now, get the qualifing age down into the 50's or lower and as we get closer to the 1T and our overall fiscal health (pun intended) improves gradually cover everyone.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Actually,the People's Republic has a for profit healthcare system.

I wouldn't mind that so badly. Another approach could be to gradually lower the Medicare age from 62 to birth. Considering the cost factor, we wouldn't have to get there in just one year. We could knock off a few years now, get the qualifing age down into the 50's or lower and as we get closer to the 1T and our overall fiscal health (pun intended) improves gradually cover everyone.

Actually merged MediCare/Medicaid into the new system (as you suggested to birth). I still think there can be a two-tier system and just not ready to dismantle it like most libs (Ed Schultz) prefer in a single-payer. The system isn't ready for it and do it for the truly uninsured, minus the smucks who can. Bush f'ed up the system with prescription drugs legislation and I partially agree with the MediCare system overhaul. If the health bill passes as is, I will be ditching my health insurance in a second because it doesn't reward, but take. Show me the GEHA, Mr. President.

http://www.geha.com/

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The GOP has become increasingly anti-intellectual, which has a tendency to drive out those with any college education whatsoever. Because the Millennial Generation is the best educated generation for its age, such bodes ill for keeping one group of people who used to be reliable GOP voters (white people with above-average intelligence).

Wasn't this the first election (at least in a while) where the Democratic candidate won among college graduates in the general election?

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

Wasn't this the first election (at least in a while) where the Democratic candidate won among college graduates in the general election?

If I may answer a question that wasn't addressed to me, I believe the answer is yes. Clinton *might* have won college graduates in 1996, but it's possible no Democrat has since LBJ.

The funny thing about education as a predictor of voting patterns: it's a bell curve. Those who didn't finish high school (and similarly, tend to be poor) vote overwhelmingly Democratic, as do postgraduates (many of whom are "latte drinking liberal" types). Those in the middle (high school grads, some college, or bachelor's degrees) are swing voters.

Originally Posted by 1990

If I may answer a question that wasn't addressed to me, I believe the answer is yes. Clinton *might* have won college graduates in 1996, but it's possible no Democrat has since LBJ.

The funny thing about education as a predictor of voting patterns: it's a bell curve. Those who didn't finish high school (and similarly, tend to be poor) vote overwhelmingly Democratic, as do postgraduates (many of whom are "latte drinking liberal" types). Those in the middle (high school grads, some college, or bachelor's degrees) are swing voters.

The post-grad crowd began voting Democratic in 1992. However, according to Wikipedia, among those with a college education but not a grad school degree, the Republican took this group narrowly in 1992, 1996, and 2004.

I haven't been able to find a stat for 2000.

Interesting tidbit I ran into on Wiki that is relevant to the comparison between this 4T and the Glorious Revolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

Some conservatives also embrace some forms of positive liberty. For example, (though the labels conservative, liberal, left, and right are anachronistic to them) Christian Puritans such as Cotton Mather, who often referred to liberty in their writings, tended to focus on the freedom from sin (for example, freedom from errant sexual thought and actions) even at the expense of liberty from government sanction. So, for the Puritans, who considered society and society's government to be practically indistinguishable, the idea of modesty mores being societally enforced was an idea that supported and enhanced community liberty. Such communitarian liberty is not liberty that those that are called individualist or libertarian would recognize; it is positive liberty.

I am reminded of smoking bans and "protect the kids" moralizing...

Originally Posted by Odin

Interesting tidbit I ran into on Wiki that is relevant to the comparison between this 4T and the Glorious Revolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

I am reminded of smoking bans and "protect the kids" moralizing...

I'm not sure where the Puritans would have fallen on the chart, but I have a guess. They had many political views that were quite advanced for their time and despite their reputation for being pleasure police, they were definitely more religiously tolerant and in favor of civil liberties than most of their contemporaries. I actually suspect many of them were on the true left, which would make the current use of the word "puritan" highly ironic.

In England, the Puritans ended up a significant part of the first Whig coalition and backed the Glorious Revolution. Due to differences in life expectancy, the colonies would have went into and ended their Crisis earlier than England -- which is why the Glorious Revolution feels like a climax for the American colonies, but a regeneracy for England proper. This also means that Europe was still in unraveling during the American Revolution, which fits with the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars occurring later on.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I'm not sure where the Puritans would have fallen on the chart, but I have a guess. They had many political views that were quite advanced for their time and despite their reputation for being pleasure police, they were definitely more religiously tolerant and in favor of civil liberties than most of their contemporaries. I actually suspect many of them were on the true left, which would make the current use of the word "puritan" highly ironic.

In England, the Puritans ended up a significant part of the first Whig coalition and backed the Glorious Revolution. Due to differences in life expectancy, the colonies would have went into and ended their Crisis earlier than England -- which is why the Glorious Revolution feels like a climax for the American colonies, but a regeneracy for England proper. This also means that Europe was still in unraveling during the American Revolution, which fits with the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars occurring later on.

Following Mr. Evelyn Waugh's Scoop: Up to a point, Mr. Horner.

They were tolerant if you were not a Papist, a Baptist, a Quaker, a First National, a Royalist, a Parliament Man, a cargo in hold on the Triangular Trade. See the second version of Mr. Brooks Adam's The Emancipation of Massachusetts for an examination in depth. That they were involved in the Treason of the Invitation to the "light in the wooden shoes" monarch from across the North Sea does them no credit, either. Hatred-mongers, levellers, insolent to the sovereign, kill joys>>>>>-------> Ur-Crowns of Creation. "Yes, they COULD!"

Their Charter was revoked, if only someone would do the like for the Boomer Roundheads!

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I'm not sure where the Puritans would have fallen on the chart, but I have a guess. They had many political views that were quite advanced for their time and despite their reputation for being pleasure police, they were definitely more religiously tolerant and in favor of civil liberties than most of their contemporaries. I actually suspect many of them were on the true left, which would make the current use of the word "puritan" highly ironic.

In England, the Puritans ended up a significant part of the first Whig coalition and backed the Glorious Revolution. Due to differences in life expectancy, the colonies would have went into and ended their Crisis earlier than England -- which is why the Glorious Revolution feels like a climax for the American colonies, but a regeneracy for England proper. This also means that Europe was still in unraveling during the American Revolution, which fits with the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars occurring later on.

Very interesting, and I agree with your placing of the Puritans, they strongly tended towards being radical anti-hierarchical egalitarians and would definitely fit in the same zone as modern American Progressives.

Mr. Horner:

The work you've done here is interesting. Before getting into the minutiae, though, I find myself moved to address the fundamental assumptions behind it, to wit:

1) That the political constellation can be adequately represented by the intersection of two polarities; and

2) That the two polarities you've chosen (simplicity versus complexity of rules and deference versus challenge to authority) are the best choices if so.

I've had problems with the Nolan chart on the same basis (that it leaves a lot out, and that I find my own views poorly expressed by my own position on it), but your own quadrant division excludes the Nolan left-right axis, while dividing the libertarian-authoritarian axis into two component functions. Arguably, both the simple/precise rules polarity and that of respect/challenge to authority are aspects of the libertarian/authoritarian axis, and thus your system is entirely based around that dichotomy. While that dichotomy is an important one, it seems to me that it can encompass all the political spectrum even less effectively than the Nolan chart.

I will have some more to say on this later, probably tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

1) That the political constellation can be adequately represented by the intersection of two polarities; and

Definitely an unproven assumption. I choose two axes because one axis is clearly too few and as for 3 or more axes, I haven't seen a good 3D model where one of the axes doesn't easily collapse into one or both of the other two and I also don't see a real need for a third axis. (That diagrams with 3+ axes are hard to draw is, admittedly, a factor, but a minor one.)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

2) That the two polarities you've chosen (simplicity versus complexity of rules and deference versus challenge to authority) are the best choices if so.

I'm open to alternatives. It is, after all, just a model.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I've had problems with the Nolan chart on the same basis (that it leaves a lot out, and that I find my own views poorly expressed by my own position on it), but your own quadrant division excludes the Nolan left-right axis, while dividing the libertarian-authoritarian axis into two component functions.

Are you referring to the Nolan economic axis or the Nolan personal axis as the left-right one? The Nolan Chart is usually presented as a diamond with the libertarian quadrant pointed up, so neither axis is left-right. Perhaps you're referring to the left-right axis from politicalcompass.org?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I will have some more to say on this later, probably tomorrow.

Sounds good . . . as of yet, I'm not precisely sure of the nature of your objections.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I'm not sure where the Puritans would have fallen on the chart, but I have a guess. They had many political views that were quite advanced for their time and despite their reputation for being pleasure police, they were definitely more religiously tolerant and in favor of civil liberties than most of their contemporaries. I actually suspect many of them were on the true left, which would make the current use of the word "puritan" highly ironic.

In England, the Puritans ended up a significant part of the first Whig coalition and backed the Glorious Revolution. Due to differences in life expectancy, the colonies would have went into and ended their Crisis earlier than England -- which is why the Glorious Revolution feels like a climax for the American colonies, but a regeneracy for England proper. This also means that Europe was still in unraveling during the American Revolution, which fits with the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars occurring later on.

Not to mention the colonists were having very serious Indian trouble at the time, which makes it really feel like a climax for us.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Are you referring to the Nolan economic axis or the Nolan personal axis as the left-right one?

Economic.

The Nolan Chart is usually presented as a diamond with the libertarian quadrant pointed up, so neither axis is left-right.

I mean left-right in traditional political terms, not geometric.

I'm still going to have to think on this some more. It's been a pretty busy week (passed my insurance license exam, looking for a new place to live, and starting to look for a new job as well -- although my boss is now offering some sort of deal to try to keep me, which is a good feeling even if I decide not to stay) and this deserves better than an off-the-cuff hatch job.

My objections have to do with the fact that, like all such models, it seems a bit Procrustean. I can place myself on it easily enough (close to dead center vertically, well to the left horizontally), but I can also see sharing the same position with others who are radically different from me in important political parameters. But as I said, I can't do the subject justice at the moment. I'll try to by the end of the weekend, though.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Economic.

I mean left-right in traditional political terms, not geometric.

Traditional as in the 20th century, but when the left-right distinction arose (back in the French assembly) the classical liberals were on the left too. So, in some parts of history left-right was more like the Nolan Chart's personal liberty axis.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm still going to have to think on this some more. It's been a pretty busy week (passed my insurance license exam, looking for a new place to live, and starting to look for a new job as well -- although my boss is now offering some sort of deal to try to keep me, which is a good feeling even if I decide not to stay) and this deserves better than an off-the-cuff hatch job.

Offline life does take precedence (usually).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

My objections have to do with the fact that, like all such models, it seems a bit Procrustean. I can place myself on it easily enough (close to dead center vertically, well to the left horizontally), but I can also see sharing the same position with others who are radically different from me in important political parameters. But as I said, I can't do the subject justice at the moment. I'll try to by the end of the weekend, though.

I definitely recognize that all the people in a particular pie wedge are not alike. When I posted this Chart on Newsvine, the author of the Mitchell Chart posted about it and we had a disagreement about where Ayn Rand would fit. (I say upper right, he said upper left.) The point of contention was Rand's atheism which would tend to indicate her being on the anarche/challenge to authority side of the chart. I countered that her conception of Reason was fairly theistic in tone, and that her attitude towards wealth and talent was extremely pro-heirarchy. Basically, her strong atheism was an exception to her otherwise rightward bias. Most people have such exceptions. The chart only measures the bias that people tend towards and the strength of that bias.

Over on Democratic Underground today there is been a massive Lower-Left vs. Upper-Left flame war involving the charity Food-Not-Bombs serving food to homeless people and health regulations that were being accused of being selectively enforced in order to slam people giving out food to the homeless and starve said homeless people out of town. I almost popped a fuse when the Lower-Left posters accused us on the Upper-Left of sucking up to Reagan and similar BS strawmen that essentially consisted of accusing us of being in cahoots with the Right.

Originally Posted by Odin

Over on Democratic Underground today there is been a massive Lower-Left vs. Upper-Left flame war involving the charity Food-Not-Bombs serving food to homeless people and health regulations that were being accused of being selectively enforced in order to slam people giving out food to the homeless and starve said homeless people out of town. I almost popped a fuse when the Lower-Left posters accused us on the Upper-Left of sucking up to Reagan and similar BS strawmen that essentially consisted of accusing us of being in cahoots with the Right.

Got a link?

Originally Posted by Odin

Over on Democratic Underground today there is been a massive Lower-Left vs. Upper-Left flame war involving the charity Food-Not-Bombs serving food to homeless people and health regulations that were being accused of being selectively enforced in order to slam people giving out food to the homeless and starve said homeless people out of town. I almost popped a fuse when the Lower-Left posters accused us on the Upper-Left of sucking up to Reagan and similar BS strawmen that essentially consisted of accusing us of being in cahoots with the Right.

If you're not with us, you're with the greasy spoons!

Originally Posted by Odin

Over on Democratic Underground today there is been a massive Lower-Left vs. Upper-Left flame war involving the charity Food-Not-Bombs serving food to homeless people and health regulations that were being accused of being selectively enforced in order to slam people giving out food to the homeless and starve said homeless people out of town. I almost popped a fuse when the Lower-Left posters accused us on the Upper-Left of sucking up to Reagan and similar BS strawmen that essentially consisted of accusing us of being in cahoots with the Right.

Oh, then it's not just the City of Albuquerque with a bug in their bonnets? It's a concerted national effort? Or are we just looking at the usual 4T effort to regularize everything?

Where's the thread on that particular controversy at, Odin? DU always struck me as solidly lower-left, more in line with the Democratic party than attached to any particular idealism.

Anyway, after having not visited for a year or two, things seem a bit more slanted to the up. So the same kind of flame wars, with a slightly different balance of power.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Got a link?

Share your food with someone who is hungry and off to jail you go.

Originally Posted by Odin

Share your food with someone who is hungry and off to jail you go.

Dear Sir,

The Mobility doesn't want the particulars of the Right Deviationists or the Left Deviationists of the Democrat Party; just tell us who ought be shot.

Thank you.

Yo. Ob. Sv.
VKS

Originally Posted by independent

Where's the thread on that particular controversy at, Odin? DU always struck me as solidly lower-left, more in line with the Democratic party than attached to any particular idealism.

Anyway, after having not visited for a year or two, things seem a bit more slanted to the up. So the same kind of flame wars, with a slightly different balance of power.

DU seems to be mostly True Left as a whole, with a bit of a lean towards bottom, though with many vocal Lower-Right Marxist-Leninist Chavez-bots trying to drown out the voices of reason. The posters defending Obama are mostly Lower Left and True Bottom, his critics there tend to be True Left and Upper-Left, along with before-mentioned Lower-Right Chavez-bots.

The best indicator that a poster there is Upper-Left is if he/she bashes the Fed. And that thread is a good example of the Upper-Left faction on DU.

I myself am True Left, a left-wing follower of the political ideas of Karl Popper (also True Left according to Kurt), which makes me that target of flames from the Marxist Chavez-bots.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Oh, then it's not just the City of Albuquerque with a bug in their bonnets? It's a concerted national effort? Or are we just looking at the usual 4T effort to regularize everything?

The assault of the homeless is very widespread. It's a mix of vicious "don't feed the bums, they'll fund a job or starve" sentiment, selfish "they'll hurt property values and scare the tourists" sentiment, and ordinary True Bottom bureaucratic stupidity.

First they came for the marshmellow topped jello-mold and the potato dot casserole....


Those joy hating busybodies were intent on destroying the community supper at places secular and religious whilst pretending to worry about the health of the dinners- voluntary association and potluck (((((The HORROR))))) (of people combining to dine and converse without State-santioned victuals).

Meanwhile those who did give donations to their Rentpersons spread food borne diseases about he entire Planet. The ObamaMeal will be all that's allowable in the Coming Crisis, purchased by SNAPs and manufactured by ADM.

Rather than try to catch up on 12 pages of discussion that I seem to have missed, I have a few points to make about what this all means.

I do believe that Kurt is on to something when it comes to this shifting arc. However, I think we have to be careful about labels.

As I see it, you have to look directly at the axes, not at the labels for each particular vector. The "true right" might correspond to theocrats, but is that really what it means? I don't think so.

The axis simply says "deference to authority." This really doesn't have anything to do with theocracy. It has to do with trust in the authority of the governing system. In the case of the United States, our authority is the President.

Which I think explains FDR fairly well. FDR is probably the man who has come closest to being an American monarch, and he really can be described as a sort of Democratic King. He was also probably the most authoritarian president of all time, in terms of how much he expanded the authority of the federal government, and of the executive branch.

And he was largely supported by what was the center of the American public during the crisis. In other words, FDR was the patriarch of the "true right," if "right" is defined as deference to authority.

So let's not get caught up on labels, and look at what the axes actually mean. If you look at that instead, the center of this country is actually more or less "pro-nuance." And after the crisis, the center will be divided between a nuanced center-right, and an anti-authority (against our current system of governance, which is representative democracy) center-left.