Holy ********* Crazy

[*michaelsean*]

Sorry I missed commenting on a line in your post. I know how infuriating that can be. I'll just let you ponder that one.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-31-2017, 07:20 PM)Dill Wrote: The colonies were not a "whole" though. They were discrete political entities, each with a different relation with the mother country. The situation was different in different colonies, with all having local representation.  At one point the six northern ones were gathered under one administrative unit called the Dominion of New England. Right after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, they revolted and overthrew the Dominion governor in Boston and lietuentant governor in New York. William and Mary negotiated new contracts with each of these colonies, usually granting petitions of elected representatives of the colony in question. They didn't have direct representation in the British Parliament, but they had considerable power over their affairs. E.g. in New Jersey and New York, after 1702, state legislatures controlled the governor's salary--a real "check" on the crown. What made representation a battle cry were policies like the Navigation Acts and Stamp Act. However, "representation" would not really have fixed the problem, given the small population of the colonies and the manner in which their interests were diverging from Great Britain's. They would have always been voted down.

The point I am coming to is that the colonial system was eventually top cumbersome to ever function as democracy centered in London. This situation might map onto Bels point about a parliamentary vs a two party system with the Empire something like a two party system in which choices are narrowed for those far from the centers of power and major parties.  

Sorry missed this.  When I said as a whole I didn't mean they were united, just that across the board they didn't have direct representation, but thanks for the rest.  It's interesting.

[Dill]

(06-01-2017, 01:14 PM)xxlt Wrote: An older and wiser friend pointed out something which I thought was pretty self evident, but then I realized it wasn't so I will share it. The relationship here isn't a line - it is a circle.

Now you can still be critical of the linear visual and advocate for a sphere or a cube or whatever, but thinking of this as a circle may redeem it a bit, and also explain some of the confusion about, for example, what fascism means. Elements of the extremes are similar hence their proximity to each other on the circle.

Circles still have the linear distortion problem. Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Reich were "totalitarian", but in my view not very much alike. In this circle they merge together.

Also, it is very odd to claim Fascism was neither right nor left. As the terms have evolved from the French Revolution and have been used consistently for over two hundred years, fascism is certainly "right".

[Dill]

(06-01-2017, 02:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I don't know what would be a good visualization for these sorts of things. I know that I could see a compilation of many 1D charts for components of the various political ideologies would be eye-opening. You mention libertarianism being around communism, and what is interesting is that on several of those charts those two would be very close to each other. At least as the ideologies are typically looked at in theory in the realm of political science.

Libertarianism and anarchism don't fit neatly into one slot on a continuum because each can arise from right or left political ideologies. It is possible I think to place the US libertarian party on a party spectrum.

I think political squares with quadrants signify the content of political ideologies better than a line or a circle, but I haven't seen one I really like. This one is interesting:

[Dill]

(06-01-2017, 02:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get what you are saying, though. I make the comment that people on here would call me a communist, or just to the right of Stalin, but that my ideological bent is center-left on the global scale. So perspectives on the left-right spectrum in this country are skewed because of the shift to the right leaving a center/center-right party that is left of a party on the right. I mean, there are ways that the Democrats are more conservative than the center-right CDU/CSU party in Germany. Of course, I am speaking of the way these politicians in these parties vote in their blocs in Congress. Since the parties themselves don't really care about policy in this country and the politicians themselves don't have to adhere to the party's platform, it's hard to really assign these things.

Here is an attempt to fit a US spectrum into the "global scale" you mention--though I think this scale is not really global. The European American spectrum may not work at all in Asia or the Middle East.

[Belsnickel]

(06-01-2017, 05:41 PM)Dill Wrote: Here is an attempt to fit a US spectrum into the "global scale" you mention--though I think this scale is not really global. The European American spectrum may not work at all in Asia or the Middle East.

You're right, my statement is from a very Eurocentric mindset. I have been attempting to learn more about Asian politics, but the world is a big place.

As for the scale itself, that is a bit misleading. I'll explain why later, for now, I must head home.

Edit: And now that I am home...this graph would be better served as a box plot. While technically correct, there is certainly not an even distribution across those lines on the graph and a box plot would show a concentration for the Democrats between the center and conservative markers. For the Republicans it would be not quite centered on the conservative marker, but the longer side of the box would be towards the reactionary marker.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I think of Matt as closer to a European Socialist which is closer to the Progressive side here in the United States.

I see the US Political scale go from Socialism on the left to Anarchy on the right. Communism and National Socialism is nowhere near the US Political scale although there are Communist and National Socialist in the United States.

I myself am a Constitutionalist but most don't like Constitutionalist because of the religiousness of the party, but that's cool, I still vote for them.

[xxlt]

(06-01-2017, 02:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I know you're suggesting linear isn't perfect, and I agree with a cube model with the axises being economics, authority, and social, but who placed libertarianism as being closer to fascism than standard conservatism? Whether economically, authoritatively, or socially, it doesn't make sense. 

Like I said before, I am open to other models people create themselves or pull from sources - so far nobody has shown anything different. Surely they exist, even though i haven't seen them. Or people can create their own, as I was accused of doing.

Clearly the one model submitted does make sense to some.

Over a decade ago I started reading things here: https://www.cato.org/

That's the biggest libertarian think tank in the US, as far as I know. I think I was in a similar place as the one occupied by Rotobeast now, disillusioned with the major US political brands and thinking there has to be another way, and initially I had been impressed by some libertarian talking points. Who doesn't like freedom, after all? Who doesn't like liberty? But the deeper I got into their ideology, I was like, hmmm, this sounds a lot like fascism, and I pulled back from it. I wasn't the only person to make the observation. Full disclosure - I don't know what sort of rhetoric they are putting out now - so maybe they have moderated.

All I can tell you is my assessment, and that of many others, was consistent. Again, anyone, show me other models - or build your own. I'll look at them, I may even say they are better.

[xxlt]

(06-01-2017, 02:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I don't know what would be a good visualization for these sorts of things. I know that I could see a compilation of many 1D charts for components of the various political ideologies would be eye-opening. You mention libertarianism being around communism, and what is interesting is that on several of those charts those two would be very close to each other. At least as the ideologies are typically looked at in theory in the realm of political science.

I get what you are saying, though. I make the comment that people on here would call me a communist, or just to the right of Stalin, but that my ideological bent is center-left on the global scale. So perspectives on the left-right spectrum in this country are skewed because of the shift to the right leaving a center/center-right party that is left of a party on the right. I mean, there are ways that the Democrats are more conservative than the center-right CDU/CSU party in Germany. Of course, I am speaking of the way these politicians in these parties vote in their blocs in Congress. Since the parties themselves don't really care about policy in this country and the politicians themselves don't have to adhere to the party's platform, it's hard to really assign these things.


I split your post up and typed up my part one response before reading this section. I took a walk around the quad, then came back to my office and read this more thoroughly. I find it funny that I said the same thing you said in the last portion, here. But yes, the GOP and the way their elected officials have been voting in a group is more akin to the AfD or Front national rather than the CDU/CSU or, say, Les Républicains, which is where the GOP under Reagan and Nixon would have aligned with.

I found that funny too. I was like... he realizes we are in agreement here, right... and of course you did.

I wish I was up on European politics as you are now. My knowledge is very general and base on history much more than contemporary activity... I just know that in terms of political diversity most of the EU, hell most of the world, runs rings around the US. There are practically dictatorships with more flavors the our political marketplace.

[xxlt]

(06-01-2017, 05:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Circles still have the linear distortion problem. Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Reich were "totalitarian", but in my view not very much alike. In this circle they merge together.

Also, it is very odd to claim Fascism was neither right nor left. As the terms have evolved from the French Revolution and have been used consistently for over two hundred years, fascism is certainly "right".

Also interesting is the proximity of socialism to libertarianism in this visual. I have a funny feeling the only thing that would have hurt feelings more than 'calling a self proclaimed libertarian a fascist' is calling a self proclaimed libertarian a socialist. This is why I asked the offended one to relocate himself on the spectrum. To date, he has not. I guess now I now where libertarianism is: nirvana. Or as Neil Young said, "Everybody knows this is nowhere." I had no idea he was singing about libertarians.

[xxlt]

(06-01-2017, 05:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Libertarianism and anarchism don't fit neatly into one slot on a continuum because each can arise from right or left political ideologies. It is possible I think to place the US libertarian party on a party spectrum.

I think political squares with quadrants signify the content of political ideologies better than a line or a circle, but I haven't seen one I really like. This one is interesting:

The proximity of Bush to Hitler... I think 5 years ago someone (you?) shared this on mothership... the cry went up how dare you compare Bush to Hitler. So now the Bush boys are all libertarians, but their quadrant lacks names and includes a female - they have been insulted again! Perhaps even more this time. Also if libertarian appears inside and outside shouldn't authoritarian? Or should the bottom of the chart say anarchy?

The other proximity thing I liked was Benedict being more authoritarian than Castro. Valid.

Progressives are authoritarian? I guess Jeff Sessions would agree.

[BmorePat87]

(06-02-2017, 08:50 AM)xxlt Wrote: The proximity of Bush to Hitler... I think 5 years ago someone (you?) shared this on mothership... the cry went up how dare you compare Bush to Hitler. So now the Bush boys are all libertarians, but their quadrant lacks names and includes a female - they have been insulted again! Perhaps even more this time. Also if libertarian appears inside and outside shouldn't authoritarian? Or should the bottom of the chart say anarchy?

The other proximity thing I liked was Benedict being more authoritarian than Castro. Valid.

Progressives are authoritarian? I guess Jeff Sessions would agree.

That's the issue with that chart. It's two dimensional but they're trying to double up on the Y axis, using it to represent social liberalism/conservatism and authoritarianism/anarchy (which I agree should replace "libertarian" at the bottom). 

Progressivism is often more authoritative because it empowers the government to enforce these regulations or laws just as conservatism empowers the government to enforce social restrictions, where as libertarianism would lean anarchy as it seeks to remove government power. 

With regards to your response to me, some libertarians embrace it in a cult like manner, obsessed with the theorists. In that sense, it may remind someone of fascism, but the very fact that they want to minimize government makes them no where near actual fascism, where the state is glorified and your life is modeled after adoration of the state. There can be nationalism within libertarianism, but they would likely argue it's a reverence of the culture not the government.

[xxlt]

(06-02-2017, 09:37 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's the issue with that chart. It's two dimensional but they're trying to double up on the Y axis, using it to represent social liberalism/conservatism and authoritarianism/anarchy (which I agree should replace "libertarian" at the bottom). 

Progressivism is often more authoritative because it empowers the government to enforce these regulations or laws just as conservatism empowers the government to enforce social restrictions, where as libertarianism would lean anarchy as it seeks to remove government power. 

With regards to your response to me, some libertarians embrace it in a cult like manner, obsessed with the theorists. In that sense, it may remind someone of fascism, but the very fact that they want to minimize government makes them no where near actual fascism, where the state is glorified and your life is modeled after adoration of the state. There can be nationalism within libertarianism, but they would likely argue it's a reverence of the culture not the government.

Great points.

I think what many miss in fascism is what holds up the state is its bromance with corporations. In libertarian economics (see Cato today for an example as they praise Trump's deregulation!) what happens is the reverence shifts to the corporations (or "the market") and what holds up the market is the bromance with the state. So the state gets love and corporate support by letting the corporations have carte blanche as long as the state is "first" in fascism. And the corporations gets love and state support and still get carte blanche as long as "the market" is first in libertarianism. I don't really care if "country" or "business" is at the top of the flag pole, if they are colluding to screw us all (see withdrawal from Paris accord, which I suspect libertarians to cheer) then it doesn't really matter. The suckers think a smaller government can't screw them, so they won! All a smaller government can't do is police the market! Win for the corporations, loss for the people who voted libertarian. (Except that .01 percent who own the market!)

[BmorePat87]

(06-02-2017, 11:50 AM)xxlt Wrote: Great points.

I think what many miss in fascism is what holds up the state is its bromance with corporations. In libertarian economics (see Cato today for an example as they praise Trump's deregulation!) what happens is the reverence shifts to the corporations (or "the market") and what holds up the market is the bromance with the state. So the state gets love and corporate support by letting the corporations have carte blanche as long as the state is "first" in fascism. And the corporations gets love and state support and still get carte blanche as long as "the market" is first in libertarianism. I don't really care if "country" or "business" is at the top of the flag pole, if they are colluding to screw us all (see withdrawal from Paris accord, which I suspect libertarians to cheer) then it doesn't really matter. The suckers think a smaller government can't screw them, so they won! All a smaller government can't do is police the market! Win for the corporations, loss for the people who voted libertarian. (Except that .01 percent who own the market!)

True libertarianism rejects corporatism or crony capitalism while fascism usually embraces state control over many aspects of the economy. 

No matter how you cut it (social acceptance, economics, or government control) they don't belong near each other.

[masterpanthera_t]

(06-02-2017, 08:35 AM)xxlt Wrote: I found that funny too. I was like... he realizes we are in agreement here, right... and of course you did.

I wish I was up on European politics as you are now. My knowledge is very general and base on history much more than contemporary activity... I just know that in terms of political diversity most of the EU, hell most of the world, runs rings around the US. There are practically dictatorships with more flavors the our political marketplace.

Just wanted to throw out that I sort of keep up with European politics at a fraction of the level Belsnickel does.  I've been learning Italian for a bit, and am nowhere near fluent in Italian as Belsnickel seems to be in German, but as I progress more I will probably start keeping up with it at a much higher rate when I get back to reading Italian newspapers again.  I won't have anything interesting to add for quite some time, but once I get my schedule sorted out to add Italian practice, I can start making some commentary from a similar Italian skew as Belnickel's German one.  

Don't start expecting anything too soon or even within a year.  Anyways, this post is more a way for me to put this out there so there will be some drive/motivation to get back to Italian learning and to make a foray into European politics from a "native" view.

[masterpanthera_t]

(06-02-2017, 08:41 AM)xxlt Wrote: Also interesting is the proximity of socialism to libertarianism in this visual. I have a funny feeling the only thing that would have hurt feelings more than 'calling a self proclaimed libertarian a fascist' is calling a self proclaimed libertarian a socialist. This is why I asked the offended one to relocate himself on the spectrum. To date, he has not. I guess now I now where libertarianism is: nirvana. Or as Neil Young said, "Everybody knows this is nowhere." I had no idea he was singing about libertarians.

Some of the posts in this thread have totally called for an internal re-evaluation of myself.  I've pretty much thought I was a libertarian by default, more so because my views lie all over the "spectrum" on an  issue dependent basis, and would not neatly fit into our ideological definitions of "Republican", conservative, liberal or "Democrat".  But now I'm not sure if I would even be a libertarian.

[ballsofsteel]

Did James Comey ever play basketball?

[SunsetBengal]

..

[Belsnickel]

(06-02-2017, 03:38 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Just wanted to throw out that I sort of keep up with European politics at a fraction of the level Belsnickel does.  I've been learning Italian for a bit, and am nowhere near fluent in Italian as Belsnickel seems to be in German, but as I progress more I will probably start keeping up with it at a much higher rate when I get back to reading Italian newspapers again.  I won't have anything interesting to add for quite some time, but once I get my schedule sorted out to add Italian practice, I can start making some commentary from a similar Italian skew as Belnickel's German one.  

Don't start expecting anything too soon or even within a year.  Anyways, this post is more a way for me to put this out there so there will be some drive/motivation to get back to Italian learning and to make a foray into European politics from a "native" view.

You will not only learn more about European politics, but you will get an outsider perspective into the US. It is very interesting to dig into European news sources like that. I wish I could devote more time to it, but my primary focus is domestic policy so it is hard to justify.

[*jason*]

(06-02-2017, 03:44 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Some of the posts in this thread have totally called for an internal re-evaluation of myself.  I've pretty much thought I was a libertarian by default, more so because my views lie all over the "spectrum" on an  issue dependent basis, and would not neatly fit into our ideological definitions of "Republican", conservative, liberal or "Democrat".  But now I'm not sure if I would even be a libertarian.

Sounds like you have a case of free thinking on your hands. Can't have that. You'd better pick a side.