Reforming Democracy

[Eric_The_Pipe]

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

The best thing to do is let people do what they think is important, within reason. Allow as much freedom as possible,

i’m all for allowing as much freedom as possible for people to do what they think is important, within reason - in fact, i think most Americans are all for that, liberal and conservative alike - but it’s the all-too-necessary “within reason” clause where all the differences in opinion emerge. Is it within reason to allow people to have sex in public if that’s what they think is important? What if they think it’s important to make and sell meth? More to the point, what if they think it’s important to marry someone of the same gender or abort their pregnancy? Answers may vary.

There are quite a few things that both sides, even most of the extreme aspects, can agree on. Murder, etc… For everything else their is voting and political fighting. I accept that President Obama is my president, he won the election, but so did President W. Bush. The important part for limiting corruption, though, is going to be open communication on both sides, and allowing them to work with the system they have. That is why I’m opposed to “campaign finance reform” of probably any kind… I could see a requirement if any group donates over $500, total not at a time, that the name of that “group” be disclosed. That way we know who the Koch brothers support.

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

in things like campaign donation it would be letting whomever donate whatever to their preferred cause.

It’s a fine line, because 1) There is a difference between a campaign and a cause, and 2) As always, those with less money are screwed when it comes helping their preferred candidates. The voice of the have-nots recedes even further into the background, as only the wealthy can afford to run for any major office.

I disagree. The collective has more money together than the wealthy do individually, this is why apartment buildings get built. It is why rich neighborhoods like to create public open space policies, or require a size of property ownership, it keeps the poor people out. The current campaign reform reduces their ability to effect outcomes more than helps.

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

Gerrymandering is one of the worst examples of this… (Not that I have a great solution for the gerrymandering problem…)

Oh i agree, gerrymandering has reached an epic level of absurdity. i think they need to make a legal definition for what gerrymandering is and then have oversight agencies. Obviously, you will disagree, because that costs money and creates bureaucracy, but i think sometimes regulations do help solve, or at least reign in, corruption.

I have never seen a situation, where the problem is manipulation of bureaucracy, enhanced by more bureaucracy. It’s the equivalent of putting the fox in charge of the hen house… It just transfers even more power away from the populous.

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

I see kids, who are overwhelmingly in those “soul-crushing” jobs learning skill that would be too costly to teach in other jobs.

“Overwhelmingly” kids?

And it’s funny now that those jobs are suddenly actually skilled positions - but only for the sake of argument, and never for the sake of determining wages!

They are not skilled positions, they are positions that teach skills. Usually skills so basic, the fact they must be taught undermines the usefulness of the individual… It’s why we pay to have 10 year olds learn math, instead of letting them take jobs that would teach them.

One of my favorite things about Economics is it forced me to think of things differently. If we look as skills as something that cost, then the question becomes, who does it cost. For those lowly “minimum wage” jobs, the worker brings in enough money that their lack of skills counter the costs to train them in those skills. This can be thought of for children, still in primary school, as their lack of skills are such a detriment that the populous must pay to have them brought up to usefulness. (Note: One reason I’m not full on libertarian is I think public funding of schools in necessary.) So they are so unskilled their lack costs more than they could ever bring in…

Though that thought does give quite a bit of prestige to “minimum wage” jobs…

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

I see areas of “academic” study that would not exist if they had to produce people that could do a real job,

“Real job”? Like what? Accounting? Cleaning stables? Writing essays on “queer theory”? What is a “real job” and who decides, especially for the sake of deeming which courses of study are useful?

People who pay. The amount of money you earn is not based on value you chose, but based on the value you provide to others.

@uglypeoplefucking

But regardless, one is learning potentially valuable skills writing about anything, or researching anything, or analyzing anything, it doesn’t necessarily matter the subject.

Agreed. But only being able to write, research or analyze is not going to help.

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

to believe we are creating great things with shitty education is fooling ourselves, not anyone else.

Hm, perhaps by the same token we ought not believe we are creating great things with shitty jobs either.

I disagree.

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

I disagree, I think Liberals are more interested in the appearance of things and less interested in the actual make up. A false facade is enough for liberal most of the time.

Well, we’re obviously not going to agree on this, but i see it this way:

The liberal believes in entitlements, and believes that everyone is entitled to the things they need.

On the other hand, as long as the conservative has what he himself needs, he is not concerned with the needs of others, and so doesn’t believe in entitlements.

We do not agree. But that is ok for right now.

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

@uglypeoplefucking

What’s useful?

Not everything.

That doesn’t answer the question. If you are talking about doing away with things because they aren’t useful, it’s reasonable to expect that you can lay out some standards as to what is and isn’t useful. It’s also important to acknowledge that different people - like you and i - will have different ideas about what is useful, so if we are allowing people to pursue what they feel is important, then we have to accept that people are going to do things that we ourselves might consider useless and unimportant, be it majoring in Women’s Studies or going to church or whathaveyou. Different strokes.

That is fine. So long as it is understood, after, the person majoring in Women’s Studies is going to provide limited value to others, resulting in no job for that person, and it is their own damn fault and we do not need another entitlement to fix that persons stupid decisions… Note: that is why a conservative “doesn’t believe in entitlements.”

Further, that persons failure works as a market adjustment, ideally limiting the amount of people majoring in Women’s Studies, reaching an equilibrium of the amount of people able to spend time on that subject and their success.

The best part of my position on the free market, is I don’t have to qualify what counts as Success, I let it happen on it’s own without pre or post judgement. I work towards my goals, they work towards theirs, it doesn’t matter what the difference in money, happiness, or anything else is. We must all live the life we choose. When people, in the form of government come in and mess with the order, they supply their own desires and judgments. This is why I laugh when people say conservatives judge other people, when liberal ideology is built around it.

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

@uglypeoplefucking

On the other hand, contributing to the proliferation of garbagey food that people buy and eat by opening yet another fast-food franchise might NOT be considered useful, even if it means a few more tedious, low wage jobs for the poor. It all depends on point of view.

Which is why I also don’t support the government giving (and I mean actual giving, tax breaks are not giving) subsidies to food joints, of any kind…

Perhaps it’s also why we shouldn’t keep assuming that businesses and the work they create are good just for their own sake.

No.

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

If we removed government subsidies, let the schools teach as they well, we would see what classes would fall to the wayside…

Pointless classes wouldn’t be the only thing to fall to the wayside.

That is fine.

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

The colleges are businesses, just like any other. They sell a good. Except unlike most businesses, the value of their good lessens the more people have it.

How do you figure?

They sell information. The more people that have that information the less valuable it is. Do you wash your hands with soap and water before you touch your food? (I’ll assume yes) 200 or so years ago, doctors didn’t, even before they preformed surgery or helped a mother give birth. At that point the information of microbes was very valuable, and could be measured in lives. Now, it is such common knowledge that the announcement of washing your hands would be weird…

Another example: C, the programming language, has been noted as one of the easiest languages to learn. A little simplistic, but easy, so a lot of people knew how to do it. The price paid for a programmer was shit, anyone could do it with a little bit of time… Then along comes Bill Gates, he creates C++, which is the same fucking language, only harder. Resulting in an increase of the amount programmers get paid.

Supply Curves mean the more supplied, the less that can be charged for it. If education is wide spread, the less a School can charge for it. By creating false education degrees, things like Woman’s Studies, they do not dilute the market of real education, allowing them to continue to charge quite a bit. They also do a damn good job of applying prestige to “American Colleges.” Forcing people that may have 40 years of experience to spend another fourish years and tens of thousands of dollars to earn a piece of paper, that says they know the things they already know. (I volunteer at AARP helping older people create resume’s and have heard this story more than once.)

Then along comes the government and its subsidies, which is counter to what they want, they don’t want everyone to go to school, again it lessens the value of the information. So we see an explosion in shitty degrees, while many colleges have “the best facilities.”

We could even loosely connect why professors make so little money to this (despite teaching a bunch of people paying $50 dollars a class, which if the teacher taught without the school getting involved could probably make more money doing). But, because a lot of those degrees can only be used to teach other people, in college, each person passing through increases the supply of people that can teach the degree…

Interestingly (possibly only to me), it is only the protection of information that allowed the industrial revolution in the first place. When there was no guarantee that an individual would be paid for their idea, even if someone else uses it, the idea was not shared.

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

So they raise the costs to counter the influx of subsidies.

Wait, so you’re saying if fewer people went to college, it would cost less?

That could be one way to adjust the cost, yes. If we cut off government subsidies completely, we would see less people going to college, and the cost would have to drop, or the colleges would fail. The people going to college would have to pay out of their own pocket increasing the likelihood that more degrees would require a guarantee of a job after.

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

Most of the people I know from outside the use, even in the more 3rd worldy ones, laugh at our universities. Saying they learned this stuff in high school but must take these classes again so that they can “prove it.”

You said the problem was unnecessary and useless classes, not that US students don’t learn enough in high school. The latter problem is not the fault of liberal academics.

I can accept that college level liberal academics are not directly responsible for the shitty education given in public high schools.

Do you acknowledge the bias of teachers being liberal though? That is a very relevant factor. (Not that the liberal in liberal academics is the same as the liberal in the bias of teachers, that is not the connection I am drawing.)

[lizbethrose]

Excuse me, Eric, I have some questions, if you don’t mind.

What were you getting at with the TedTalk clip about dirty jobs? The speaker seemed to have several points. His Discovery Channel show is about jobs a lot of people know nothing about–or wouldn’t do if they did know, perhaps. But the jobs he mentioned are skilled jobs that require a lot of thinking, can be hazardous, and are often ‘passed down’ within families. And they’re very scarce, if you’re thinking about the many unemployed people in the US.

I agree with you that to think a college education is entree into a profession–or, at least, a well-paid job–is incorrect. But it’s part of ‘the American Dream.’ Perhaps it’s part of what the immigrants of the 19th century had in mind when they left their homelands–a part of what they were looking for in The Land of Opportunity.

I wonder how many really talented, intelligent people went on ‘to school’ and ended up spending their lives in humdrum jobs. I wonder how many really talented, intelligent people weren’t able to go beyond a high school education, if they got that far, and so their abilities are lost to the world. That isn’t to say financial aid should be available to everyone; there should be requirements–regulation, if you won’t cringe at that word–and high schools need to be greatly improved. Elementary schools should be, as well. (I’m a fiscal conservative, by the way, if you hadn’t noticed.)

But I don’t think education is as important as poverty. At least, not at the start. How much have you and I contributed to the poverty level in the US? Is this a conservative v liberal thing? Or do all of us living above the poverty level simply say that there will always be poverty and leave it at that?

The data presented here are from the Current Population Survey (CPS), 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), the source of official poverty estimates. The CPS ASEC is a sample survey of approximately 100,000 household nationwide. These data reflect conditions in calendar year 2012.

In 2012, the official poverty rate was 15.0 percent. There were 46.5 million people in poverty.
For the second consecutive year, neither the official poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty at the national level were statistically different from the previous year’s estimates.
The 2012 poverty rate was 2.5 percentage points higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession.
In 2012, the poverty rate for people living in the West was statistically lower than the 2011 estimate.
For most groups, the number of people in poverty did not show a statistically significant change. However, between 2011 and 2012, the number of people in poverty did increase for people aged 65 and older, people living in the South, and people living outside metropolitan statistical areas.
The poverty rate in 2012 for chil­dren under age 18 was 21.8 per­cent. The poverty rate for people aged 18 to 64 was 13.7 percent, while the rate for people aged 65 and older was 9.1 percent. None of these poverty rates were statistically different from their 2011 estimates.1

Footnotes:

1 Since unrelated individuals under 15 are excluded from the poverty universe, there are 468,000 fewer children in the poverty universe than in the total civilian noninstitutionalized population. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

What if we said, “Stop all the BS about higher education as a means to achieve the American Dream. And, while we’re at it, get rid of mandatory education until the age of 16. Stop government funding of schools entirely.”

What if we stopped entitlement programs to impoverished people? What if we unilaterally stopped funding all government bureaus concerned with regulating food, drug, and personal safety and left all of that up to a ‘free market?’

Would the cream, and only the cream, rise to the top?

Is that the democratic ideal? Is that an ideal to be held out by any political party?

I’ve heard right-wingers say, “All anyone has to do is work–and work hard–and they won’t need anything else.” I say that’s a bunch of crapola.

On a personal note: You say you’re in your 30’s and have at least one child. Assuming you’re also married, you’ve taken on family. You’ve indicated that you are studying Economics. You don’t say you’re studying Economics formally, just that you study Economics–except a couple of times, you’ve said, “If I ever finish school…” or other word that imply you’re taking some ‘higher education’ classes.

What is it, Eric? Are you employed and earning enough to help support a family of three? Do you live in poverty or close to it? Do you have health insurance for yourself and your family? Do you save enough money to cover your retirement so you won’t have to rely on SS?

How many technological ‘toys’ do you own and do you buy the new ‘toy’ every year or two? How about cars? Do you own more than one or do you and your spouse take public transportation everywhere? How old is your car, assuming you have one? What make, model, and year is that car? Are you in debt? Do you live in a house you’re buying, or do you rent? How much does your family pay for child care, roughly?

This is all rhetorical, of course. But, seriously, Eric. Please look at your life and compare it to the 15% of the US population living in poverty. Then tell me that you did it all on your own, with no help from your parents (you raised yourself) or anyone else.

Seems to me you, as a conservative, expect everyone to be like you.

[gib]

@Uccisore

Yes, you’re right. There are situations where one side has all the data, and the other side onlly has excuses for why the data shouldn’t be treated as credible…and the excuse-making side is correct. To push that a little bit in what we’ve said about bias- OK, all the data shows the earth is heating up, and that people are the reason why. However, almost all the data-producers (climatologists and environmental policy folks) are progressive-marxists using what they say about global warming to push for a regulated world economy. So are they right, or are they right but pushing for the wrong solutions, or are they misreading the data because of their prejudice, or are they lying?

I don’t know, but it fits the pattern you described: those who produce the data vs. those who explain the data away.

I’m curious about the part I bolded. Are we simply talking about people who believe in the data they collected and are just concerned about the state of the environment? Or are you saying these are people who, all along, have wanted a regulated world economy (which, it sounds like, would encompass regulations of all kinds, not just environmental) and are using the data gathered from climatology studies as a platform?

@Uccisore

It’s tough to put into one word, or maybe I’m missing that word. What I’m thinking is something like this: There is progressive/marxist hegemony in academia and journalism. Any conservative is going to think that’s a bad thing. An imaginary, a-political person should see it as a bad thing too. A progressive won’t see it as a bad thing, but they should given the words they say about diversity and the value of hearing other opinions and respect for other view points and all that stuff. Maybe they are hypocritical as you suggest. Maybe the ‘diversity’ stuff was never a real value of theirs to begin with, so they aren’t so much hypocrites as deceitful, which is closer to what I think. But that question doesn’t need to be answered in order to see that the current state of affairs is indefensible. So I guess I’m making an incremental argument. First I showed that the hegemony is real. They I showed that the hegemony is indefensible. From THERE I guess a person could move on to moral condemnation, or identifying culpability, or finding a solution, or just about anything. But I’m thinking one step at a time.

I think the next step for someone like you would be to argue that there is no reason why conservatives shouldn’t be fairly represented in media and education, and that should they have to fight for that, they are justified in doing so.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

@lizbethrose

Excuse me, Eric, I have some questions, if you don’t mind.

As long as you don’t mind that I have answers.

@lizbethrose

What were you getting at with the TedTalk clip about dirty jobs?

Just that work is worth doing, regardless of how “good” it is. That attitude matters far more than what is being done. “Road kill workers whistle as they work, I’ve been with them when they’ve done it.” I personally have done drain cleaning work. Not plumbing, which is almost prestigious in comparison, I helped people unplug their toilets. I’ve been up to my waste in a filled grease pit. I’ve been down manholes, and I can back up his statements of safety third. My back still complains about my work in drain cleaning…

@lizbethrose

The speaker seemed to have several points. His Discovery Channel show is about jobs a lot of people know nothing about–or wouldn’t do if they did know, perhaps. But the jobs he mentioned are skilled jobs that require a lot of thinking, can be hazardous, and are often ‘passed down’ within families. And they’re very scarce, if you’re thinking about the many unemployed people in the US.

No, no one passes down drain cleaning. Anyone can get into a dirty job, and they are always looking for more people.

@lizbethrose

I agree with you that to think a college education is entree into a profession–or, at least, a well-paid job–is incorrect. But it’s part of ‘the American Dream.’ Perhaps it’s part of what the immigrants of the 19th century had in mind when they left their homelands–a part of what they were looking for in The Land of Opportunity.

I wonder how many really talented, intelligent people went on ‘to school’ and ended up spending their lives in humdrum jobs.

Quite a few, met a guy the other day with a bachelors in some liberal art major (we talked about it, but I can’t currently remember), he was working in the hat shop where I was buying a hat… Not a bowler, they don’t look good on me.

@lizbethrose

I wonder how many really talented, intelligent people weren’t able to go beyond a high school education, if they got that far, and so their abilities are lost to the world. That isn’t to say financial aid should be available to everyone; there should be requirements–regulation, if you won’t cringe at that word–and high schools need to be greatly improved. Elementary schools should be, as well. (I’m a fiscal conservative, by the way, if you hadn’t noticed.)

I bring up the same things as before. Regulation does not make things even, it passes power to government officials, who do not have a reason to make things even.

@lizbethrose

But I don’t think education is as important as poverty.

I think knowledge is quite important. Like guns, knowledge is one of the few truly great equalizers out there. Knowledge is one of the best things that fight poverty. A favorite idea I’ve heard is that “Knowledge is wealth. The cave man had the same amount of resources as we do now, it is knowledge that allows us to use those resources more effectively (Thomas Sowell).” It’s why I actually get pissed off at the high schools needing improvement, we put more resources into our schools than any other country on this fucking planet, yet we have such shitty schools. This is also why I throw such anger at the college system in its current state, if any normal company took in the amount of resources the colleges do, the would rule the world. Instead, we have kids that extend their childhood four more years.

[quote=“lizbethrose” At least, not at the start. How much have you and I contributed to the poverty level in the US?[/quote]
I don’t know how much you’ve worked to cause more poverty, but I break up a developing relationship at least once a day. According to most statistics, a husband/wife situation is one of the best ways to stay out of poverty… So I would say I’ve done my share. <-a joke

@lizbethrose

Is this a conservative v liberal thing?

It is, liberals are quite good at caring about people in poverty, conservatives are quite good at getting people out of it.

@lizbethrose

Or do all of us living above the poverty level simply say that there will always be poverty and leave it at that?

The poverty level is an abstract, arbitrary measurement. It has no real value.

The data presented here are from the Current Population Survey (CPS), 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), the source of official poverty estimates. The CPS ASEC is a sample survey of approximately 100,000 household nationwide. These data reflect conditions in calendar year 2012.

In 2012, the official poverty rate was 15.0 percent. There were 46.5 million people in poverty.
For the second consecutive year, neither the official poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty at the national level were statistically different from the previous year’s estimates.
The 2012 poverty rate was 2.5 percentage points higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession.
In 2012, the poverty rate for people living in the West was statistically lower than the 2011 estimate.
For most groups, the number of people in poverty did not show a statistically significant change. However, between 2011 and 2012, the number of people in poverty did increase for people aged 65 and older, people living in the South, and people living outside metropolitan statistical areas.
The poverty rate in 2012 for chil­dren under age 18 was 21.8 per­cent. The poverty rate for people aged 18 to 64 was 13.7 percent, while the rate for people aged 65 and older was 9.1 percent. None of these poverty rates were statistically different from their 2011 estimates.1

Footnotes:

1 Since unrelated individuals under 15 are excluded from the poverty universe, there are 468,000 fewer children in the poverty universe than in the total civilian noninstitutionalized population. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

And this data is why it has no real value. The poverty level is one of those lies that are in the form of statistics. What does living under the poverty line mean? If someone living under the poverty line lives better than many of the incredibly reach 100 years ago, does that change what it means?

@lizbethrose

What if we said, “Stop all the BS about higher education as a means to achieve the American Dream. And, while we’re at it, get rid of mandatory education until the age of 16. Stop government funding of schools entirely.”

I would be against that for primary education, though, I am for other types of schools. I would want (in my wishful place), to have a situation where the money follows the child, regardless of what the school is. There would be very limited regulation, and schools that fail, fail. It would be interesting to see the effects of such a thing. If the school only got paid for having the student there. We would see more teachers and schools working towards having the students come to every class. Because grades would be unimportant for the money, even the bad students would be wanted… But there could also be a modification in value of the teaching. I could see a situation where as long as the student came the teachers didn’t teach anything, just made them do busy work, type of stuff… Anyway, it would be an interesting theory to test, though I’d be hesitant to force it…

@lizbethrose

What if we stopped entitlement programs to impoverished people? What if we unilaterally stopped funding all government bureaus concerned with regulating food, drug, and personal safety and left all of that up to a ‘free market?’

The initial chaos would be interesting, the final results doubly so.

@lizbethrose

Would the cream, and only the cream, rise to the top?

Sure, why not. The more important thing is would everyone be better off. I’ve said it before, I don’t care that there is a 1%, I care that the 99% are better off than they were before that point. Universally, we are.

@lizbethrose

Is that the democratic ideal?

Yes…

@lizbethrose

Is that an ideal to be held out by any political party?

Don’t care.

@lizbethrose

I’ve heard right-wingers say, “All anyone has to do is work–and work hard–and they won’t need anything else.” I say that’s a bunch of crapola.

Its not the only thing, but it is the only thing that an individual can control. Working hard will make your life better, it will make you a better person and wealth, in one form or another, will come to you with it. There is no reason to believe it’s going to make you the 1%, for even a year (which is about the amount of time most of them stay in the 1%), but you will be wealthier for it.

@lizbethrose

On a personal note: You say you’re in your 30’s and have at least one child.

Yes.

@lizbethrose

Assuming you’re also married, you’ve taken on family.

I have a family, no wife. Just me and my daugher. Her mother left a couple years ago, and though she’s back in my daughter’s life to a degree. We are not together. Nor have I ever been married.

@lizbethrose

You’ve indicated that you are studying Economics.

It’s a hobby, that turned into an obsession.

@lizbethrose

You don’t say you’re studying Economics formally, just that you study Economics–except a couple of times, you’ve said, “If I ever finish school…” or other word that imply you’re taking some ‘higher education’ classes.

I start again in August, double major, Economics and Computer Science, with a Mathematics minor.

@lizbethrose

What is it, Eric?

Eric is a name.

@lizbethrose

Are you employed and earning enough to help support a family of three?

Two, just barely…

@lizbethrose

Do you live in poverty or close to it?

I’m way below it.

@lizbethrose

Do you have health insurance for yourself and your family?

Who cares.

@lizbethrose

Do you save enough money to cover your retirement so you won’t have to rely on SS?

Sadly no, my current plan is to die before it becomes an issue… Or actually find a job that pays money…

@lizbethrose

How many technological ‘toys’ do you own and do you buy the new ‘toy’ every year or two?

Way to many, and about one or two a year, yeah… Though, books is my true money sink.

@lizbethrose

How about cars?

Sold off my last one for $600, about three years ago, which is pretty good considering I paid $500.

@lizbethrose

Do you own more than one or do you and your spouse take public transportation everywhere?

I love to walk… And my job doesn’t require I leave the house…

@lizbethrose

How old is your car, assuming you have one? What make, model, and year is that car?

The one I had was a dodge shadow, from the year they misfired the paint, so the paint was peeling off, and it smelled like hay, because the person who sold it to me had moved hay in it…

@lizbethrose

Are you in debt?

Yes, student loans.

@lizbethrose

Do you live in a house you’re buying, or do you rent?

Rent.

@lizbethrose

How much does your family pay for child care, roughly?

My daughter is 13, she doesn’t need it, if she did, I work from home.

@lizbethrose

This is all rhetorical, of course. But, seriously, Eric. Please look at your life and compare it to the 15% of the US population living in poverty. Then tell me that you did it all on your own, with no help from your parents (you raised yourself) or anyone else.

Only if you learn that individual, local help is different from government help. Government help not only moves some of the power to help to far away individuals, one that are not incentivized to help local people. It also undermines peoples willingness to help locally, because the government takes care of it, right… Finally, it changes the import source of knowledge from the local people, who know that uncle jon likes to drink and giving him money is not going to help, to a government official that has to “help” 10 people this month or their budget is reduced… Conservatives do not say, don’t help others. They say that government is inefficient at it, that local people are better at helping. By demanding that everyone is reduced, so that it is funneled through the government, then doled out, the resources are wasted, both in each part absorbing some and in what they get applied too…

@lizbethrose

Seems to me you, as a conservative, expect everyone to be like you.

Nah, I’m an Ass, I wouldn’t want everyone to be like me. What I do want is for everyone to understand basic things, and to stop using popularity as a way to force everyone into slavery.

[Uccisore]

@lizbethrose

I don’t think it’s your ‘crazy theory’ at all. I just want to learn; however, if what you’ve said about Pepperdine’s faculty is accurate and if it’s the norm, 50/50 is hardly a majority.

I just wanted to clarify this. Pepperdine has a 50/50 liberal conservative faculty, which is the norm for what YOU are calling conservative universities. In other words, a ‘conservative’ university is one where conservative views are presented as much or nearly as much as liberal views. A normal university is one that simply doesn’t hire conservatives in any field in which their political affiliation will actually come up.

You also completely ignored what I said about looking up party affiliations of journalists and academics to continue talking about word choice. I have no idea why.

[Uccisore]

@gib

I don’t know, but it fits the pattern you described: those who produce the data vs. those who explain the data away.

Right, that's what I was presenting it as an example of.  People denying global warming are in the same position as people denying that there is a progressive hegemony in journalism and academia. 

I’m curious about the part I bolded. Are we simply talking about people who believe in the data they collected and are just concerned about the state of the environment? Or are you saying these are people who, all along, have wanted a regulated world economy (which, it sounds like, would encompass regulations of all kinds, not just environmental) and are using the data gathered from climatology studies as a platform?

I’m saying that Marxists are people who want a regulated world economy, and that as it turns out, environmental policy departments are dominated by Marxists, and the problems they discover and the solutions they provide for them tend to push us towards a regulated world economy. I have no idea how much of what they do is good science, good science with political blinders, bad science, or flat out lies. All I know is that there is nobody with a different political background fact-checking anything they do from within.

I think the next step for someone like you would be to argue that there is no reason why conservatives shouldn’t be fairly represented in media and education, and that should they have to fight for that, they are justified in doing so.

That should go without saying.

[lizbethrose]

@Uccisore

@lizbethrose

I don’t think it’s your ‘crazy theory’ at all. I just want to learn; however, if what you’ve said about Pepperdine’s faculty is accurate and if it’s the norm, 50/50 is hardly a majority.

I just wanted to clarify this. Pepperdine has a 50/50 liberal conservative faculty, which is the norm for what YOU are calling conservative universities. In other words, a ‘conservative’ university is one where conservative views are presented as much or nearly as much as liberal views. A normal university is one that simply doesn’t hire conservatives in any field in which their political affiliation will actually come up.

You also completely ignored what I said about looking up party affiliations of journalists and academics to continue talking about word choice. I have no idea why.

Did I call them ‘conservative’ universities or private universities? I think it was the latter. Howsomever, and be that as it may, I tried looking up party affiliations of journalists and academics but didn’t find much other than what I’ve already written. That is, there are more declared moderate, or independent journalists than you take into consideration, although I’ve asked you to several times. This skews the percentages.

As for schools, I’ve found that private schools are generally church affiliated. I mentioned Santa Clara, a Catholic university, and Oral Roberts University, an Evangelical university, as examples. I’ve also said that any State college or university can not present any religious view point other than as a part of a history, geography, sociology, etc. course. The US does not have a state religion, but you can’t learn much about Medieval England or France without lecturing about the Crusades, can you?

It’s because of this restriction, I believe, that those state universities hire liberals rather than conservatives. I acknowledged that they do. I’ve said that it would be difficult, were I a conservative, Evanglical (or any other Christian sect that is creationist) to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, for example.

I don’t know what any of this has to do with Reforming Democracy, however.

Liz

[Uccisore]

@lizbethrose

Did I call them ‘conservative’ universities or private universities?

I gave Pepperdine as an example of a well-known conservative university, because you brought up the idea that there were plenty of them. The only person that’s had anything to say about private/public universities so far is you, because I don’t see how the distinction matters to what I’m talking about

I think it was the latter. Howsomever, and be that as it may, I tried looking up party affiliations of journalists and academics but didn’t find much other than what I’ve already written. That is, there are more declared moderate, or independent journalists than you take into consideration, although I’ve asked you to several times. This skews the percentages.

I'm not sure what percentages you're talking about.   Look at the percentage of Journalists or academics who declare themselves to be liberal, or democrat, compared to the general population. Look at the percentage that voted for Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Clinton, or Obama compared to the general population.   Any 'moderate' or 'independent' is going to be somebody who uses those words to describe themselves while, in reality, having a purely democrat/liberal voting history, or else they're going to be in the tiny sliver of non-liberals the stats we both have access to report. 

As for schools, I’ve found that private schools are generally church affiliated. I mentioned Santa Clara, a Catholic university, and Oral Roberts University, an Evangelical university, as examples. I’ve also said that any State college or university can not present any religious view point other than as a part of a history, geography, sociology, etc. course. The US does not have a state religion, but you can’t learn much about Medieval England or France without lecturing about the Crusades, can you?

Yes, I’ve seen you say these things, but they have absolutely no impact on the point I’m making so I’m ignoring them. The statistics of what percentage of professors identify as liberals/democrats are there. The studies about liberal professors being willing to discriminate against conservative students and faculty are there. How does “Yeah but there’s an Oral Roberts University” change any of that? The end result is still this; you have a handful of schools that advertise as conservative, which YOU know are conservative because it’s obvious, and which may or may not actually have a majority of conservative faculty (you still haven’t shown this, you seem to be just assuming that a religious school must be conservative). Then you have every other school, which is just a ‘normal school’, advertising no political or religious affiliation, and in those normal schools, almost everybody who teaches every subject is a liberal/progressive.

It’s because of this restriction, I believe, that those state universities hire liberals rather than conservatives. I acknowledged that they do. I’ve said that it would be difficult, were I a conservative, Evanglical (or any other Christian sect that is creationist) to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, for example.

And like I said last time, Biology and strict creationism have fuck all to do with anything. You're substituting "Conservative" with "Religious crazy person" and then coming up with a hypothetical example that shows why that crazy person wouldn't be able to teach the subject related to their neurosis.  And as I said last time, the conservative/liberal split in the physical sciences isn't actually that bad, and isn't that relevant because politics doesn't come up as much.  It's politically-charged fields  like anthropology, or social science, or philosophy where schools are clearly making sure no conservative gets to work there or say anything. 

In other words, the more likely a field is to lend itself to political activity, the less likely a university is to higher a conservative.

What does one political party being in control of what children are taught about history, and where adults get their information on current events have to do with reforming democracy? If the party in control wasn’t the one you liked, you wouldn’t have to ask.

[gib]

@Uccisore

Any ‘moderate’ or ‘independent’ is going to be somebody who uses those words to describe themselves while, in reality, having a purely democrat/liberal voting history.

This is coming close to question begging (it isn’t yet, since you’re falling back on voting history, but more on that below). Let’s not start cherry picking our evidence. If we’re going to doubt the self-reports of journalists, let’s doubt them however they respond: liberal, conservative, or moderate. We need to fall back on something else… like voting history!

Now, just a few things to point out: 1) calling one’s self “moderate” does not necessarily entail having absolutely no preference–it could mean slightly left-leaning or slightly right-leaning, but close enough to center to warrant the label “moderate,” but still with a certain leaning in one direction, one’s voting history can be pretty consistent in that direction. 2) speaking for myself, I once felt that it’s always good to get out there and vote–didn’t mean I had a preference–so just having a voting history does not entail that you really preferred the candidate you voted for. 3) Sometimes people vote according to how a spouse or family members wants them to vote. If you really are a moderate or independent, there wouldn’t necessarily be any reason to vote against your spouses or family member’s preferences.

Having said that, voting history is a pretty good way of measuring one’s political affiliation; furthermore, it shouldn’t be a huge surprise to hear journalists claiming to be moderate or independent considering their roll as journalists is supposed to be one of objectivity and impartiality (they have a reputation to uphold).

Now I’m curious to know how one gets a journalist’s voting history. Isn’t that supposed to be private? Non-traceable to the voter? Do the journalists just give it up?

[uglypeoplefucking]

@Eric_The_Pipe

@uglypeoplefucking

i’m all for allowing as much freedom as possible for people to do what they think is important, within reason - in fact, i think most Americans are all for that, liberal and conservative alike - but it’s the all-too-necessary “within reason” clause where all the differences in opinion emerge. Is it within reason to allow people to have sex in public if that’s what they think is important? What if they think it’s important to make and sell meth? More to the point, what if they think it’s important to marry someone of the same gender or abort their pregnancy? Answers may vary.

There are quite a few things that both sides, even most of the extreme aspects, can agree on. Murder, etc… For everything else their is voting and political fighting. I accept that President Obama is my president, he won the election, but so did President W. Bush. The important part for limiting corruption, though, is going to be open communication on both sides, and allowing them to work with the system they have. That is why I’m opposed to “campaign finance reform” of probably any kind… I could see a requirement if any group donates over $500, total not at a time, that the name of that “group” be disclosed. That way we know who the Koch brothers support.

That would be a start. But the point is that the process of electioneering and political wrangling is aided in vital ways by money - and so people with more money are necessarily better represented in that process than people who are not. Sure, every citizen has a vote. But for instance, if i have a spare $200 in the bank that i can contribute to Obama’s Campaign Machine (Inc.), then i have a vote plus $200 worth of political influence. If Karl Rove has a spare $500 Million to contribute to his own CPAC, then he’s even better off than i am. If on the other hand, you don’t have any money to contribute to your preferred candidate or cause, then you’re shit out of luck, and depending where you live on some gerrymandered district map, your vote might not be worth jack squat either. If money is speech, and apparently we are to believe it is, then some people have much greater freedom of speech than others, and that distorts the democratic process.

@Eric_The_Pipe

I disagree. The collective has more money together than the wealthy do individually

That depends entirely on which people constitute the collective and just how wealthy the wealthy individuals you’re comparing them to are.

@Eric_The_Pipe

I have never seen a situation, where the problem is manipulation of bureaucracy, enhanced by more bureaucracy. It’s the equivalent of putting the fox in charge of the hen house… It just transfers even more power away from the populous.

Technically it’s just adding a few hens to the hen house. Or putting a fox in charge of other foxes. Either way, it’s oversight and accountability, and it’s essential to reigning in corruption.

There has to be bureaucracy in some form or another - and someone always needs to police the police.

@Eric_The_Pipe

They are not skilled positions, they are positions that teach skills. Usually skills so basic, the fact they must be taught undermines the usefulness of the individual… It’s why we pay to have 10 year olds learn math, instead of letting them take jobs that would teach them.

Right, i understand that you think employers are doing people a favor when they hire them for menial, low wage positions, but i’ve already disagreed with that - and i understand that you think people are only useful insofar as they can be paid to do something that generates profit - but i disagree pretty thoroughly with that too.

One of my favorite things about Economics is it forced me to think of things differently. If we look as skills as something that cost, then the question becomes, who does it cost. For those lowly “minimum wage” jobs, the worker brings in enough money that their lack of skills counter the costs to train them in those skills. This can be thought of for children, still in primary school, as their lack of skills are such a detriment that the populous must pay to have them brought up to usefulness. (Note: One reason I’m not full on libertarian is I think public funding of schools in necessary.) So they are so unskilled their lack costs more than they could ever bring in…

Though that thought does give quite a bit of prestige to “minimum wage” jobs…

Not in my mind. i don’t buy this bit about how working the register at Burger-Mart teaches anyone anything useful other than perhaps how to operate a cash register, which is actually easy and quick to learn. By the time you’ve worked a job like that for a couple months, you’re pretty much past the stage of learning any new or useful skills. That’s also why i don’t buy the libertarian image of the employer doing their employees a favor by hiring them. They spend at most a couple weeks training the employee and on average, probably get a couple year’s menial labor out of the deal.

People who pay. The amount of money you earn is not based on value you chose, but based on the value you provide to others.

People get paid to write treatises on queer theory, and other people pay to read them - by what measure can you then say their work is useless?

@Eric_The_Pipe

That is fine. So long as it is understood, after, the person majoring in Women’s Studies is going to provide limited value to others, resulting in no job for that person, and it is their own damn fault and we do not need another entitlement to fix that persons stupid decisions… Note: that is why a conservative “doesn’t believe in entitlements.”

Yeah, conservatives don’t believe in entitlements until someone threatens to take theirs away! NRA anyone?

Further, that persons failure works as a market adjustment, ideally limiting the amount of people majoring in Women’s Studies, reaching an equilibrium of the amount of people able to spend time on that subject and their success.

Yet people still pay to read the writings and listen to the lectures of scholars in that field and related fields. i don’t notice the popularity of those fields waning at all. Furthermore, that such fields of study exist has little or nothing to do with government subsidies of higher education. The government would be subsidizing higher ed even if conservatives ran the academic show, which thankfully they don’t and probably never will, even in the unlikely event that the government stops spending money on higher education for its citizens.

This is why I laugh when people say conservatives judge other people, when liberal ideology is built around it.

Everybody judges other people that way, it’s not a liberal / conservative thing at all.

@Eric_The_Pipe

@uglypeoplefucking

Perhaps it’s also why we shouldn’t keep assuming that businesses and the work they create are good just for their own sake.

No.

As compelling as that argument is, i’m afraid i remain unswayed in my conviction that some common forms of work can be destructive and unhealthy for the people performing them, and for society at large. i don’t care how much money the stockholders make. It’s not useful in any meaningful sense to have some business school clone with his newly minted MBA open up another fucking Taco Bell. Even if he earns a bazillion dollars and hires 100 people at or around minimum wage. The proliferation of unhealthy foods thanks to the free market literally makes the population sick. And, Ted Talk pontifications notwithstanding, doing that kind of work for any extended portion of one’s life can literally leave many workers depressed, alienated and poor. Yet, you would have us believe that the MBA has done something more useful than the women’s studies BA, who, it should be pointed out, could very well go on to study law and earn a bazillion dollars herself?

There’s also the elephant in the room of philosophy majors - who have notoriously difficult time finding employment suited to their degree. Are you prepared to say that all they learned in their studies was a waste of time?

@Eric_The_Pipe

The colleges are businesses, just like any other.[…]They sell information. The more people that have that information the less valuable it is.

They sell a lot more than information, otherwise the internet would have put them out of business. And information can be and often is valuable for more than just the money one might earn from selling it.

Supply Curves mean the more supplied, the less that can be charged for it. If education is wide spread, the less a School can charge for it. By creating false education degrees, things like Woman’s Studies, they do not dilute the market of real education, allowing them to continue to charge quite a bit. They also do a damn good job of applying prestige to “American Colleges.” Forcing people that may have 40 years of experience to spend another fourish years and tens of thousands of dollars to earn a piece of paper, that says they know the things they already know. (I volunteer at AARP helping older people create resume’s and have heard this story more than once.)

No one is forced to earn a degree, unless by employers who demand them before they will hire anyone. THAT’S the free market at work. i have no problem with the notion that experience should be worth more than a degree - but, unfortunately, it rarely is. That’s not the fault of liberal academics, though. Neither is the cost of higher education . . . though you seem to be blaming the government for that - which i don’t buy - but i take at least as a tacit acknowledgment that the biggest problem with higher ed in this country (namely, the cost) is NOT in fact the fault of liberal academics.

@Eric_The_Pipe

That could be one way to adjust the cost, yes. If we cut off government subsidies completely, we would see less people going to college, and the cost would have to drop, or the colleges would fail. The people going to college would have to pay out of their own pocket increasing the likelihood that more degrees would require a guarantee of a job after.

And, meanwhile, the larger portion of the population has no access to higher education, and so called “unskilled” laborers become even more prolific and cheap labor becomes even cheaper for the Capitalists. Eradicate the minimum wage while you’re at it, and we might even see the return of medieval style serfdom. Yes, you’re onto something good (pardon the sarcasm).

@Eric_The_Pipe

Do you acknowledge the bias of teachers being liberal though? That is a very relevant factor.

Yes, i do think teachers tend to be more liberal.

[Uccisore]

@gib

This is coming close to question begging (it isn’t yet, since you’re falling back on voting history, but more on that below). Let’s not start cherry picking our evidence. If we’re going to doubt the self-reports of journalists, let’s doubt them however they respond: liberal, conservative, or moderate. We need to fall back on something else… like voting history!

I’m not cherry picking a thing, read my entire statement. Journalists and Professors that she is flagging as moderates must be either progressives in disguise or part of the tiny sliver of non-progressives because the figures we have on voting records and self-reports simply doesn’t leave room for them to be anything else! Liz told me I wasn’t considering the proportion of moderates that skew the numbers. She didn’t provide any numbers. It’s not as though there’s some study out there saying the vast majority of journalists/academics are politically independent and I’m just not counting them. How could the existence of some number of moderates skew a statistic such as “More than twice as many journalists voted for Walter Mondale than the general populace” or “90% of college professors in California vote Democrat”?
You can take the self-reporting of professors political views as doubtfully or non-doubtfully as you want, it remains the case that very few claim to be conservative, or vote as though they are conservative.

Now I’m curious to know how one gets a journalist’s voting history. Isn’t that supposed to be private? Non-traceable to the voter? Do the journalists just give it up?

You either ask them to voluntarily give it up, or you check party registration figures.

[lizbethrose]

Eric_the_Pipe wrote:

Nah, I’m an Ass, I wouldn’t want everyone to be like me. What I do want is for everyone to understand basic things, and to stop using popularity as a way to force everyone into slavery.

Maybe an ‘idealasst’, but surely not an ass. But you have explained why you’ve said some things–twice–about not getting married until you’ve finished school and not having children until after marriage., or words to that effect. Anyway, I’ve been doing a lot of on-line reading and thinking, and I may have drawn some preliminary conclusions about ‘basic things.’

It seems to me that labels are relatively meaningless in the long run. This includes the labels ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal.’ But, I’ve always thought that. Labels exclude too much and often become pejoratives. Labels, however, are all we have to work with, so please, bear with me. I’m aware that our words are labels–symbols that have been accepted as descriptive of actions, dreams, desires, appearance, personalities, everything that makes up our individual realities. But they aren’t universally consistent nor are they understood in exactly the same way by readers or listeners.

So, one preliminary conclusion is we all want what is best. I asked myself if that had been put into words in the US, and of course, it had–in the Preamble to our constitution. We know that government is needed in a society as large as ours and we outlined what we wanted that government to do for us in the Preamble: To form a union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

We have our union of 50 states that started with 13. We’re a democratic republic; our economic system is Capitalism. Our Courts, based on the rule of law and precedence, establish justice; we have police and fire departments to help with our tranquility; we have a huge military to defend us and, supposedly, keep our liberty secure. How do we promote the general welfare?

We have an education system–free for everyone, with the option of choosing private education, if desired, or home schooling. We have various ‘minimum’ wages, depending on the state, none of which are supposed to fall below the Federal minimum wage. We have corporations, agencies, sub-agencies, institutions, laboratories, research facilities, ad nauseam to some, all dedicated to promoting the general welfare. We throw away more food than most of the world could possibly consume. And we have an abundance of laws and regulations designed to ensure our tranquility and liberty. But we don’t have preventive health care for everyone.

We absorb political factions in order to maintain an historical two-party system. Why? Because we label.

“Everyone who wants government to do this, stand over here. Everyone who wants that, stand over there.” What about the people who want a little bit-a this-a and a little bit-a that-a?

I think we’re all aware that ‘party’ politicians want nothing more than your vote because that gives the Party power. When a party has power, it’s able to get its policies into law. I don’t believe Barack Obama played party politics; I think he was elected, twice, because he said what the people wanted to hear and because he believed what he said. It was after he was elected that the shit hit the fan while he was standing in front of it. Who shoveled the shit? The party who never accepted that people would want a black man as POTUS. That’s what I believe.

I also believe, as a result of my reading, that our education system sucks. Whenever 50 groups of various sizes, of people with various cultures, decide what’s best for them and their children, you’ll have 50 different systems. That may be okay for a static population, but it isn’t good for the whole. So the Federal government, which promised equal education for all, set about establishing ground rules, mostly in the form of unfunded mandates such as NCLB. But does equal education mean flattening the bell curve or does it mean everyone has the opportunity for an education; ie, no one is kept out because of race, gender, skin color, religion, or any of the things the people of the US seem to feel are important in life?

Look at the EU system for a guideline of what I think of as education. Kids start school at an average age of 4 and start learning a second language, arithmetic, and basic science immediately. The core subjects (required) are based on these three plus history, geography, religion/ethics/philosophy, and sport. There’s a required number of hours per week for each of the core subjects as well as for the electives which include music, arts, literature, what we call ‘shop,’ etc. At the end of every school year after elementary school, the children are tested. If they get below 60, they have to repeat the classes or leave. If they go on, another language is chosen and classes are taught in those languages. When the kids finish the mandatory courses, usually when they’re 16-18 yrs. old, they’re prepared to enter the job market. Some choose to go on. They’re then tested for a baccalaureate degree which is our equivalent of the Bachelors Degree offered after 3-4 years of college. If they receive that degree, they can either continue at a university or go into the job market. It depends on what the student wants to do–but they’re educated.

Poverty and minimum wage: Our vocal conservatives are correct in saying that the poverty line is meaningless in many ways, depending on how it’s ‘measured.’ Generally speaking, it’s the cost of basic resources compared to real income, with some exclusions and some exceptions. For example, if you’re single and employed, but earn less the $35K/yr., you’re marginally below the poverty line–not counting anything you may receive from your parents or other charitable institutions. If you’re married and have a child, the money needed for basic resources goes up. If you’re still earning $35K/yr., you’re among the ‘working poor’ and way below the poverty line.

The basic resources needed to sustain life in the US are food, shelter, clothing, heat (if needed and depending on location,) sanitation (drinking water and waste disposal,) health, education (to learn how to read or to learn ESL,) and access to services. (I’ve dropped some of them as not being real needs, such as entertainment and information in the form of media information.) Obviously, as the cost of living rises, more and more people will fall below the arbitrary poverty line.

In an attempt to off-set this, governments set minimum wages. In so doing, government is like a union, in a way. A union worker is guaranteed a minimum wage by her/his union, after all. But this is a redistribution of wealth! Yes, it is. Just as much as is the military a redistribution of wealth, and roads, and bridges to nowhere (sorry about that), public buildings, parks, national monuments, and so on.

If everything were to be done on public-private contract only, would it work? I have a feeling it wouldn’t. Not when money is involved.

In my mind, it boils down to ‘rights.’ Does anyone in a functioning society have the ‘right’ to do as s/he pleases? Not if it’s against the law. Does anyone have the ‘right’ to privacy? Not since the internet and, in the US, the Patriot Act. We have labels, though. We can’t really define a ‘right’ so we divide them into just and unjust, civil and human. But do the labels reflect what most of us think of as ‘reality?’

Instead of having civil rights, why not call it the right to choose to live within the law or not? We could call ‘human’ rights, ‘humane’ rights, instead. We could do what we can to promote society instead of dividing it into factions fighting for power.

Please, Eric, don’t go line by line with this in any reply. Write an essay, instead. Please limit your essay to 25 paragraphs, single-spaced with no more than 500 words per paragraph. Thank you.

Enjoy,

Liz

PS, ucci, please answer as well, if you want.

[gib]

@Uccisore

I’m not cherry picking a thing, read my entire statement. Journalists and Professors that she is flagging as moderates must be either progressives in disguise or part of the tiny sliver of non-progressives because the figures we have on voting records and self-reports simply doesn’t leave room for them to be anything else!

Yes, I know, which is why I said it’s almost question begging, and I acknowledged that you did fall back on voting history to support your point.

@Uccisore

You either ask them to voluntarily give it up, or you check party registration figures.

What is party registration? Is that different from voter registration? As I understand it, every citizen must be registered in order to vote, but that doesn’t mean who they voted for on a particular election day is also recorded with their registration, does it? And if so, are you telling me it’s publically accessible? But if party registration is not voter registration, then what is it? Is it registering as a member of a political party? Google tells me it’s when a party registers for candidacy.

@lizbethrose

We absorb political factions in order to maintain an historical two-party system. Why? Because we label.

Hmm… that’s interesting.

It’s interesting even in myself as I started to notice a certain prejudice creeping over me as soon as I recognized myself as mildly left-leaning. I started to see, in my own mind, what are considered traditional “conservative” ideals and values being connected with “bad” and traditional “liberal” ideals and value being connected with “good”. It made me realize that sometimes the process works in reverse–that we don’t choose our labels based on what we think are good and bad, but we choose what he think are good and bad based on our labels.

I’m going to respond to more of your post later.

[Uccisore]

@gib

What is party registration? Is that different from voter registration? As I understand it, every citizen must be registered in order to vote, but that doesn’t mean who they voted for on a particular election day is also recorded with their registration, does it? And if so, are you telling me it’s publically accessible? But if party registration is not voter registration, then what is it? Is it registering as a member of a political party? Google tells me it’s when a party registers for candidacy.

When you register to vote, you pick a party affiliation, or a lack of one, and this info is a matter of public record.

[gib]

@Uccisore

When you register to vote, you pick a party affiliation, or a lack of one, and this info is a matter of public record.

I see. Well, there’s really only one caveat I’d want to put down in response to this: using someone’s party affiliation as recorded in the voter registry as a measure of their right-wing or left-wing stance would only be reliable if it was recent. A lot can happen in, let’s say, 5 years–people can change their affiliation (and no, they wouldn’t necessarily update their registration). If the statistics you’re siting take this into account, I think you’re on relatively solid ground; If it’s anything over a year, however, I’d say the stats become a little shaky.

@Uccisore

I think we’re all aware that ‘party’ politicians want nothing more than your vote because that gives the Party power.

Yes, and they’ll even do what it takes to get the vote of the other party’s constituents–which might lead to toing the other party’s line to a certain extent. ← I wonder what kind of wrench that throws into the political machine.

@lizbethrose

In an attempt to off-set this, governments set minimum wages. In so doing, government is like a union, in a way. A union worker is guaranteed a minimum wage by her/his union, after all. But this is a redistribution of wealth! Yes, it is. Just as much as is the military a redistribution of wealth, and roads, and bridges to nowhere (sorry about that), public buildings, parks, national monuments, and so on.

Right, I don’t think the dispute is really over whether or not wealth should be redistributed but whether such redistribution is necessary or helpful, or whether it harms more than it helps. Even Eric thinks redistributing wealth into education is necessary. So I think where the head butting comes from is mainly in disagreements about how much or what kind of redistribution should be implemented.

@lizbethrose

Instead of having civil rights, why not call it the right to choose to live within the law or not?

We always have this choice anyway–just that choosing to live outside the law often means prison time or at least incurring very heavy fines. ← And of course, it shouldn’t be any other way.

@lizbethrose

We could call ‘human’ rights, ‘humane’ rights, instead.

Sure we could, although I don’t know what this would accomplish.

@lizbethrose

We could do what we can to promote society instead of dividing it into factions fighting for power.

Again, I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this. I can see how appealing to civil rights would have more of a dividing tendency than would appealing to human rights, but this divide would be between citizens and non-citizens (Americans vs. Arabs, for example, or citizen vs. illegal immigrants), not between citizens themselves. Or is this what you’re getting at?

[Eric_The_Pipe]

@lizbethrose

Maybe an ‘idealasst’, but surely not an ass. But you have explained why you’ve said some things–twice–about not getting married until you’ve finished school and not having children until after marriage., or words to that effect. Anyway, I’ve been doing a lot of on-line reading and thinking, and I may have drawn some preliminary conclusions about ‘basic things.’

I once told two friends who had just broken up, “well it’s been a year, that sounds about right.” When prompted for more information, I said, “I predicted close to one year for the relationship.”

Both called me an ass for saying such a thing to them… One, the female, was so pissed, she didn’t talk to me for a couple days…

I’m called ass quite often, at this point I figure it must be true.

@lizbethrose

It seems to me that labels are relatively meaningless in the long run. This includes the labels ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal.’ But, I’ve always thought that. Labels exclude too much and often become pejoratives. Labels, however, are all we have to work with, so please, bear with me. I’m aware that our words are labels–symbols that have been accepted as descriptive of actions, dreams, desires, appearance, personalities, everything that makes up our individual realities. But they aren’t universally consistent nor are they understood in exactly the same way by readers or listeners.

I’ve found labels are important for communication. I’ve also found that only people who try to hide what they are don’t like them. Progressives don’t like lables, because their policies fail and lead to destruction of wealth, at best, destruction of human life at worst. Conservatives never run from labels, instead embracing them, with respect for what it is… But then progressives are also hung up on words more than Conservatives.

@lizbethrose

So, one preliminary conclusion is we all want what is best. I asked myself if that had been put into words in the US, and of course, it had–in the Preamble to our constitution. We know that government is needed in a society as large as ours and we outlined what we wanted that government to do for us in the Preamble: To form a union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

I do agree, we all want is best, and the lines come down to agreeing on what is best. I also think people on both sides fail this test… I’ve said it before, people are people everywhere, they tend to act the same regardless of grouping… And I don’t fit in with any of them, lol…

@lizbethrose

We have our union of 50 states that started with 13. We’re a democratic republic; our economic system is Capitalism. Our Courts, based on the rule of law and precedence, establish justice; we have police and fire departments to help with our tranquility; we have a huge military to defend us and, supposedly, keep our liberty secure. How do we promote the general welfare?

Practice.

@lizbethrose

We have an education system–free for everyone, with the option of choosing private education, if desired, or home schooling. We have various ‘minimum’ wages, depending on the state, none of which are supposed to fall below the Federal minimum wage. We have corporations, agencies, sub-agencies, institutions, laboratories, research facilities, ad nauseam to some, all dedicated to promoting the general welfare. We throw away more food than most of the world could possibly consume. And we have an abundance of laws and regulations designed to ensure our tranquility and liberty. But we don’t have preventive health care for everyone.

And look at how much good those excessive regulations have done. Companies are leaving the country, so that they can produce effectively… But yes, let us increase the costs of producing in the US one more step, while simultaneously taking away one more freedom… In simple words, I do not think this promotes the general welfare, instead it destroys it…

@lizbethrose

We absorb political factions in order to maintain an historical two-party system. Why? Because we label.

Insufficient support, while I may be in agreement, based on no evidence to support it, I come down on the side of disagreement and suspicion of your words and goals.

@lizbethrose

“Everyone who wants government to do this, stand over here. Everyone who wants that, stand over there.” What about the people who want a little bit-a this-a and a little bit-a that-a?

Politics is about compromise. I am not specifically against Same-Sex Marriage, but so long as it’s primary supporters are also a bunch of fucking communists, I fall into the anti-same-sex marriage side… I tell my “Gay” friends all the time, stop supporting socialism/communism and you would get more supporters. (Not all mind you, Ucci has some very valid reasons to be against Same-Sex Marriage)

@lizbethrose

I think we’re all aware that ‘party’ politicians want nothing more than your vote because that gives the Party power. When a party has power, it’s able to get its policies into law. I don’t believe Barack Obama played party politics; I think he was elected, twice, because he said what the people wanted to hear and because he believed what he said. It was after he was elected that the shit hit the fan while he was standing in front of it. Who shoveled the shit? The party who never accepted that people would want a black man as POTUS. That’s what I believe.

LOL, I do agree that he said what people wanted to hear, But don’t believe for a second that he says what he actually wants. I think he is full of crap, but he says what he thinks people want to hear.

I also think your bigotry towards conservatives is why the division is over there and over here. “The party who never accepted that people would want a black man as POTUS.” is a bunch of bull shit and bigotry. Like a man declaring all women should be shoe-less in the kitchen, pure bigotry.

I don’t want that man’s idea’s to come to fruition. I think they are poor idea’s, I think they are damaging to this republic and to freedom. That he is black has nothing to do with it.

But, I’m glad to know what you think of me. And before the, “but you’re different card” is played, I vote Republican, I am registered Republican and as long as they support my primary ideals, I’ll continue to do so. So, for all intents and purposes I am in the group you just called racist.

@lizbethrose

I also believe, as a result of my reading, that our education system sucks. Whenever 50 groups of various sizes, of people with various cultures, decide what’s best for them and their children, you’ll have 50 different systems. That may be okay for a static population, but it isn’t good for the whole. So the Federal government, which promised equal education for all, set about establishing ground rules, mostly in the form of unfunded mandates such as NCLB. But does equal education mean flattening the bell curve or does it mean everyone has the opportunity for an education; ie, no one is kept out because of race, gender, skin color, religion, or any of the things the people of the US seem to feel are important in life?

I disagree, I want billions of different systems, I want the bad ideas and the good ideas to come out as they are. I want failure, because I also want success, and as I said, I’ll allow your one idea system, so long as it is only my idea that is passed. One size fits all is all the federal government is capable of, and even that poorly. So as long as you are willing to live by my rules, then we are fine, else, we fight, and I am also fine with that. That you are not, does not interest me. The rest of what you said is bunk.

@lizbethrose

Look at the EU system for a guideline of what I think of as education. Kids start school at an average age of 4 and start learning a second language, arithmetic, and basic science immediately. The core subjects (required) are based on these three plus history, geography, religion/ethics/philosophy, and sport. There’s a required number of hours per week for each of the core subjects as well as for the electives which include music, arts, literature, what we call ‘shop,’ etc. At the end of every school year after elementary school, the children are tested. If they get below 60, they have to repeat the classes or leave. If they go on, another language is chosen and classes are taught in those languages. When the kids finish the mandatory courses, usually when they’re 16-18 yrs. old, they’re prepared to enter the job market. Some choose to go on. They’re then tested for a baccalaureate degree which is our equivalent of the Bachelors Degree offered after 3-4 years of college. If they receive that degree, they can either continue at a university or go into the job market. It depends on what the student wants to do–but they’re educated.

I think looking at the EU is the beginning of failure. Everything else falls from that.

Right now the best educated people are Home schooled people, I’ve had to deal with quite a few 16, and even one 14 year old in my college classes. Who also did the best in the class, quite often… But they are not schooled based on federal guidelines, instead they meet them… Other than that they make up part of the 50 (50 million) different idea’s of how it should be done. They are also, often, quite religious, which makes me happy, as a non-religious type…

@lizbethrose

Poverty and minimum wage: Our vocal conservatives are correct in saying that the poverty line is meaningless in many ways, depending on how it’s ‘measured.’ Generally speaking, it’s the cost of basic resources compared to real income, with some exclusions and some exceptions. For example, if you’re single and employed, but earn less the $35K/yr., you’re marginally below the poverty line–not counting anything you may receive from your parents or other charitable institutions. If you’re married and have a child, the money needed for basic resources goes up. If you’re still earning $35K/yr., you’re among the ‘working poor’ and way below the poverty line.

They are all arbitrary numbers and standards. And you are missing the point, the federal government sets those standards, then declares that percentage doesn’t meet them, then demands more money from the populus to make up the difference. This is the Monty Python, “People are not wearing enough hats.” It is based on assumptions, and more is demanded, because “won’t someone please think of the children?”

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo[/youtube]

@lizbethrose

The basic resources needed to sustain life in the US are food, shelter, clothing, heat (if needed and depending on location,) sanitation (drinking water and waste disposal,) health, education (to learn how to read or to learn ESL,) and access to services. (I’ve dropped some of them as not being real needs, such as entertainment and information in the form of media information.) Obviously, as the cost of living rises, more and more people will fall below the arbitrary poverty line.

I’m sick of these arguments. They are all assumptions based on preconceived notions. Please back up what you are saying: I like chips, does chips fall into the food, what about good beer? Does a five bedroom house, for my two person family, fall into shelter? Does three piece suits fall into clothing? Does heat include AC in the summer, in Phoenix? Does sanitation mean I don’t have to clean up my own house? Does education include money to get a PhD in Economics? And is services just poor wording for whatever else I can think of that didn’t fall within these previous “categories?”

And if you answer no to any of these, why the fuck not? If a “rich” person can have them, why can’t I, I think they are necessary?

@lizbethrose

In an attempt to off-set this, governments set minimum wages. In so doing, government is like a union, in a way. A union worker is guaranteed a minimum wage by her/his union, after all. But this is a redistribution of wealth! Yes, it is. Just as much as is the military a redistribution of wealth, and roads, and bridges to nowhere (sorry about that), public buildings, parks, national monuments, and so on.

Now, not only do you have to prove that minimum wages actually work the way you think, you also must prove that these numbers are not based on arbitrary levels, in other words, why not $50 dollars an hour? Agreed, all government action is in effect a redistribution of wealth. So, now you have to back up that this the best way to handle each and every single one of these things.

@lizbethrose

If everything were to be done on public-private contract only, would it work? I have a feeling it wouldn’t. Not when money is involved.

Please Support.

@lizbethrose

In my mind, it boils down to ‘rights.’ Does anyone in a functioning society have the ‘right’ to do as s/he pleases? Not if it’s against the law. Does anyone have the ‘right’ to privacy? Not since the internet and, in the US, the Patriot Act.

mmm political theater, thank you for playing into the them side of things.

@lizbethrose

We have labels, though. We can’t really define a ‘right’ so we divide them into just and unjust, civil and human.

I don’t divide them the same way. Civil rights are part of a nations agreed to rights. Human rights are a bunk ideology.

@lizbethrose

But do the labels reflect what most of us think of as ‘reality?’

I don’t know and don’t care.

@lizbethrose

Instead of having civil rights, why not call it the right to choose to live within the law or not?

Only if we imprision or kill those that don’t agree to the previously agree on “rights” withing the boundary of agreed on spaces. Otherwise the result is meaningless.

@lizbethrose

We could call ‘human’ rights, ‘humane’ rights, instead.

Why? It would still be a bunk ideology. But, you can play with words how you wish. They do not change what they are. A rose by any other name, right… Though in this case it should be, a bunk ideology by any other name.

@lizbethrose

We could do what we can to promote society instead of dividing it into factions fighting for power.

BUT PEOPLE DISAGREE ON WHAT SHOULD BE PART OF GOVERNMENT AND WHAT SHOULD BE PART OF FREEDOM. Shit, you and I can’t even agree on these things and we are two people that agree we both have are hearts in the right places. I know you think you are promoting society, what makes you think I don’t think I am doing the same?

@lizbethrose

Please, Eric, don’t go line by line with this in any reply. Write an essay, instead. Please limit your essay to 25 paragraphs, single-spaced with no more than 500 words per paragraph. Thank you.

Sorry, no. I don’t write essays if I can avoid it, I find this style easier to read. But If you really want I’ll re-post this with all of your comments removed.

@lizbethrose

Enjoy,

Liz

PS, ucci, please answer as well, if you want.

I also would love to see Ucciore reply.

Additional Comments:

If you want to understand further why both Ucc and I laugh at your frustration as the divisions and labels, understand, nothing you have said falls outside of progressive lines. I could have written this for you, based on interactions I’ve had with other “progressives,” that you don’t like the label, does not mean it is not apt. More, the dislike of the label is a progressive aspect, and is said by progressives over and over. It is pure word play, meaningless and most of the time boring. It does not accomplish anything beyond tricking a few people that aren’t really paying attention. The people that already agree, already agree, those that don’t and are interested don’t care that you don’t like labels. I have a book for you, Tyranny of Cliches, the entire point of the book is to point out this problem, and it is actually funny, unlike Gladstone over at Cracked…

[uglypeoplefucking]

@Eric_The_Pipe

Right now the best educated people are Home schooled people, I’ve had to deal with quite a few 16, and even one 14 year old in my college classes. Who also did the best in the class, quite often… But they are not schooled based on federal guidelines, instead they meet them… Other than that they make up part of the 50 (50 million) different idea’s of how it should be done. They are also, often, quite religious, which makes me happy, as a non-religious type…

Home school may be the best form of education ever devised by humans, but it’s a fucking luxury. It’s impossible for the VAST majority of families.

@Eric_The_Pipe

I’m sick of these arguments. They are all assumptions based on preconceived notions. Please back up what you are saying: I like chips, does chips fall into the food, what about good beer? Does a five bedroom house, for my two person family, fall into shelter? Does three piece suits fall into clothing? Does heat include AC in the summer, in Phoenix? Does sanitation mean I don’t have to clean up my own house? Does education include money to get a PhD in Economics? And is services just poor wording for whatever else I can think of that didn’t fall within these previous “categories?”

And if you answer no to any of these, why the fuck not? If a “rich” person can have them, why can’t I, I think they are necessary?

No you don’t, and neither do most people, except maybe the ac in the Phoenix summer thing, but that’s a bad example, given how relatively little it actually costs to provide air conditioning to people living in subsidized housing in Phoenix (or anywhere else).

[Eric_The_Pipe]

@uglypeoplefucking

except maybe the ac in the Phoenix summer thing, but that’s a bad example, given how relatively little it actually costs to provide air conditioning to people living in subsidized housing in Phoenix (or anywhere else).

Actually it is one of the best. Most people would consider it a luxury, yet it has saved a lot of lives. A surprising amount of people die from heat stroke every year, AC is a life saving device…

Beer is responsible for civilization (partially theoretical), they’ve found traces of it of pottery dated before the earliest examples of bread… When the Egyptians “settled down” from hunter/gatherer, it was to grow barley, for beer… Finally, the low level of alcohol killed the germs that live in water, creating a drinkable source of “water.” Save the world, supplying drinkable water - create more beer… (Also, it is really nice to drink.) (Wine has some of the same properties, except that the area’s that grapes grow in is far more limited than barley, also it is not as nice to drink.) Beer has been a life saving device.

The others are luxuries, right? Or is the only definition of luxury based on your preconceived notions, and everyone else is wrong? Would you consider the internet a luxury? Yet, it is impossible to get a good, non-soul crushing job (as you call them), without it. So is internet a requirement, a “human right?” I spend volunteer time managing a computer lab for elderly people, I’m sure all of them wish that internet was just given, costing someone else…

How about a suit? I know of a couple places around town that provide suits to people that are homeless and attempting to get work. I’m sure in most of those cases they would argue that it is a necessity. I can’t think of Chips as a necessity, other than eating dip by the spoonful is just not as good, but I’m sure I could come up with something… And I’m sure people starving to death would like a bag (they are full of calories).

The only thing required to come up with these is to provide a human being in need, then point how useful these things are. Get enough people on board, and who gives a shit about the people required to provide these things. It is why I call “Human Rights” a bunk ideology, it is based on current popularity. It’s why the constitution of the US said what the government is allowed to do, it’s just too bad they left just enough loose, pretty language for people to use like the worst kind of rule lawyers. “Oh, it says, provide for the general welfare, that means I can do what ever stupid thing pops into my head as long as I justify it with a ‘reason.’”

And this is the problem with socialism and communism. Why I often place both in the same boat, despite being relatively different ideologies. They both place reliance on what the person promoting it believes is “necessary,” as if any one person could know. Or worse, it is placed in the hands of “democracy” meaning 51% of the population is what is needed to declare something a "human right.

Wow, that turned into a rant, and an essay… So, there you go Liz.

[gib]

So I’m drawing some conclusions from this discussion about liberals vs. conservatives.

When I started this thread, I thought of the problem of corruption in politics as a problem between the government and the people. Something like this:

But now I’m starting to see the structure of American society as more like this:

…and the conflict is not between the people and the government but between liberals and conservatives–that is, between two halves of a divided people. And when I hear about some example of a sinister move the government makes or how corrupt this or that politician is, it now sounds to me more like an accusation from one of these halves against the political party representing the other half. In other words, it no longer sounds to me like the voice of the people crying out against their government but the voice of liberals crying out against the Republicans or the voice of conservatives crying out against the Democrats.

As for the philosophies underlying each of these camps, it strikes me as two different ways to interpret what America stands for:

1. Freedom

or

2. Equality

From my biased Canadian perspective, I’ve always thought 1) seemed closer to the American spirit (and the liberals are supposed to be brainwashing me ), but 2) lurks in there somewhere. Maybe it’s more of a surface vs. depth distinction: freedom is what America stands for on the surface, but maybe there’s a deeper underlying principle at work within American culture, and that may be a kind of humanism–the view that we are all human before we are American (or Canadian, or Japanese, or Israeli, etc.). Maybe I’m reading too much into it. Perhaps conservatives are those who think I am reading too much into it, and that freedom is all there is to American culture. On the other hand, maybe I’m not, and liberals are those who think this deeper principle is what truly underlies American culture.

Or maybe it’s this: Both principle are at work in American culture, but the humanistic principle is what keeps American culture rooted in Western culture, whereas the principle of freedom is what makes America quintessentially American. I think humanism is a common thread that runs through almost all Western culture. It’s older than the principle of freedom (and sometimes I think occluded by the principle of freedom), emerging in European civilization at the dawning of the Renaissance era. This early humanism eventually gave way to Enlightenment ideals and values, which in turn gave way to the American and French Revolutions. It was at this juncture that all the social and ideological movements culminated in the principle of freedom over which the American Revolution was fought. This is why the principle of freedom remains on the surface–it’s newer, fresher, it’s gripped onto more tenaciously by Western culture and particularly Americans–whereas the principle of humanism has sunk into the background.

For those who still see the older humanism still lingering in the background, there will be a tendency to view other cultures, citizens of other nations, as fellow human beings first and foremost, and American, Canadian, Japanese, Hungarian, only second (and this goes for religions too, and skin color, and sex, and sexual orientation, etc.). This, I think, is what characterized the liberal mindset. You can see how it lends itself to egalitarianism so readily, to globalism, and also to compassion for others. I think liberals see this as still there in American culture, as what America is supposed to stand for, and that the other principle, freedom, is something that all humans want and have a right to–just in virtue of being human–and that in this sense, we are all equal.

Conservatives on the other hand, I see as focused more on their own nation’s history, on it’s beginnings. And when you look at that, what you see is the principle of freedom glaringly in the fore. It’s why the colonists fought the British. It’s what the American Revolution was all about. But along with that also comes fear–fear of the tyrant, the dictator, and the un-American. This desire for freedom is a desire to be left to one’s own devices, to be kept separate from those who might interfere and determine how one lives his/her life, to live in isolation, to be away from other human beings (hyperbole intended).

What I think conservatives have going for them is a bit more cerebral intelligence. They’re the practical ones, and being so focused on their own past as Americans, they know the dangers of trusting government too much, they know how power can make a tyrant of a leader even if that leader is chosen from the people. They are a slap to the face of liberals, a wake up call. Liberals can be swept away by pipe dreams, by the vision that our shared humanity means that no matter what one’s race, ethnicity, religious orientation, sex, etc., we are all the same–if I bear no ill will towards you, why would you bear ill will towards me? Conservatives have their feet more firmly planted on the ground, and liberals need constant reminders from them about why the fluffy white clouds on which they sit are just vaporous gas through which they will fall hard onto the rocky ground below.

Now, this isn’t to say liberals are all dumb and blind to reality, but that in matters of the heart, they are a little excessive for the likes of conservatives, a little too trusting, a little too taken by emotion and drama, and that they need to stop and think a bit more rationally sometimes (for instance, about the economic effects their affirmative action campaigns will have). Of course, you’ll hear liberals saying something equivalent about conservatives–they’re too cold and calculating, too heartless, too unfeeling and hard (taken to an extreme, it ends up sounding like the psychology of the psychopath we discussed earlier in this thread, especially the one who, as leader, can declare war on another country without batting an eye). But of course, too much of anything creates imbalance. You have to have some compassion for your fellow human beings, but at the same time you can’t get so overwhelmed by compassion that you start losing your better judgement.

Then there are conservative and liberal stereotypes: the racist, homophobic, bigot on the conservative side and the crazed zealot of an environmentalist on the liberal side. I think it’s fair to say that all camps on any issue will have their radicals and their extremists, but this discussion we’ve been having of late (particularly the point Ucci and I discussed about liberal vs. conservative dominance across all sectors of industry, plus the idea that maybe each of education, journalism, and Hollywood, have different and completely unrelated explanations for their liberal predominance) has prompted me to look at extremists and radicals in another way–not that a fair chunk of them can’t still be explained by the extreme ends of a bell curve, but that there may be something completely unrelated to the principles of conservatism or of liberalism that drives certain individuals into conservatism or liberalism.

For example, I saw this clip from CNN the other day (sorry, from TYT; it was another “couched” clip):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0on8UHKB6k[/youtube]

^^ Here is an extreme case of the unflattering conservative stereotype. Al Melvin wants to make it legal in the state of Arizona to fire gays and lesbians on religious grounds (which, by the way, makes it also a case of a politician trying to unite Church and state). Now did Melvin’s conservative ideals lead him to propose this bill and work towards its ratification? Or was it his Christian ideals? Maybe Melvin is a Christian first, and a conservative only second–which means that conservatism, to him, is a mere tool–he uses it because he knows that it so happens to be a bit more conducive to his anti-gay agenda; conservatism stands for freedom, and for Melvin that means freedom of religion (and ultimately to fire gays).

So what I’m thinking is this: maybe a large chunk of the extremists on either side are only there as extremists because they are coming into conservatism or liberalism from a different background, different that is from the grassroots ideals that conservatism or liberalism really stand on. I’ve encountered a few militant and angry feminists online in the past couple years whom I would guess would be examples of extremists on the liberal end. If they are liberal (I didn’t ask them, but I did a poll here, which isn’t much, but it does support the stereotype of liberalism and feminism going hand-in-hand), then I can see them being liberal only because liberalism fights for the underdog (i.e. oppressed minorities) to which they see themselves belonging.

I like this view because, in addition to the excuse that these extreme cases count as only a few bad apples, it also offers the point that these extremists don’t even belong in the group, and they are merely usurping conservatism or liberalism for their own ulterior agendas (this brings to mind Sam Harris’s anti-moderatism; maybe the moderates of each camp should speak out against the extremists in their midst).

That’s my take on conservatives and liberals. Now let’s return to the model I presented earlier, the one depicting the American system as not a government ruling over its people but of two governments, two dominant parties, being used as tools by each of their respective constituents against the other’s constituents. It suddenly occurs to me that this not only depicts the American system, but democracies in general. I’m suddenly realizing what this says of democracies in general and how they might be the undoing of republics: there is no government in a democracy–there are several governments taking turns. This is precisely why you don’t own your government–it has nothing to do with James’ frog-in-boiling-water–it’s that you’re fighting over it, you can’t share it. This is why I say democracy is the undoing of republics: in order for the people to own their government, that government cannot be divided into parties, each one being the government of only one sub-group of the people.

The good news is, if I’m right about the confusion overt the principles America stands for–is it humanism or is it freedom?–and it is soluble, then there might be a chance that liberals and conservatives can start acting united in what they want out of their government, and if that happens, I predict the problem of political corruption will become 10 times easier to solve; however, I’m not sure what would happen to the multi-party system if everyone became united and started getting along–could you still have two or more parties with only one being elected every single time? Or maybe a different party wins every election but by an absolute landslide every time. Maybe democracies should have a tri-party system, and to ensure no minority government comes out of that, each party must step aside after it has had one or two terms and allow only the other two parties to vie for the popular vote in the next election (<-- okay, maybe not, but I’m just brainstorming here).

[Uccisore]

@gib

…and the conflict is not between the people and the government but between liberals and conservatives–that is, between two halves of a divided people. And when I hear about some example of a sinister move the government makes or how corrupt this or that politician is, it now sounds to me more like an accusation from one of these halves against the political party representing the other half.

Sniff…they grow up so fast.

Yeah, that's American politics.  When somebody says "We need to do something about all this corruption", what they mean is "we need to do something about all these Democrats/Republicans/religious people getting to vote/special interest groups/etc."  The upshot is that there really isn't that much legitimate corruption compared to other states.  We have a lot of transparency, and a lot of opportunity for things to get exposed and the public to balk at them. 

As for the philosophies underlying each of these camps, it strikes me as two different ways to interpret what America stands for:

1. Freedom

or

2. Equality

Sort of? You could divide libertarianism vs. liberalism as Freedom vs Equality. Conservatism vs. Liberalism is more like Morality vs. Equality, with both sides claiming Freedom (though they have different understandings of it).

Increasingly, if you want to understand American politics, you’re going to have to account for the libertarians.
[/quote]
^^ Here is an extreme case of the unflattering conservative stereotype. Al Melvin wants to make it legal in the state of Arizona to fire gays and lesbians on religious grounds (which, by the way, makes it also a case of a politician trying to unite Church and state).
[/quote]
Have to disagree there. Remember, ‘making something legal’ describes the absence of a law, since everything is legal until the state says otherwise. A religion institution is already going to be predisposed to firing an openly gay person. The state NOT prohibiting them isn’t a religious entanglement, it’s the absence of a religious entanglement. Uniting Church and State would be the state refusing to hire gays, or mandating that religious institutions must hire gays, or whatever. There may be other reasons to make it/keep it illegal for religious institutions to fire gays and lesbians, but religious entanglement by the state isn’t one of them.

Now did Melvin’s conservative ideals lead him to propose this bill and work towards its ratification? Or was it his Christian ideals? Maybe Melvin is a Christian first, and a conservative only second–which means that conservatism, to him, is a mere tool–he uses it because he knows that it so happens to be a bit more conducive to his anti-gay agenda; conservatism stands for freedom, and for Melvin that means freedom of religion (and ultimately to fire gays).

It's both. If he was a conservative but not a Christian, he would probably be a libertarian that wouldn't care about social issues- though you will find a few rare secular social conservatives.  If he was a Christian but not a conservative, he would simply adjust his understanding of Christian teachings to fit the times, and declare that Christianity supports homosexuality.  So, Christianity teaches him that homosexuality is wrong, conservativism teaches him that "It's the 21st Century" or whatever isn't sufficient reason to abandon/modify what Christianity teaches him. 

So what I’m thinking is this: maybe a large chunk of the extremists on either side are only there as extremists because they are coming into conservatism or liberalism from a different background, different that is from the grassroots ideals that conservatism or liberalism really stand on.

As a general trend, newcomers to an ideology tend to be more zealous than lifetimers, so I think you are on to something there. You see it a lot in religions, where the brand new convert to Orthodoxy wants to fast all the time and observe all these obscure feast days that nobody has heard of but him. There is something about the conversion experience that provokes resentment of who one used to be, and the people/forces/whatever responsible for you having been that.

I like this view because, in addition to the excuse that these extreme cases count as only a few bad apples, it also offers the point that these extremists don’t even belong in the group, and they are merely usurping conservatism or liberalism for their own ulterior agendas (this brings to mind Sam Harris’s anti-moderatism; maybe the moderates of each camp should speak out against the extremists in their midst).

Now, if you could find a way to sensibly identify extremists that might be useful.  "Extremist" is another one of those words, like "Corruption" that ends up just being a pejorative to hurl at the other side. 

I’m suddenly realizing what this says of democracies in general and how they might be the undoing of republics: there is no government in a democracy–there are several governments taking turns. This is precisely why you don’t own your government–it has nothing to do with James’ frog-in-boiling-water–it’s that you’re fighting over it, you can’t share it. This is why I say democracy is the undoing of republics: in order for the people to own their government, that government cannot be divided into parties, each one being the government of only one sub-group of the people.

Democracy is bad. The word came about as a pejorative and it was still being used that way when America was founded. The founding fathers took great pains to make sure that the U.S. wouldn’t become a democracy.

The good news is, if I’m right about the confusion overt the principles America stands for–is it humanism or is it freedom?–and it is soluble, then there might be a chance that liberals and conservatives can start acting united in what they want out of their government, and if that happens, I predict the problem of political corruption will become 10 times easier to solve; however, I’m not sure what would happen to the multi-party system if everyone became united and started getting along–could you still have two or more parties with only one being elected every single time? Or maybe a different party wins every election but by an absolute landslide every time. Maybe democracies should have a tri-party system, and to ensure no minority government comes out of that, each party must step aside after it has had one or two terms and allow only the other two parties to vie for the popular vote in the next election (<-- okay, maybe not, but I’m just brainstorming here).

Eh. I still think you’re in a Rawlsian headspace where you’re trying too hard to resist the idea that one party is good and the other bad. Sure, coming from the perspective that both parties (or all three parties, if you start adding some) have equally valid interpretations and ideas, it makes sense to just allow them to take turns running the show then handing it off to whomever is next instead of voting and stuff. The problem is, neither of the parties think that. They don’t just think that they themselves have good ideas, they think the other party has destructive and dangerous ideas. Your idea that liberalism and conservatism are two sides of a coin or two halves of a unity or whatever isn’t a fusion of liberalism and conservatism, or at least it wouldn’t be seen as such by many. It would just be a new ideology in conflict with all the rest.