I agree. But IMO trying to involuntarily imposing them on other cultures, even if well-meaning, is a recipe for disaster. And in any case all cultures have good and bad elements, it's one thing to criticize one or a few specific elements of a culture, it's quite another to take these elements to assert that the culture as a whole is evil.Originally Posted by Kurt Horner
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
So what answers did you give on the questions? And what answers do you think are typical are most typical for liberal Yers?
Last edited by Adina; 08-13-2010 at 05:09 PM.
He's a socialist though--highly. Which is , I believe, the upper left quarter. Kurt would prob' be a better source of info. No offense Odin.
"Freedom is not something that the rulers "give" the population...people have immense power potential. It is ultimately their attitudes, behavior, cooperation, and obedience that supply the power to all rulers and hierarchical systems..." - Gene Sharp
"The Occupy protesters are acting like citizens, believing they have the power to change things...that humble people can acquire power when they convince themselves they can." - William Greider
Fair enough.
True, but I don't think the authors of the compass actually surveyed these politicians. I think they believe that American (and British?) politicians are all conservatives compared to European ones, or ones from earlier times. They have a point, but I think they exaggerate. But the position of Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Blair et al are likely not actual test scores but where the compass folks THINK they fit.There also is some question as to whether the Nolan or Compass charts should be centered with respect to the Mitchell chart. For example, the Compass quiz puts nearly all American politicians in the authoritarian right zone which may be accurate in terms of relative policy stance between countries but isn't useful for my purposes:
I don't think I like it either.
I should also point out that Mitchell defines the vertical axis by a person's amenability to using force to achieve social goals. I don't like this definition...
I certainly think our recent American 3T was upper right; trickle-down, free-market economics totally predominated throughout, especially Republicans (the dominant party in most of the 3T), but it also influenced the Democrats heavily (Clinton, Rubin, etc.). But there was also a strong religious right current, that is true (lower right). You are saying that turnings don't have the same position? I think S&H would argue for strong similarity between them, though not identity. The 3T definitely has to do with the upper right by nature, and they said so. One of the things they mentioned was income inequality, and no will or desire to equalize it. That's pure 1980s/90s dogma, and also 1920s. There was also a strong religious right current in the 1920s btw. But in both cases it was libertarian economics that dominated policy decisions in these periods.Here we find a notable area of disagreement. I don't think turnings and political styles align in a repetitive fashion. A 3T can have an attitude reflective of any of the quadrants, depending on what part of the overall cycle a society is in. This 3T has been lower right. The last one was upper right, the one prior to the Civil War was upper left and the one prior to the Revolution was lower left.
Oh ok. So Odinif you could turn the US into a socialist country would you do it? Would it benefit people? Would it benefit you personally? How did you come up with your socialist beliefs? How strongly do you feel about them?He's a socialist though--highly. Which is , I believe, the upper left quarter. Kurt would prob' be a better source of info. No offense Odin.
political spectrum
Left: 7.18, Libertarian: 3.98
foreign policy -8.57
culture war -7.98
Good test.
http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/pol...trum-quiz.html
I am more authoritarian than on the political compass. If this matches the nolan chart i would be just below the line on the left side. On their own quizzes I am usually slightly above the line. I am at an almost identical analogous place on the political compass, to where I am on the nolan grid.
My moral score:
ERIC THE GREEN'S SCORE
Your scored -2.5 on Moral Order and 3.5 on Moral Rules.
The following categories best match your score (multiple responses are possible):
System: Socialism
Ideology: Social Democratism
Party: No match.
Presidents: Jimmy Carter
04' Election: David Cobb
08' Election: Barrack Obama
Of the 625,842 respondents (11,418 on Facebook):
3% are close to you.
60% are more conservative.
23% are more liberal.
9% are more socialist.
5% are more authoritarian.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 08-13-2010 at 06:49 PM.
I don't know that I'd say what happened from the Reagan years to 2007 as "libertarian economics." It was *worse* than libertarian economics. At least in fictional pure libertarian economics or pure "free market" economics, you don't have public policy dictated by megacorporations which have purchased politicians (both parties, hedging their bets) to craft public policy which favors the corporations at the expense of smaller business and labor.
In other words, a "true" libertarian economic system would mean the large corporations could only increase profits if they did something better than their competition (or cheaper through economies of scale). Not by buying Congress to the point where, between favorable laws to aid in the exportation of middle class American jobs and the ability to kill smaller businesses with complicated regulations they can afford but smaller competitors can't, they can work the government to rig the game in their favor and increase the natural advantages their massive size already gives them.
I would think it's more like "libertarianish economics with the few natural corrective aspects of the free market neutered by corporate-friendly legislation."
Points well taken; it's a matter of what people call what. Free-market libertarian economics says let business do what it wants. The net effect is that business becomes corporate and runs society, including the government. The reality is not what the advocates say it is.
Perhaps. I guess to me the "pure free market" (again, a theoretical construct) would have a "separation of business and state" aspect that we definitely don't have here. Keep in mind that the textbook definition of libertarianism would imply an absolute minimum amount of government intervention in economic affairs; to me that implies government stays out of the way, not allowing itself to be bought and paid for by big business since that is a form of government intervention in the market (because that is no longer a small or minarchist government).
I realize I'm speaking in the theoretical and not in reality for the most part. But I do think the term "libertarian" is slightly misused and abused by some of those who disagree with its basic principles.
I lived in and around San Jose for most my life, by the way. Miss the weather (especially in the summer) but not the cost of living.
Just one more point. This is not quite true even in the absence of "buying" the government for favorable legislation.
Libertarian economics do not let businesses do *anything* it wants. If their actions result in damages to me, whether economic, physical or other infringement, libertarianism permits me to sue the business for damages. If they emit pollution that damages my property or wrecks my livelihood (BP, anyone?), libertarian economics generally hold that I have every right to sue the business for economic damages. So anyone who thinks a libertarian economy and government would allow BP to spill oil all over the place without compensating injured parties for actual financial damages is incorrect. Libertarianism would hold that it's a valid use of the court system for me as a shrimper in the Gulf to sue BP for damages caused to my income and livelihood.
I dabbled in libertarian theory and read a fair bit of libertarian literature quite a few years back being drawn to the idea of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, and these are things I got straight out of many libertarian thinkers (and indeed, even the Libertarian Party platform) over the years. I found it unworkable in the real world today even if theoretically interesting.
So it's not quite true that business could do whatever it wants. It could do whatever it wanted until it broke laws or infringed on the life, liberty, property or livelihood of another entity. I'm not intending to defend libertarianism here but to clear up what may be some misconceptions about it.
It's true, although they're probably not wildly off in their estimates.
But was that the primary trend, or a side-effect of conservatism being popular for other reasons? I think an authoritarian trend is quite clear throughout the 3T which is lacking in previous 3Ts. The last 3T featured the Palmer raids, but note that the same politicians who decried that and ramped down WWI war fever were also the ones favoring business (Republicans in both cases). In this 3T, authoritarianism and pro-business attitudes were allied rather than opposed. In the 3T before that, there is no discernible authoritarian trend at all.
And I would agree, in a way. The trend in a 3T is a swing back along the arc of respectability toward the trailing edge. The subsequent 4T removes that portion of the chart from "respectable" discourse and brings new views into play on the leading edge. So, there are similarities in all 1T/3Ts in that the viewpoint that peaks toward the end gets discredited over the course of the 2T/4T. But which viewpoint gets the axe in particular shifts around the chart.
Which would be 225 degrees on my chart -- right down the middle of the lower left zone. No surprise there.
well, I'm more of a Libertarian Socialist (moderate Anarcho-Socialist)
I would:
Replace corporations with Co-ops
Enact Fair Trade policies
Legalize pot and other "soft" recreational drugs, decriminalize other drugs, and treat drug abuse as a medical issue.
Scale back the power of the Federal government in many areas and end the Imperial Presidency.
Cut the military budget by 2/3 and close most bases outside the US.
End military aid to Israel and to oppressive reactionary regimes like in Egypt and Colombia.
My socialist beliefs come out of growing up in an economically depressed rural community that showed the doctrine that "you'll be rich if you work hard enough" to be a lie. Most rich people are parasites that do little or no real work themselves while at the same time conspire to screw over the workers and middle class small business owners, the people who actually create the wealth, using The State to manipulate things in their favor.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
The 3T was Corporatist, Lower-Right; using the regulatory power of The State to help the Elites. The True Top and Upper-Right rhetoric is just that, rhetoric.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Well, except on the losing side at least.
But you're right, in the sense that the Reagan-Bush years (1980-2008) and even before that were a reaction to the provocations of the late 60s awakening. Still, the principle argument was (and is) couched in terms of "freedom," and the main desire was greed; let business do what it wants, and don't make me pay taxes. That may have had little to do with the late 60s, and more of a typical 3T impulse, combined with the still-endemic conservative opposition to the New Deal, and to the Great Society programs which were its offspring-- and last expression of the post-war 1T (most were JFK's ideas).
And liberals during the 3T were also accused of defensively hanging on too much to its benefits, or in some cases enabling the corporate takeover, and being "pro-government" (and thus "authoritarian").
But the upper right is conservative, and thus near the axis "deference to authority," although called "libertarian right" on the compass and "economic libertarian" on the Libertarian Party (Nolan) chart. It is actually quite authoritarian; it says obey the bosses and let them oppress the people as much as they like. So it's quite easy for the fundamentalist religious right movement to ally with it, even though the two are different. Both movements are in favor of the traditional conservative values of the America of yesterday, just like Archie Bunker was. And they were also allies in the 1920s.
I think "libertarian" as practiced is not in favor of allowing you to sue; it wants to scale back your right to infringe on business, because that would adversely affect the market, which creates your job. They talk endlessly about "tort reform." Libertarian economics says feel sorry for the oil men, and that criticizing them is bad for the market. Government should keep its hands off the free market; that's all libertarians say. On the plus side might be that they are against government bail-outs for corporations.
That's how libertarians like the Pauls talk, even if some more-thoughtful and erudite theoretical ones that you know (and I don't) might be more aware that business too can oppress, and should be restrained by law. Some libertarians are more aware of this, and they tend to drift away from the Party; but the doctrinaire ones could care less if business tramples on some toes. I don't think it's a misconception; it's how they think and talk. And of course, most economic libertarians are Republicans, not Libertarians (who are relatively few). Their popular expression today is the "tea party." Thus they owe no real allegiance to the concept of "liberty" except as a convenient and beguiling slogan. Some more-moderate economic libertarians like Secretary Rubin are even Democrats.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 08-14-2010 at 12:42 AM.
There's certainly some confusion that can be caused when talking about the authoritarian zone on the Nolan chart and comparing it to the authority side of my chart. Since the Nolan chart focuses on government action, their authoritarian zone is very much in the lower right. But, the right is deferent to authority on many other fronts besides the state.
The alliance between pro-business types and traditionalists post-dates the last 3T. Take Father Coughlin for example. Coughlin was socially conservative, but not at all pro-business. Or to take an example from the 20s: the man who took up the anti-evolution side in the Scopes trial was William Jennings Brian -- who can't even remotely be called pro-business. The "natural" alliance between the upper-right and the lower-right simply didn't exist then. In the early 20th century, deference to authority figures was the default. The matter under dispute was whether the existing rules (primarily regarding economics) were fine as is, or needed far greater detail (i.e. top vs. bottom).
Decades later, the primary conflict in our society is left-right, but the New Deal era political categories have an echo that continues. The right's rhetoric is, IMO, totally incoherent at this point. The conservative electorate is primarily lower right, but they talk about defending economic liberty as if the upper right was still driving the conservative movement.
You can talk about a "natural" lower-right, upper-right alliance, but there is also a natural upper-left, upper-right alliance and a natural lower-left, lower-right alliance etc. Any two adjacent quadrants can (and will be) allies in the latter half of a saeculum -- but which ones will ally changes. (In the first half of a saeculum, you get a diagonal division, with one quadrant being the political center and the opposite of that quadrant being consigned to the wilderness.)
Exactly so.
Certainly there were far more economic liberals/social conservatives then, although if my memory serves most social conservatives were puritans who supported Republicans, who were economic (upper) right. In the 1900s and 1910s the progressive movement made its best advances, and dominated the 1912 elections; although by today's standards perhaps it was socially more conservative.The alliance between pro-business types and traditionalists post-dates the last 3T. Take Father Coughlin for example. Coughlin was socially conservative, but not at all pro-business. Or to take an example from the 20s: the man who took up the anti-evolution side in the Scopes trial was William Jennings Brian -- who can't even remotely be called pro-business. The "natural" alliance between the upper-right and the lower-right simply didn't exist then. In the early 20th century, deference to authority figures was the default. The matter under dispute was whether the existing rules (primarily regarding economics) were fine as is, or needed far greater detail (i.e. top vs. bottom).
It is; the tea party is driving it now; they are entirely upper right; but allied (or sometimes identical) with social conservatives (lower right).Decades later, the primary conflict in our society is left-right, but the New Deal era political categories have an echo that continues. The right's rhetoric is, IMO, totally incoherent at this point. The conservative electorate is primarily lower right, but they talk about defending economic liberty as if the upper right was still driving the conservative movement.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 08-14-2010 at 10:57 PM.
How similar are their views to mine?It is; the tea party is driving it now; they are entirely upper right
By any standard, really. The progressive movement also favored alcohol prohibition and eugenics. You don't get much more deferent to authority than thinking that its OK to tell people what to drink and determine for them whether or not they can have kids. The difference between the lower right progressives and the upper right conservatives was not whether society needed rigid standards (and let's be honest, that included white superiority) -- the difference was whether civil society was doing that well enough already or whether it needed a boost from the state. In other words, the conflict was on the vertical axis. Social conservatism was the default, with only a few obscure upper left liberals like Mark Twain or socialist radicals like Eugene Debs swimming the other way.
The upper right would certainly like to be driving, and there are a lot of true top and upper right types who desperately hope that the right can be steered away from the nationalistic trend that typified the Bush years. But ultimately, that's just hope, and the tea party groups are now only slightly more counterclockwise on the chart than the typical GOP voter. All the recent polls show virtually no daylight between Tea Party views and rank-and-file GOP views. Even if the GOP regains some power in the near term, they will govern lower right.
But there were large movements for more permissive social attitudes in those years; the first of the trends of the 20th century. I can't be too specific right now but the movement toward more outdoor sports, and the movement toward free love, were quite noticeable in the turn of the 20th century era. In the roaring 20s 3T there was a battle between these "purients" hanging out at the speakeasies and the puritans.
They never seem to give the social conservatives much of what they are asking for. The upper right uses the lower half to get elected; then ignores them. Although Bush alone among GOP presidents gave them something (e.g. he vetoed stem cell research); and they all gave them a strong "defense" and wars. But opposition to war is mostly upper left (to which Libertarians also subscribe); for the upper right war is quite lucrative.The upper right would certainly like to be driving, and there are a lot of true top and upper right types who desperately hope that the right can be steered away from the nationalistic trend that typified the Bush years. But ultimately, that's just hope, and the tea party groups are now only slightly more counterclockwise on the chart than the typical GOP voter. All the recent polls show virtually no daylight between Tea Party views and rank-and-file GOP views. Even if the GOP regains some power in the near term, they will govern lower right.
An Awakening will produce social movements all over the political spectrum. Most of them fade in significance. As the Crisis kicked in during the 30s, social liberalism came to be strongly associated with socialism (because the only social liberals of significance were also socialists or at least sympathetic to socialism). As far as I can tell, that association existed but was not really considered exclusive until post-WWII when the "godless Communist" canard took off. Before that time classical liberals were known for being socially liberal as well. But, with the upper left being in the fringe zone, anyone with those sympathies either ended up chumming with socialists in the lower left (and thus being a lot less "classical" in their liberalism) or tilting toward the chamber of commerce crowd (and thus muting their social liberalism).
A similar phenomenon is going to occur with the upper right this time around -- where they'll either go full libertarian and mute their social conservatism or move toward the lower right and focus on law and order, social tradition and national greatness. The upper right will temporarily cease to exist as a coherent view of politics in-and-of itself.
2005 was a critical year for the GOP coalition. The GOP finally had clear, unequivocal control of the federal government and it was composed of a huge coalition stretching all the way from true bottom through the right and up to include some lingering upper left elements (mostly older folks who were Republicans from the High). Every time the upper right and lower right came into conflict, the upper right lost. Social Security reform failed. The Miers nomination failed. Katrina relief became a pork-fest. All the while, the war machine rolled on unabated. By 2006, the remainder of the upper left had fully deserted the GOP and the upper right was demoralized. The door was open to a Democratic wave election.
Today the upper right is galvanized again. But even if they're successful in the 2010 election (which I doubt) the results they desire will not materialize leading to further demoralization.
I believe the current bruhaha over gay marriage is a prime example of what you're referncing here, is it not? I do believe eventually the supporters will win, but it's going to take a while. I also believe that this is shaping up to be what we might call a Heinz 57 type 4T. The amount of issues at stake may not quite add up to 57, but it is seemingly close. The main ones, however, will probably end up being the 3 E's--economy, education, and environment.
For some people on the upper right, gay marriage will be the decisive issue that causes them to remain on the trailing edge (i.e. side with the lower right). Those who are less perturbed by this change (or who don't care) are probably more likely to end up on the leading edge (i.e. siding with the left). But actually, gay marriage opposition is probably more of an indicator of which lower left types are most likely to end up being moderate Republicans as the Crisis winds down.
I'm not sure. It's entirely possible that this widespread feeling that everything is going wrong is typical of an early 4T. In other words, it may seem like a vast range of issues are in a state of chaos, but the "crucial" 4T issues may only be known in retrospect.
I do think that as the new political alignment develops, that alignment will shape the major conflicts. So, my assumption is that this will involve issues where the lower left and upper left agree and are opposed to the lower right (so social issues mainly). To the extent that economic issues need to be addressed, and they do, these issues will often be seen through a social policy lens. Take for example the fight over the Arizona immigration law. The argument that immigrants "steal jobs" is oddly not a major focus of this debate despite the fact that we're in the worst recession in decades. Instead we're talking about racial profiling and whether law breaking behavior should be tolerated. That's a big difference from how I recall the early 90s immigration debates.
I would say that it's because the "stolen jobs" most people are worried about today aren't being taken by illegals in the U.S., but rather exported by corporate America to China and India, and given to foreign nationals in the U.S. through the H-1B program.
What were the 1990s immigration debates like?. That's a big difference from how I recall the behavior should be tolerated. That's a big difference from how I recall the early 90s immigration debates
