BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'

Subject: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 09:49 PM

Once in a great while, if we are lucky, we happen across a bit of insight that suddenly puts a lot of things in perspective that were not fully understood before. For example, it has long puzzled me that seemingly bright people can look at the same situations and events that I see but draw completely opposing conclusions from them. I say I'm puzzled because, from my viewpoint they are reaching conclusions and espousing remedies that seem to go against their own self-interest or against the interests of the group (i.e., class, race, nation, species, etc.). Of course they have a perfect right to their views, it's just that their positions often seem enigmatic.

Now, today, I've run across an article that I think provides real insight into this phenomenon. The article, “The Frame Around Arnold,” is on the Net at AlterNet.org and, on the surface, deals with the reasons behind Arnold Schwartzenegger's successful gubernatorial campaign. But beyond his analysis of the recent campaign, author George Lakoff gives us some real insight into people's fundamental view of politics, world events and the underlying motivations for our voting behavior.

If you have a few minutes, study Mr. Lakoff's piece, give it some thought and let us know what you think.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 10:17 PM

Well, Mark, I think it is beyond just a "framing issue", which involves folks having to chose between two opposing views to what I would "frame" as a *winners circle view*. Success has been "framed" in terms of being on the *winning side* and more folks seem to just want to be on that side, irregardless of what it might mean to be on that side....

I firmly believe that if Hitler were alive and well and living in the US today that if the population percieved him as being "framed" as a winner, that the majority would gladly walk Jews into gas chambers and kill them....

I mean, like I look at my neighbors with their stupid fu*king American flags strapped all over their cars and trucks and know that they would kill me in a heartbeat if they thought that I was one of them pinko, commie, peacenics....

Welcome to George Bush and Johnnie Ashcroft's America.....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 10:42 PM

Well, yes, it's more than “just a ‘framing issue’”—although framing seems important in political PR—it's some insight into what motivates people to vote the way they do. It helps explain why rational thought never seems to appeal to right-wingers and starts to suggest what must be done to begin to get our country back.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: LadyJean
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 11:03 PM

One of the problems with the left is that they squabble. I've been working with the Howard Dean campaign, and caught in the middle of some seriously petty bickering over seriously minor issues. They tend to focus on the minutiae, and ignore the big picture. The right are perfectly happy to march in lockstep, if they want something. The left will waste time arguing a minor question down to the last comma.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: NicoleC
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 01:44 AM

It's an interesting perspective, but I still think it fundamentally assumes that all voters are ignorant if not downright stupid.

The Republicans may be good at inspirng ignorant people to vote for them, but such a one-sided approach by the Dems would quickly turn off their base set of liberal voters who DO care about the issues and aren't just voting for a fishing buddy. What works for the Republicans does not necessarily translate to working for another party; just because the Republican party has been successful lately does not mean the strategy makes sense for Democrats. The Democrats have not exactly been successful trying to copy the Repub strategy so far -- their downfall is that they don't have a strategy at ALL.

For example, in the California recall election, Peter Camejo came in 4th. Mr. Camejo got ZERO publicity, ZERO press coverage, and the single instance I did hear him mentioned was *after* the election when he was erroneously reported as an "Independant" candidate -- which in CA means the American Independant party, an ultra, ultra-right wing group. Peter was the Green candidate.

Yet Peter got 2.8% of the votes entirely on issues, ranking significantly above Arianna Huffington, Peter Uberroth, Larry Flynt, Bill Simon, Gary Coleman and the porn star, Mary Cook -- all of whom received a lot of media attention and coverage. 'Scuse me -- where DOES Gary Coleman stand on the issues? Peter got 5.3% of the vote in the last general election with similar (i.e. nonexistent) coverage and with a much smaller pack of candidates (6 vs. 135).

I don't think another voting strategy to try and win the ignorant middle is very bright. They've tried it a bunch of ways -- instead, I think it's time to return to the Democratic ideals and motivation that served the political process so well pre-Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 02:19 AM

LadyJean, I agree with your observation about the left arguing over minutiae but I'd be pretty, no very, surprised if you ran into anyone from the left in the Howard Dean campaign. It's been years since I met any active Democrats who weren't significantly right of center.

The Lakoff article talks about framing and one of the most egregious examples of framing by the radical right is the phrase “liberal left.” Liberals aren't leftists. They are more often the target of leftist contempt. In many countries, liberals are centrists, in the U.S. they are pulled right of center as the article suggests. Democrats range from slightly right of center (liberals) to far right of center. Some Democrats are right of some Republicans.

I'm reminded of a line from one of the old Beyond the Fringe sketches where Brits are talking about the U.S.

“And they have the two party system.”
“Really? How does that work?”
“Well, they have the Republican party which is the equivalent of our Conservative party, and they have the Democratic party which is the equivalent of our Conservative party.”

Most Democrats don't think the cause of freedom is well served by stifling discussion. When you think about it, a primary reason to elect Democrats is just so that everyone will have a chance to air his opinion.

Democracy, well done, isn't tidy or even necessarily efficient. You don't really want that. You want to get the best ideas from each point of view so you can eventually move forward as a group united in spirit.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 08:52 AM

I agree with you, whole heartedly, Nicole... Tryin' to win Joe Sipcak is not an option and that's why I've stuck with the Green Party for so long... Yeah, I'd love for the Democratic Party to stand for something again and maybe they will this time around... With that said, I probably will vote, and perhaps work, for the Dems just to try to get Bush out, and then go back to needling the Dems...

Also, the Republican Party is run much more like a corporation. They have lots of money and folks who meet weekly, much like a corporation, to discuss ways to discredit the Dems and to "frame" their guys... Throw in the fact that these folks also own the media, it's no wonder that the Republican Party seems so well disciplined and structured...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 09:52 AM

Lady Jean - You're right that the Left quibbles about details while the Right marches in lockstep, and I'll tell you why. The political Left basically utilizes the great feminine archetype as its inner psychic engine while the Right embodies the masculine archetype. (I've always preferred the notion of matriarchy to that of patriarchy...when I think patriarch, I think "Republican"!)

Meedless to say, most people are entirely unaware of this.

What we've got here is a dysfunctional marriage on a vast basis! :-)

Think about it...

The actual "center" is a more harmonious combination of the two, where they combine their strengths and abilities and work together. Our political system does not encourage that in the least, as it is based upon prearranged division and conflict.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 10:19 AM

I think it may be as simple as this: the Right is unified around one single idea: whatever benefits them. The left is a much more diverse party that is concerned with many issues about many different peoples.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 10:27 AM

So it's D-I-V-O-R-C-E in archetype land, Little HAwk? Don't tell the kids, 'kay? School is hard enough!! :>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 11:30 AM

Little Hawk wrote “The political Left basically utilizes the great feminine archetype as its inner psychic engine while the Right embodies the masculine archetype.” This idea may be close to what George Lakoff meant in his article when he said

“models of idealized family structure lie at the heart of our politics—less literally than metaphorically. … Our politics is organized around two opposite and idealized models of the family, the strict father and nurturant parent models.”

“The nurturant parent family assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that it is one’s responsibility to work towards that. Accordingly, children are born good and parents can make them better. Both parents share responsibility for raising the children. Their job is to nurture their children and raise their children to be nurturers. …

“The strict father model assumes that the world is and always will be dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who has to support and defend the family, tell his wife what to do, and teach his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is painful discipline —physical punishment that is to develop by adulthood into internal discipline. Morality and survival jointly arise from such discipline—discipline to follow moral precepts and discipline to pursue your self-interest to become self-reliant. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant disciplined children are on their own and the father is not to meddle in their lives. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.”

I don’t think Lakoff believes most voters are stupid, he’s saying that, in the voting booth, our selection isn’t based on the campaign issues or the platforms of represented parties but, to a large extent, by our own personal idealized model of the family and the degree to which candidates succeeded in representing that model. “Framing” is merely one of the tools politicians and their supporters use to invoke our model-driven response at the polls.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST,uncle Bill
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 01:08 PM

I have always favored using the terms right and left rather than demo and republican since I don't see much difference anymore in either organized (sic) party. I know some demos that are pretty darned conservative and some gop'ers that really are sensitive to the populace. My government has betrayed me twice and each time a different jpary was in power. Go Green!

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 01:14 PM

Sorry, but neither Lakoff's or Little Hawk's analogies work for me, and both seem dangerously naive.

Although I do agree with the Beyond the Fringe description of the US party system.

I just don't view the US party system as responding to the reality of the citizenry's daily lived experience. Half of all people in the US now live in non-traditional (ie non-nuclear) families.

Article: "Unmarried America"

Yet neither party recognizes that half of the citizentry, period.

Less than one quarter of the US citizenry regularly attends organized religion's weekly services. That leaves over 3/4 of the citizenry whose religious behavior is being wholly ignored by both parties.

Religious Practices in the US: Poll Results

Why do you suppose that is?

Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't win by appealing to the religious left or right, or by appealing to the nuclear family values voters of the right, but to the non-nuclear family values voters of the center.

Why do you suppose that is?

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 02:31 PM

We suppose that is because here in California we have a large number of problems all at the same time. Gray Davis has been unable to solve them but none of the 135 or so candidates had any real ideas about how to solve them either.

But Arnold, the Terminator, has many times (at least on film) faced insurmountable problems and quickly solved them. We think that about half of California's voters felt, at least subconciously, that Arnold would immediately solve all of our problems even if he had to use automatic weapons and explosives to do it. Not only that, but the only harm would come to the bad guys and the rest of us good guys would suffer no collateral damage.

Doesn't this fit the "strict father frame"?

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 02:53 PM

Lakoff’s article isn’t saying we actually live in one of his two “models of idealized family structure,” only that most of us have internalized one or both of those models as a metaphor for the large, complex group. The models become a filter or paradigm for understanding because the real world is too complex for each of us to develop a private and complete understanding.

The Michelle Conlin piece from BusinessWeek is similar to a report I heard on NPR the other day, the traditional family in the U.S. is becoming much less popular as a lifestyle. The odd thing is that, while most of us are choosing other models for our own lives, we are still subconsiously fixated on the old ones, as Lakoff has discovered.

The fascenating thing, to me, about the B.A. Robinson piece for the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is that a large number of people polled seem to be lying. They respond based on their idealized notion of what their religious behavior should be rather than report what they actually do. This tendancy to report an idealized but fictional religious behavior seems very similar to Lakoff’s analysis of the way people vote. They may not vote their actual self-interest or their true preference based on platforms and positions, rather they (we) often vote based on an idealized but fictional projection of the candidates informed by their (our) own model of idealized family structure.

Arnold Schwarzenegger won without mentioning any issues or platforms because he represented Lakoff’s strict father model to voters whose idealized (though fictional) model was in that mode at the time they voted.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: NicoleC
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 08:41 PM

They may not vote their actual self-interest or their true preference based on platforms and positions, rather they (we) often vote based on an idealized but fictional projection of the candidates

If you stopped there, I would agree with you.

It still sounds like a "stupid voter" theory to me to say that voters think, live and believe one thing but then have an attack of forgetfulness when they go to pull the lever.

The problem with mass psychoanalytic theories are that anyone who disagrees is told that it's all in their subconscious. Whups, can't measure the subconscious. Ergo, the analyzer says he's right and the analyzees just don't know it. Those being analyzed don't get to have an opinion.

People lie on polls and tests because they are secretly afraid someone is keeping track, or they simply don't want to look bad or different. That's no surprise -- people lie about drugs, sex, religion and anything else sensitive. Why not politics?

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: freightdawg
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 09:04 PM

The right marches in lockstep and the dems quibble over minutia?

Puhleeese.

Bill Clinton was elected twice because the repubs were at war with each other and Ross Perot.

The dems are supposed to be the party of big unions and the evironmentalists. Can you think of two groups of people more likely to be at odds with each other? You can't have big union jobs without a lot of energy and waste byproducts. You can't have a clean environnment if you are generating a lot of energy and creating a lot of waste byproducts.

The dems were for years the party of free speech and "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Has anyone checked the hatred spoken by Hillary Clinton concerning Rush Limbaugh and the "vast right wing conspiracy" lately?

I am a member of no political party, organized or otherwise. I have my own chops against the repubs, but saying they are the only ones who walk in lockstep is just plain hooey.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 11:59 AM

freightdawg,

Anyone who doesn't now believe that there was (and is) a vast, right-wing conspiracy that was aginst the Clintons in the 1990s and machinating all over the US right now has his head in the sand. Let's see:

We've been through a power grab for the presidency involving the republican-controlled Supreme Court stopping a count of votes. The Florida commissioner of elections changed the rules on excluding people from voting to get Bush into power and then used those new rules to get herself elected to congress; this involved, for example, excluding felons who had served their time, but also anyone who had the same name as a felon who had served his or her time. It was outrageous.

Then in Texas, we have an extraordinary effort to redistrict the state off-schedule and pick up more congressional seats, simply because it's possible to ram it through the legislature based on the Republican majority.

In California we have a Democratic governor recalled over an energy issue largely caused by the Federal government. The first thing the new Republican does--before he even takes office--is meet with the President to ask for more money. We are getting very close to a situation where the federal monies that go to a State will be based on the party of the state's governor, causing states with Dem governors to get disgruntled and vote republican.

In my hometown of Philadelphia, we have Ashcroft's justice department suddenly begin an investigation of the democratic Mayor John Street three weeks before a tight election, making a huge media spectacle of raiding offices and seizing documents even though Street had agreed to turn them over quietly. If that doesn't have Karl Rove written all over it I don't know what does.

We are witnessing an assault by the right wing. First they plan to take as many elections Republican as they can, by means fair and foul. Then they hope to consolidate and maintain their control of the Republican party. This is probably where they are most vulnerable. I hope some of the moderate republicans out there see these folks for what they are and oust them.

Also, we shouldn't try to put Hillary Clinton's attacks on Rush Limbaugh into the hate speech category. I've heard Limbaugh say that people should burn in hell, that people were congenitally stupid, that they were retarded, "mongoloid," etc. I don't think Hillary Clinton has said anything on that level.

Some background on Lakoff. He does not think people are stupid, but he DOES think that our thinking is often structured by metaphors that we ourselves create. This metaphorical thinking can be entirely unconscious. So he is arguing that we don't always behave the way unadulterated analysis of facts would lead us to. Lakoff is a great linguist with many books detailing this phenomenon in various (non-political) realms. But his thinking frequently explains political events.

For example, when Gore said he would not run because that would take us backward rather than forward, he was using the metaphor that time is a line and that we move inexorably along that line. Embracing that movement becomes "progress" while fighting it becomes regressive. So to want to (metaphorically) revisit the 2000 election seems somehow counterproductive. Most voters in 2000 would rather have had Gore as president than Bush, but because of this metaphor of progress/regress along a linear time model, he fears not as many people would vote for him this time. In cultures where time is modelled more as a cycle, Gore running again might seem like a better idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Metchosin
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 12:11 PM

I knew there had to be some reason I prefer a clock with a face over a digital one.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 02:10 PM

The fact that people may be clever enough doesn't in any way mean they can't make themseleves stupid, when they really want to.

It's as if we've got a little switch in our mind, and we can just turn it off, and large parts of our mind settle back and go to sleep.

Every now and again large number of people do that, and it can have dire results - and the dire results can make them turn the switch back on.

Of course, that only works if the dire results happen to the people with the switched off minds, rather than being exported to other parts of the world. But sooner or later it does seem to happen that the trouble comes home in a way that can turn that switch back on.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: freightdawg
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 02:12 PM

To my friend Nerd,

I agree totally with your example of Texas. Like I said, I have serious problems with republicans as well as democrats. However, this issue did not exist when Ms. Clinton made her comment. My only point was that democrats, as well as republicans, march in lockstep with their leaders when it benefits their goals, and democrats as well as republicans will argue amongst themselves when they feel it is in their best interest.

I disagree with your interpretation of the whole Gore-Bush and the Supreme court. If they had not stepped in and acted like adults we would still be counting hanging chads. Incidentally, that election is why I hate the electoral college with a passion. This whole idea of "one person, one vote" is a crock of baloney. The electoral college was a good and workable idea when it was first created, but should be done away with henceforth and forever more.

Your thoughts on Gore running again are interesting. The question would be, could he himself run on 2004 issues, or would he himself be drawn back to Florida and 2000?

We are all hopelessly children of our own generation. We speak the language not only that we are comfortable with, but also one that communicates to those we want to communicate with. In America that mean speaking linearally. It is not perfect, but then no metaphor is.

freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: DougR
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 02:20 PM

The writer's description of a "typical" (I assume he means typical) conservative family does not jibe with families I know that have conservative beliefs at all. Pretty "typical" liberal propaganda I think.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 03:00 PM

I don't actually think that is what he is saying there, Doug.

What I read him as saying is that there are two models of how a family should work within our heads. He labels one the "strict father model", and the other the "nurturant parent family".

Both models are present within most of us, and real families tend to combine them, whatever their formal politics.

However he says that "liberal" politics reflects the"nurturant parent family" model, and "conservative" politics reflects the "strict father" model.

And, whether you agree with his analysis or not, I think it's a misreading of what he wrote to take him as saying that real life "conservatives" typically have families like the one summed up in the "strict father" model. (And the same for "liberal" families and the "nurturant parent family" model.)

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 04:33 PM

Freightdawg, thanks for your response. The response to Clinton's shenanigans, I think, is not an example of dems marching in lockstep. People like Lieberman scolded Clinton openly. Granted, this was significantly later than Hillary's statement, too. My point was that there was indeed a vast right-wing conspiracy out to get Clinton, so Hillary was really just speaking truth, and if liberals all agreed with her that wasn't marching in lockstep but observing reality. I don't think any of the stuff she has said, then or since, qualifies as hate speech.

On the linear metaphor: exactly, no metaphor is perfect, but many of them structure our thinking so that we cease to realize they are metaphors. So for example when you ask "could he himself run on 2004 issues, or would he himself be drawn back to Florida and 2000?" we process this without thinking of it as a metaphor, but of course it is: he could no more return to 2000 than fly to Jupiter. And our words themselves are metaphorical: "return," for example, comes from a root that means simply "turn around," because metaphorically the past is behind us. It has entered the language so that the only way we can speak clearly of going back to the past is in spatial metaphors of backward travel: "return," "go back to the past," etc.

Lakoff is very smart about metaphors and frames and how they guide our thinking. He points out that the neoconservatives have think-tanks coming up with dicourse metaphors which they then release into the public. His best example is "tax relief," which carries with it a whole set of assumptions that do not reflect liberal views of taxation. This phrase was released to the public by the right, and now even democrats sometimes use it. For that article, go here

DougR, McGrath's response is exactly correct. Lakoff never makes any claims about the actual families of people at any point on the spectrum. His point is that the two ends of the spectrum use different family metaphors to understand the role of government.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 04:45 PM

The article I referenced above is a fuller explication of the two models, and a more nuanced discussion of their role. One point he makes:

"People are complicated. They are not all 100 percent conservative or progressive. Everyone in this society has both the strict and nurturant models, either actively or passively -- actively if they live by those values, passively if they can understand a story, movie or TV show based on those values. "

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 06:03 PM

A useful corrective to linear thinking, and on-with-the-new - ""Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." - (George Santayana.)

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: toadfrog
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 11:09 PM

It's all too complicated for me, these "frames," families & so forth. It seems to me that several of those "frames" really do describe what happened, up to a point.

One fact we shouldn't forget - although he did not cause all the problems he is blamed for, Davis was really, really a bad Governor. Basically only a fund raiser, like most of the politicians we get in California. A selfish man who cared for no cause or principle, but only his own ambitions. An arrogant man who hever listened to anyone and brought his problems on himself. And unfortunately, on us as well.

So, Arnold has a mandate, to (a) cut taxes; and (b) balance the budget, (c) without cutting education; and (d) (impliedly) without undue harm to the folks who voted for him (e) with the help of all the money brother George is going to bestow on him (ha ha ha). Lots of luck, Arnold.

Mr. Clark, one question. If the Democrats are to the right of center, where are all those people who are to the left of center? Where do they live, and why is it they never vote? Why do we never hear from them? Are they like the Dark Matter that makes up 50% of the universe? I live in San Francisco. In the state of California, that is considered an extremely left-wing place. San Francisco voted 80% against the recall. Almost everyone here is a Democrat. Go 100 miles south, or north, or east, they will tell you San Francisco is full of Left-wing kooks. they do not say we are too conservative. They won't tell you that, trust me. But we vote Democratic. Where are all those people you are talking about???

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 11:16 PM

According to accounts I have read, check your voting machines.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: NicoleC
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 11:40 PM

toadfrog - Because the Democratic candidates presented are hardly ever what lefties want to vote for, but often do anyway for lack of a better choice. Even the candidates that get to the primaries are generally slick professional politicians, not necessarily the fodder for good leadership.

I don't think Davis was a bad governor -- I think he was a mediocre governor when we needed a great one. I have a hunch he might be a really bad person though. I always thought he was pretty slimey.

PDC - Yup. Am I the only one that noticed that ALL of the polls had Bustamonte and AS running neck and neck EXCEPT the AS campaign poll (of only 200 people), which predicited the outcome of the election EXACTLY?

What a *shocking* *coincidence*, hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 03:12 AM

Nerd, Thanks for the link to Lakoff's American Prospect piece. It goes even farther to help explain why bright people might adopt a philosophy and voting habits that run contrary to their own self-interest and core beliefs.

Toadfrog, Although leftists seem to have nearly disappeared in the U.S. I didn't mean to imply that we don't have any, just that they aren't found in the campaigns of Democratic candidates. There are leftists in San Francisco, maybe a couple in Austin, there are a few in Iowa City, Chicago, New York and Boston. There may even be a small number in Minneapolis. Sadly though, all the Democratic Party regulars I run across (I sit on our county's Democratic Central Committee) seem right of center. There really isn't much balance in U.S. politics.

Nicole, So what do you think, hanging chads? <g>

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 10:10 AM

Where are the people to the left of what in the USA is defined as centre? In most of the rest of the world, including, in England, people who are seen, and who see themselves, as fairly right wing.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 11:46 AM

Good one McGrath. And so true.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: NicoleC
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 12:47 PM

Nicole, So what do you think, hanging chads?

Just coicidentally, the company that owns the electronic voting machines now used in California (and many other states), also happens to be own and run by some very right wing folks who also happen to be huge Republican donors. There have been several elections recently that have mysteriously had strange or unpredicted outcomes -- including one election where the OWNER of the company that sold the voting machines surprisingly won his election at the last minute, in defiance of the exit polls.

I know how easy it is to tamper with computers. And yet, these machines have no paper trail and no independant oversight of their security programming. If someone hasn't tampered with an election yet, they will very soon... and we may not even know about it for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 01:34 PM

When Saddam camne up with his election just pre-war and found he'd won it by a landslide, everyone (quite reasonably) sneered at it.

I only wish he'd used an electronic voting system. That might have helped discredit this kind of absurdity.

I just cannot conceive how anyone can be willing to trust any voting system that doesn't provide hard evidence that can be checked carefully and with safeguards. And it doesn't matter how long it takes.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 02:07 PM

It seems so obvious. A verifiable audit trail to instill public confidence, EVEN IF the electronic tally is safe, according to the biggest-headed scientists we can find. The electronic answers can be the fast answers, the paper trail controlling in disputes (chads or misprints or lost boxes or whatever.) The extra costs are less than the cost of riots, and even of simple public no-confidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 02:14 PM

I think the biggest price the US might pay for having no paper trail in voting is that the Republicans will move from dominance in American politics to absolute total dominance. And that's a huge price to pay -- to whom could the public appeal?

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 02:25 PM

But if you go by what happened in the USA in 2000, if the electronic result came in showing someone ahead, but with a narrow margin, there'd be posses of people organised to disrupt the actual count, just in case it came up with the wrong result.

And the supporters of the candidate would see nothing whatsoever wrong with that. Because the only thing that matters is winning.

The chances are, it seems to me, that electronic vote counting is going to mean the end of any trust in electoral politics around the world.

I wonder, if Fidel Castro were to buy a set of electronic voting machines, and hold an election using them, and win it, does anybody think that Georege Bush and his minders would accept the results and end the sanctions on Cuba?

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 02:36 PM

Yes, you would have those posses. When I take over this country I'm going to invoke a Constitutional amendment mandating that any election with a 3% difference is legally a tie vote, subject to the next set of procedural rules, which might be a legislative vote. And the legislature in question might just be geographically distant from the electorate in question. (For example, Washington State would have decided whether Gore licked Bush in Florida.)

As I mentioned before to no persuasive effect, we have been misled into believing that elections have been tallied with precision in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 03:38 PM

For an explanation of these and other anomalies in American politics these days, may I recommend The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. A fascinating look at altruism and selfishness as programmed into us.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Gareth
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 04:14 PM

Ah Well - When youve been to as many counts as I have you will appreciate that the "Cock up" theory beats "Conspiracy" theory any day.

I have my doubts about the theoretical reliability of any system which does not have a paper audit trail.

Were there not suggestions of machine faud in Chicago when Kennedy was elcected ?

In the UK there is the right of appeal to the Courts. Ultimately this can result, if the Court so decides, in the ballot papers being individually counted by the Court.

Now this is significant, for in Florida in 2000 there was a paper audit trail. I am still at a loss to understand why the recount was not continued untill the voting intentions had been clarrified, or where there is an ambiguity and the voters intentions are not clear, the ballot paper is discounted as void.

These void papers are entered and reported in the returning officers declaration. The electorial registers marked off as to who attended the polling station, and requested a ballot paper, and who had "postal votes" is available for public inspection, and copying.

Postal ballots, envelopes are opened with scrutineers present and the declarations of identity are scrutinised, then the ballot envelope opened seperatly.

All in all it would be damn difficult to rig a British election.

Incidently, with the exception of Northern Ireland, where the dead have been known to vote, no proof of identity is required when attending a polling station. Unless of course the polling agent (Candidates represetative) asks the Presiding Officer for a declaration of indentity. I have only needed to do this once in over 30 years. And that was due to "information" received - We caught one attempt at impersonation - The Police, and I think correctly, put this down as a drunken prank, by a local student, and merely cautioned him.

The real potential culprits backed off when they saw/heard that unusually that I had appointed polling agents to supervise the poll in one particullar ward. (I was the overall election agent)

And the information received ? That the opposition candidates were going around collecting the "Poll Cards" (trs = instructions as to when and where to vote) of the deceased, ill, and those who would be away on polling day. (It is not a requirement to present these cards at the polling station, but it does make life easier for the presiding officer.)

The real crime in Florida was the manipulation of the electorial register to exclude people entitled to vote.

I would respectfully suggest that the failure to act on this prior to election day demonstrated a lack of care on the part of the Gore Election organisation.

I doubt that the same mistake will be made next year, in Florida, or any other state.

It is appalling that this long after the Civil Rights Acts in the US of A it is still neccessary to take these basic precautions.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 04:54 PM

All in all it would be damn difficult to rig a British election.

True enough - but there are "modernising improvements" on the way that should make it a lot easier.

What I can never understand is, why is it considered important to get the count done quickly? Why not take six months if need be?

And in America, where there are literally months between the election and the time the elected president takes over, how was it possible to justify pretending there was any need to rush? Especially when the rush meant that for a sizeable number of people it this cast doubt on the legitimacy of the winning candidate as President. I've always assumed that the reason for putting in such a long delay between election day and inauguration day was to allow for just this kind of situation, and to avoid any doubts about legitimacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 05:09 PM

Why rush? What do you mean why rush? What kind of question is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 09:02 PM

The Bush people were the ones in a rush. The Gore folks wanted to keep on counting. Why were the Bush people in a rush? Because they believed that further counting would either reveal their crimes or the count would go in favor of Gore.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 09:26 PM

But the question is, given the lengthy delay till Inauguration Day built in by the Constitution, how was it possible for anyone to suggest that there was the least reason to hurry proceedings. Leaving aside the fact that it might assist one of the candidates, which couldn't possibly have been accepted as relevant by the Supreme Court, or by anyone else who didn't belong in jail.

I know there are countries where a rapid result might be desirable, because of instability, and the possibility of a military coup and all that kind of stuff. But I can't imagine that would have entered into it in this case.

In everything I've seen written about it, this point seems to have been ignored. People seem to have assumed that there was a need to sort things out with the minimum delay. But in God's name, why?

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 10:33 PM

RE: "People seem to have assumed that there was a need to sort things out with the minimum delay. But in God's name, why?"

vide the "Generation of Morons" thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: mack/misophist
Date: 19 Oct 03 - 01:24 PM

Between 1915 and 1930, more or less, the US went through something similar to what we're seeing today. Before this, the churches were almost synonomous with American thought and saw no real need for political influence. As they saw their influence ebbing, they sought out congressmen and legislators to get laws passed that represented their views. A host of 'red light abatement' laws sprang up. Marriage licenses were instituted. Adultry, cohabitation, and such became crimes. instead of sins. Alcohol was outlawed, and later marijuanna and cocaine. Opium was outlawed. And the thousand thousand 'Sunday blue laws' that plague the south were enacted. Something similar is happening today. The difference is that the most effective portion of the religious right is the portion that has forsworn honor and honesty for the sake of getting their own way ('Be thou cunning as serpents' is the rational). They've had years of practice and experience within the religious community and now they're taking that expertise into the political arena. Don't expect them to advertize their agendas, they've learned not to do that. Two things many of the members have in common, though, are the establishment of a theocracy and the institution of 'biblical law'. Think about it.

Biblical law, for those who have never seen the term before, would make adultry, incest, abortion, and virtually all sexual offenses into capital crimes. Fathers would have the right to execute unfilial children. Homosexuality would carry the death penalty. Atheism and paganism would be crimes. Jews would probably be tolerated, but maybe not. Non JudeoChristian religions would be outlawed.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Nerd
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 02:25 AM

I agree entirely with McGrath. The idea that a rush was necessary, which was essentially the Supreme Court's argument, was a crock of shit from the get-go. And if it is true what freightdawg said so long ago, that "If they [the Supreme Court] had not stepped in and acted like adults we would still be counting hanging chads," then we had an election in Florida that was so close as to be essentially uncountable; so why not hold it again? As McGrath points out, there is PLENTY of time built into the system, and despite what ludicrous people said the US was not going to descend into chaos in December because we didn't know who was taking over in January.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 07:06 PM

I posted the question on a political forum that I belong to, and they stated that in the 2-1/2 months between the election and the inauguration, the president-elect (unless he is the incumbent) has to set up staff, become briefed, manage all sorts of political issues that he will have to attend to when he is president ... etc. etc., and that all of these items take a lot of time.

It seemed dubious to me, but many people responded that way when I posted the query. I don't know why a president-elect-in-waiting couldn't proceed on the basis of expectations, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Gareth
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 07:16 PM

Hmmmm ! AGAIN !

If I remember correctly the election in November is not to choose the the President etc., but to chose the individual States representatives to the electorial congress. This, ostensibly, might be the reason for a need for a quick decision.

Never the less, I will maintain my previous views (this and other threads) that BUsh junior was not elected in an open and honest vote.

And that is bad.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 07:45 PM

The U.S. Federal Government employes 4.2 million people including 1.5 million in the armed forces. These people are the ones that actually make things work. You can be sure that all those workers are not waiting to start their day each morning until they've been told what the president has in mind for the day. The wheels of government will continue to turn just as they have.

The election debacle didn't affect either house of Congress but if it had, no problem. Those guys are working on policy, not operation. There is virtually no one on Capitol Hill directly involved in the actual operation of government.

There was no need to hurry the count except to placate the hand-wringing media who were making a big deal out of the delay.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 09:05 PM

And there was always a strong possibility that it would enbd up with Bush losing. I think most people outside the USA at any rate have assumed that that was what actually determined the Supreme Court's decision.

But there had to be a rationalisation, even if that was the real underlying reason. I'm still far from clear what that rationalisation was.

The need to set up an afdminstartion offuce and so forth is really not very convincing.

After all, in the UK at a General Election a Prime Minister doesn't know he or she is going to be Prime Minister until a couple of hours before formally taking office. And in some ways that is probably an even more demanding job than being President. And that is more or less the position in most countries. And when a Pope is elected too for that matter.

The only other people I can think of, off the cuff, who go in for long waiting periods, when the succession has already been determined, are hereditary monarchies...

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 10:27 PM

We are almost in a new election mode and you folks still haven't accepted the fact that Bush won the election. Your time is coming. Be patient. If enough folks believe as you do ...your candidate will be the next president! If not ...well, it's four more years of your favorite guy to bash!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 02:11 AM

Doug, Bush certainly is the President, you'll get no argument from me on that score, but it's a real stretch to say that he won an election. He was handed a victory in Flordia only because the Supreme Court stopped the counting, thereby handing him the presidency. Yes, it counts. No, he didn't actually win an election. Go figure.

But I'm curious, Doug. If we throw out all the suspicion, conspiracy theories, and sour grapes… what, exactly, is the conservative point of view? Why do you feel conservative policies are better? What do conservatives hope to accomplish? What role do you see for the U.S. on the world stage?

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 05:53 AM

Surely the real question is how can anyone who is conservative feel happy with a radical right-wing government which is fundamentally opposed to the central conservative principle that change should be resisted unless it can be proved to be essential.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 08:45 PM

Well, I think most conservatives, like most other people have a sort of general loyalty to what they're most familiar with, and that was established quite early in their lives by their family most of all, and by the community they grew up in. So if one grew up in a conservative family, then one associates conservatism with the positive values, such as law and order, traditional values, hard work, honesty, religious faith, moral courage, accountability, security, and so on...

If one grew up in a "liberal" family, then one associates conservatism with hard-heartedness, a "tight ass", greed, acquisitiveness, aggressiveness, religious fanaticism, narrow-mindedness, ignorance, and so on...a pretty ugly picture.

About as ugly as the picture that forms in the minds of many conservatives when they hear the word "liberal"...but that's a different picture, of course, with a different set of faults.

So our initial interpretations are formed at a very young age, and then we set about reinforcing them as we can, by how we interpret or reject information around us.

Now the fact is that there is a positive side to conservatism and a negative one...and the same is true of liberalism. The fact is that there are a lot of good people and a few scoundrels on both sides of the divide. You can take any basic idea and use it either well or badly.

Given this, with a little understanding it ought to be possible to combine the best of conservatism and liberalism into a common purpose. I don't think that's what happening now at all, but it could happen.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 09:39 PM

But conservatism and liberalism aren't two ends of a spectrum in which compromise brings us to some imagined center. Liberalism is the center. Socialism is the left side balance for conservatism's rightist point of view.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: NicoleC
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 10:43 PM

Depends on your definition of "conservative," I think, Mark. I don't really think there *is* a center -- there are too many other viewpoints. Truth is, conservatives and progressives agree on a lot of basic ideals (at least in America). Stuff like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and fundamental freedoms FROM and freedoms TO.

Your new generation of neo-conservatives should repulse both sides, but they have very effectively convinced the vast majority of conservatives that they are on their side.

"Liberal" is a word that has become so tainted in the US that is bears no resemblance to what many of us grew up thinking of as a political philosophy. I fear that conservative is moving in the same direction -- but unlike former liberals, conservatives aren't letting go of the handle even though it means lumping them in with some very unsavory fundamentalist and fascist types.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: TIA
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 10:44 PM

If this story on potential - and easy - electronic voting fraud (led by one of GWB's biggest contributors) doesn't scare the crap out of you, nothing will.

Diebold

I'm no conspiracy theorist - some pretty serious and knowledgeable people (John's Hopkins U., Rice U., Science Applications International corp. ) and many others are beginning to wave red flags over this.

I fear this could lead to rioting in the streets.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: freightdawg
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 10:57 PM

I agree with Little Hawk.

At the risk of indulging in a little reverse chronological snobbery, in which every era but your own was idyllic, it seems to me that in times past (distant and near) there was a far greater sense of statesmanship involved with our elected officials (speaking of the US). The distant example would be those who had to reconstruct a nation following the civil war, and to a lesser extent, WW I and II. By no means were they perfect, but considering the devastation (physical, moral, emotional, economic) that they faced they did a remarkable job of forging a new union from the breach. More recently, there is much anecdotal evidence that while Pres. Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neil shared little but respect during the daytime, they got along famously when each was allowed to "let his hair down" and things got accomplished. Reagan the conservative and O'Neil the liberal both understood that they had a job to do - govern. Alas and alack, today the vitriol flows 24 hours a day and there really is no "off season" when elected officials take off their gloves and govern. Don't know about other places, but around here it extends even to the local sheriff's office. Neither side can afford to be seen as being "soft" by their most radical elements, therefore it is all confrontation, all the time.

My comments about the Supreme Court acting as adults was not intended to be a ringing endorsement. It is just that when two young children are bickering endlessly an adult has to put a stop to it. The issue was going to the supreme court from one side or the other. For whatever reason the court decided to act quickly. I think in terms of governance it was a good call. No one has ever decisivly proven that Gore won, even though several groups did come up with split decisions.

My take on the whole political scene now is "who cares." Unless and until I hear a man or a woman stand up and say, "I know I am at odds with my party, but this is for America" then all we have to look forward to is more of the same old same old. We really, really need a viable third party, but it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

Sorry to be such a wet blanket, but honestly, where did the concept of statesmanship go? How about in Europe? Is there a greater sense of the good of the country that ultimately prevails, or is it all partisan 24/7?

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 09:00 AM

No one has ever decisivly proven that Gore won...

Just as no one has ever decisivly proven that Bush won.
That's one of the problem created by the interference by
the [conservative Republican] Supremes- we'll never know- "decisivly".

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 09:23 AM

In "Bush v. Gore" the Supreme court ruled that if the Florida recount were to continue then Bush would be "harmed".... Hmmmmmm, Part 26,549, and countin'...

As fir libereals v. conservatives. Look at Rush Limbuagh. Had he been a liberal, the conservatives would have been on him like ugly on a gorilla. The condimnations would be raining down from every crack and crevice of the conservative community. The *hate* would come thru loud and clear. But Rush isn't a liberal. Quite the opposite and look at the liberal's response to the situation. "Hypocrisy" is about the worst thing we can come up with but quickly get beyond that to feelings of pity and compassion for a man who is suffering... This speaks volumes about the differences.

Compassionate conservatism is an oximoron.

And lets look at the difference between the two camps have treated Clinton and Bush. Clinton was hated because he beat Bush the Father and though Clinton put forth a purdy much centrist/conservative policies he was absoloted hated personally. Now we have a guy who has ripped off an election, ripped off the woeking class, lied to the American people and taken us to a war that lines to pockets of his contributors. Compared to Clinton, I should hate him but I don't. But I sure do hate what he has done... Big difference!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 12:43 PM

"For whatever reason" But what reason was there?

Surely it couldn't have been the reason Bobert quoted, that if they carried on counting Bush might be "harmed". After all on the same logic calling a halt meant Gore would be "harmed". That's the kind of "harm" that all elections inevitably involve.

..................

Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, the impression I have is that most professional politicians in England get on pretty well when they aren't on duty.

Generally speaking politics here still operates on the old Parliamentary principle: "Your opponents are on the other side; your enemies are behind you."

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 05:36 PM

Right you are, McGrath, but Gore's legal team didn't file suit against Bush. Probably should have even if the Supreme Court would have had to hear both cases. To be fair, the Supreme Court would have had to rule the same in both cases as countin' votes did "harm" Bush but not countin' 'em would have "harmed" Gore... I wish it had gone down like this but Gore's legal team wasn't in the same league as Bush's. Bush was ready fri such a scenerio and had lawyers and paid goons on redeye flights the night of the election....

Shows just how well organized the right wing is in the US.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 07:09 PM

There is such a thing as a conservative socialist, Mark. A Stalinist is a conservative socialist. A supporter of Pol Pot is a conservative socialist. A Maoist is a conservative socialist. A socialist who rejects any and all forms of capitalism is a conservative socialist. A fanatical socialist who thinks socialism is the answer to all of life's problems is a conservative socialist.

I am somewhat of a socialist, but I can't stand the kind of socialists I alluded to above...

They are not centrists or liberals. They are extremists.

You are correct that a liberal is usually a centrist.

Some conservatives (in fact, many of them) are centrists also, but the extremists have lately hijacked the label of "conservatism", just as they have demonized the label of "liberalism".

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Gareth
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 07:26 PM

OI ! Kevin - Don't generlise. I may be able to drink with the Tory's, and Fenians, but the Yackida's and the Liberals are beyond the pale !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 07:31 PM

When people describe old-style communists in Russia as conservatives, and that is what is normally done, it's quite correct, because the central thing about being "conservative" is that you are opposed to change, or at least highly suspicious of it.

My dearest wish would be to live in a society where I could be a conservative, because it was so well ordered that it needed to be protected against change. In many areas of life I am in fact very suspicious of change, not so much because I think things are perfect, but because I don't trust the motives of the people trying to change things.

For example we've got a field across the road from where I live where there's a Rugger Club, and the Club Committee had got in bed with some developers and wanted to build a lot of posh houses there, and relocate. That was a change I was hotly opposed to, and fortunately we seem to have beaten them off.

What I can't understand is people who call themselves "conservative", and who are all into tearing society up by the roots, and destroying well established social structures.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 07:50 PM

Actually, if ya' really get down to the thick of it, Bush is the most "liberal" president since FDR!.... Activism everywhere you look. Fascist? Well, sure, but can't deny the liberalism in the fascism...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 08:00 PM

I thought it was strange, almost eerie, how empathetic and forgiving the various conservative pundits are being in discussing Limbaugh's drug problems. It seemed out of character. But I think I now know why this is so. In the current Newsweek, they make a point of it: Conservatives are on Rush's side in this event because they know that Rush Limbaugh is the conservative Republicans' best hope at the ballot box. If he goes away, they will have to find someone else to rile the populace.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 08:25 PM

LH, You are correct as usual. Almost as soon as I submitted that post I realized I probably should have said progressives. You picked up on what I meant… that liberals are the centrists, not the leftists. And the neocons aren't really conservatives, they're facists. The problem is a lot of thoughtful conservatives think they're Bushites just because the Bushites use the term.

Bobert, I wouldn't equate activism with liberalism. Activism is simply getting off one's duff to effect change, whatever one's political leanings.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: TIA
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 08:57 PM

As I said in another thread, I'm really not a conspiracy nut, but I'm beginning to wonder... The latest in right wing power grab?

Bugging devices are found in the office of Mayor John Street of Philly. The FBI immediately announces that they put them there, but "Mayor Street is a subject of the investigation, not a target". That's FBIspeak that few will understand. All they will retain is that the FBI is bugging him. His opponent Sam Katz immediately says "they wouldn't be bugging him if he wasn't corrupt".

All this just weeks before the election.

You got it - Philly is the 5th (?) largest city in the USA, and the largest in a key battleground state in presidential 2004. Street is a Democrat. The FBI works for who? More powergrab?

I'm suspicious.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 10:57 PM

Well, Mark, liberals like to chnage things, or at least they are open minded toward changin' things... Bush fills the3 bill purdy danged good. He has cahnged almost everything... civil liberties, tax codes that favor the trich, preemptive wars, etc.... Likw ir or bor this is liberalism at it *worst*!!!! It certainly hasn't anything to do with preserving the here-and-now.... They fact that Bush's target may be something that slightly resembles a time from 40 years ogo, doesn't much matter...

The guy is an absolute "liberal". We are now the conservatives....

Go think it..... but it's true...

Yeah, the Rush Limbaugh's and the George Dubya's are the "liberals".... Not us!.....

Think about it....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 11:19 PM

Ain't too sure how much lexdexia got into the above post but I gotta think, more than usaul........

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Oct 03 - 02:08 AM

You're right, Bobert! Bush is astoundingly liberal! He's liberal to the point of being downright radical. If most of his supporters were to realize this there'd be a hell of a row, and his ratings would drop down to about 5 or 10 percent, I suspect...which is about all the people who are actually going to benefit from his policies. :-)

That's what's wrong with Bush. He's just too danged liberal!

It's time we conservatives got together and brought people's attention to this in no uncertain terms.

By the way, I can't sleep. Hell of a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Oct 03 - 09:32 AM

L.H.

You just pack up the Oldsmobile and come on down here and help me replace some rotten floors in a house I'm renovatin' an' you won't have no trouble gettin' to sleep.... and stayin' asleep. Guarendoubledangedteeeeeed.......

Conservatives unite!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: DougR
Date: 23 Oct 03 - 07:58 PM

McGrath: that tired old definition of "conservatism" is pure horse pucky! Conservatives are NOT opposed to change! Who, for example, is pushing to change the Social Security system in the U. S. so that a worker might expect a better return on investment? Conservatives, that's who? What is it that you and others are so convinced conservatives DON'T want to change?

I think Nicole is right. There is no center. Liberals are left-leaning, Conservatives are right-leaning. I don't think there is an in-between. Some liberals are farther to the left than others as are some conservatives more to the right than others.

As to a "Right-wing power grab," I think that is about as truthful as Mrs. Clinton's claim that her husband's problems stemmed from a "right-wing conspiracy." Balderdash!

Mark: you asked earlier how would I like to see the government run (or words to that effect). I perfectly satisfied with the way it is currently being run by the man who will go down in history as one of the best presidents the U. S. ever had (along with "the actor" as Kendall likes to refer to him as.)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 03 - 09:43 PM

Well, it's a point of view, Doug: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." (Alice through the Looking Glass.)

But if you abandon completely the historical definition of "conservative" as someone who is suspicious of change, and resistant to any change which is not necessary, you manhandle it in a way that risks throwing the baby out with the bath water.

In Britain true enough the word has been hi-jacked for a long time, when printed with a large C, to cover all kinds of disparate positions. But in America you already have two overlapping parties like that.

However the word still retains it's more precose meaning, which is why the media in this country see nothing strange in referring to leftists in Russia as "conservative, while Tony Blair refers to left wingers in the Labour Party as "forces of conservatism."

There are conservatves of the left and the right, and radicals of the left and the right. What you appear to be espousing, Doug is radicalism of the right. So why not use that term?

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Oct 03 - 10:14 PM

Because he hasn't a clue what the term means or, for that matter, what you're trying top explain to him.

He's more to be pitied than censured
He's more to be helped than despised
He's only a poor boy who's wandered
Down life's stormy path, ill-advised...

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Oct 03 - 10:31 PM

Nah. Doug is less neo-con than he proposes -- when you back him into a corner on issues he usually comes out to be leaning right but pretty moderate overall :)

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Nerd
Date: 24 Oct 03 - 02:33 AM

Yeah, the John Street thing is depressing. But the funny thing is, at least at first, he got a "bounce" in the polls, not because liberals think the FBI probe is politcally motivated, but because he is making a convincing pitch to black philadelphians that it's racially motivated. The only people revealed to be subjects of this investigation are black!

Personally I suspect it is politically, not racially, motivated. The Republicans see Philly as a vulnerable city because Katz and Street ran close in the last election, and because Street himself has an image problem: he is affectionately known as "Mayor Snarly." So they figure it's a good place to use one of their old Rovian dirty tricks, and call out the Justice Department to begin a very public phase of their investigation right before the election, throwing enough people into doubt to shift the tide to Katz's side.

I hope Street wins at this point. If nothing else, Katz winning under these circumstances would be the most racially divisive thing to happen in Philly since Move and Mumia Abu Jamal. That we don't need.

DougR. Come on! Everyone knows by now that there was indeed a vast right-wing conspiracy out the discredit Clinton. To claim otherwise is simply ridiculous at this point. All the probes on Whitewater, Travelgate, filegate, all the rumors about the White House being vandalized by Clinton's staff, all the talk about inappropriate gifts taken from the White House by Clinton, all this was spun by a collection of conservative pundits, think-tanks, and politicians. None of it was true. They managed to find no indictable evidence of any kind on any charge except lying about a blow job. So if dozens of Republicans spending millions of dollars to drag embarrassing but not criminal details about his consenual sex life before a grand jury is not a vast (or at least pretty big) right-wing conspiracy, then what is?

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 03 - 03:11 PM

Aw shucks, Nicole, you may force me to "Out" if you keep that up.

McGrath: I have often thought that the definition of "liberal" and "conservative" (speaking politically)differs on both sides of the pond.

Greg F. Thank you. I can always count on good old Greg F. for a good insult or two. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 03 - 03:17 PM

Merriam-Webster:

conservatism capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer a existing or traditional situation to change

Electronic dictionary that comes with Wordperfect 11:

conservative adjective 1 averse to change and holding traditional values. 2 (in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas. 3 Conservative (cap.) relating to a Conservative Party.

Submitted for your consideration. If more is needed, I have several political science texts at my disposal from which I can quote at length.

One could possibly make the case that the Bush administration is "conservative" if one claimed that it really isn't trying to change anything, it is merely trying to restore the status quo prior to the social reforms initiated by FDR, e.g., when there was no Social Security, no Medicare, no unemployment insurance, in fact, no social safety net at all, when the National Guard could be called out to put down strikes and other union actions, and corporate corruption reigned unchecked. Yeah, that works. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 03 - 06:18 PM

One of the problems with the current crop of Republicans, particularly the Right-wing Republicans now in power, is that they have no real understanding of politics as most old-time politicians did. Politics in a democracy is a slow, messy process of debate in which both sides get a hearing, and the solution comes as a result of bringing forth the best, most persuasive arguments of both viewpoints. Maximum benefit with the minimum of damage. Politics, it has often been said, is "The Art of Compromise." But the Bush administration does not want debate and they are unwilling to compromise. People like Tom DeLay, for example, embody an insane degree of partisanship. They pay little attention to the affects their policies have on people in general, and furthermore, they don't care. They want to "win" at all costs.

The current crop of Right-wing Republicans don't want to govern. They want to rule.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 03 - 09:40 PM

I would think that a true conservative would have accepted the kind of changes Don Firth mentions, changes which have taken place and survived for a generation or so, and would seek to defend them, as forming part of the status quo.

Surely trying to restore a previous state of affairs by changing the present system wouldn't actually count as "conservative" but rather as a type of radical reformism. Actually "reactionary" is the more accurate word - defined in the Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought as "applied to those who not merely resist change but seek to put the clock back and return to some earlier order of society which is seen as having possessed characteristics...which the present is felt to lack..."

However the word "reactionary" has accrued to itself all kinds of pejorative associations, so it's unfair to expect people to use it to describe themselves. That's a pity really because it'd be a useful term to be able to use without those associations - and there are all kinds of ways in which turning the clock back would be an excellent thing. But in saying that I'm probably thinking of some very different aspects of the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Oct 03 - 10:37 PM

Right back atcha, Dougie.