Something I've wondered... when it comes to social / economic policies, why is it always all or nothing for those on the right? I was reading this article (http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/113075/end-40-hour-workweek-mainstreet?mod=career-worklife_balance) about how most Americans are working more than 40 hours a week and what not and what followed was a number of angry comments calling the author “anti-capitalist“ and what not. This kind of “all or nothing” / “either or” thinking has become rampant with a lot of Americans. Just because someone brings up valid points in an article about how we are working too much and / or making too little it doesn't mean they are advocating communism or socialism. There was a good middle ground between the extremes that the U.S enjoyed between 1945 - 1973. During this time jobs were stable, pay was decent and 40 hour work weeks were the norm and the US enjoyed one of it's longest and strongest economic booms in history! This boom lifted ALL classes of Americans standard of living. That wouldn't have been possible if we were all commies or welfare bums during this period. The majority of Americans were decent, hardworking folks just like most of todays families trying to make ends meet. The problem is, since the 70's economic polices have shifted strongly to the right favoring the wealthy over everyone else and leading to nearly stagnant wages for most Americans. Yet ANY talk of this always leads to republicans screaming commie! Can they not see that it's possible for there to be a middle ground? a society that is capitalistic but that has some safe guards in place to make sure things don't get too out of hand and that workers and families have some protection?
question for republicans
- Thread starter pcfitz80
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Good luck 
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I'm not a Republican, but I find that partisan heat runs on both sides. True pragmatic centrists like Clinton are hard to find.
Anger is a more potent political fuel than moderation and common sense.
Anger is a more potent political fuel than moderation and common sense.
Yes, because Clinton was so beloved and appreciated by the GOP.
Tiger Edge
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
well he's not black
ha ha ha
ha ha ha
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Hardly that, but they sure found a way to work together.
Clinton became a centrist; he started out an ideologue, a role that I never felt suited him. The 94 revolution was a reactionary response by the right and to the right out of anger over those first two years. Clinton responded by moving to the pragmatic center, which suited him just fine. The politicians who tried to make anger a plank have since received their comeuppance.
Anger's like cocaine -- fast and cheap, but leaving a messy residue.
The fact that you can see shades of grey almost identifies you as a progressive.
But for conservatives, everything is like this. All or nothing. Good or evil. Right or wrong. What's fascinating is that they don't even deny it. They'll argue incessantly that everything does come down to that and you're a wimp for not choosing a side.
I've said this before, but I truly believe that 500 years from now, people will study this turn of the century, Fox News, Tea Party, American conservative with all the intrigue and bewilderment that we now study the Cro-Magnon.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Please pardon us knuckle-dragging Cro-Magnons that have yet to evolve into pompous liberal elites.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Please pardon us knuckle-dragging Cro-Magnons that have yet to evolve into pompous liberal elites.
I pardon you.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Until I was 14 I considered myself a Republican. I remember one day listening to a George Bush speech about the War in Iraq (this would have been 2005) and responding very poorly to it. It led me to reconsidering my political ties and realizing that the right side of the country sees everything as black-and-white. It was within that 12 hour period that I went from being a conservative to being a moderate with an open mind.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I think that 12 hour speech swayed a lot of people.
kramwest1
has a
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
The left is just as prone to absolutism as the right. Each side of the party has their own particular moral imperative and their own justifications for why they are right and the other is wrong.
The older I get, the more comfortable with grey I get.
I dissagree that the left is just as prone to absolutism. Maybe some on the left are like this but I think its far less common than on the right. The right wants pure capitalism and fights almost every progressive program championed by the left, calling them a move toward socialism. But when was the last time you saw someone on the left in America argue for pure socialism or communism? My point is that comparing the left vs. right in America today isn't analagous to black vs. white - its like comparing black vs. grey. the right is black and the left is that grey area in the middle.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Um, Socialists and Communists. Who do exist in America. Just like the KKK and Nazis.
You really should qualify what you're talking about. The Right isn't any more monolithic than The Left is. Bush was unpopular with over 70% of Americans in the latter years of his presidency -- that included an awful lot of conservatives. Obama is unpopular with some within his own party who feel that he's catering too much to the center/right with his policies.
"The Left" and "the Right" are vague, nondescriptive terms that are generally unhelpful for a country that is decidedly centrist.
There is absolutely no organized far left to equal the Tea Party, in either number or political influence and it is disingenuous in the extreme to argue equivalence here. There is none.
The far right in America is organized and wields disproportionate influence both within the Republican Party and the federal government in general. They bleat on a right wing network while claiming that it is a counterbalance to communist MSNBC - another idiotic myth without a basis in reality.
I am not saying that individuals who are far left or far right in the US don't hold extreme views. What I am saying is that it is categorically untrue that the far left carries the same sort of political influence as the far right. And that is a large and important distinction.
Exactly! That was my point. sorry if I didn't explain it well. While there are some on the fringe left who may be communist or socialist, the mainstream left in America is not this way and yet republicans / tea partiers keep insisting they are and a suprisingly large number of Americans seem to believe them.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals
Guess what? This kinda mirrors American society. Twice as many conservatives (42%) as liberals (20%). What is widely out of whack is the % of media and congressional Democrats that are liberal. Much, much, much greater representation than 20% of the population should receive.
And FYM... well, forget about it.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
not all democrats are liberal, and not all republicans are conservative.
these self-defined terms -- liberal/conservative -- aren't necessarily good indicators of political behavior.
the overall point is absolutely true. the conversation is pulled rightwards in the US because the right is much more to the right than the left is to the left. not sure what you mean about "liberal congressional Democrats," but you can say that x% of the media are "liberal," but you're assuming that they're advocates or propagandists rather than people who are able to do their job, combined with the fact that most are hyper-aware of this false "liberal media" charge, and if anything bend over backwards to represent "the other side" even if there isn't much of another side to present.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Yeah, because the major corporations that own most of the media in this country are all soooo liberal.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
kramwest1
has a
Wow, Conservatives must have a had an awesome breeding program in place since 2007/8. That's a nice jump. Kudos.
No aberrations there.
The first 2 seconds of this:
YouTube - Kids in the Hall: Buddy Cole 06- Softball Sluggers
"Labels."
Last edited:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Polls speak the truth
INDY, I'm not sure you understand "American society".
I wonder what this poll would look like if you actually polled individuals about specific issues rather than generalities? Or if you polled the 21st century and not just those that still have a landline and the time to answer such silly polls?
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
The Progressive caucus in the House is its largest with 80+ members. The Blue Dogs now number in the mid 20's. Your point that not all Democrats are liberal is true but isn't the Democratic Congressional delegation becoming more and more liberal? For several reasons?
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I would argue that MoveOn.org had a significant and reactionary influence on progressive Democratic politics in the late 00s -- fueled by anger, oiled by independent money, decidedly and unapologetically leftist in their views, and very focused on financially promoting candidates they deemed worthy of office. Were they as well organized as the Tea Party? No, but I would say that is more due to a problem within the Democratic Party; after all, as Will Rogers has famously said, "I belong to no organized political party; I am a Democrat."
I don't disagree that the far right holds more influence within its own party ( I would say that centrists have largely swung independent in recent years, due to the push right by Republicans), but you'd be hard-pressed to tell me that the far right holds any real influence in the federal government these days, unless that influence is to be a nay-sayer. Lest we not forget, the Executive and Legislative branches are distinctly Democratic.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Conservative politicians seemingly want nothing more than to go back to the 1950s when America was good and clean and rich and white, so I don't really give two shits if they feel underrepresented. Fuck the tyranny of the majority.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
nathan1977 said:
Yeah. Time-Warner, General Electric, Disney; all liberal bastions.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Wow, Conservatives must have a had an awesome breeding program in place since 2007/8. That's a nice jump. Kudos.
No aberrations there.
42% is exactly what the poll shows in 1994 too. Proving nothing creates conservatives like 2 years of liberal Democratic control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
GE, especially when they owned NBC, were in the tank for Obama. There is no bigger corporate shrill for Obama than Jeffrey Immelt. Bad example.
Your others aren't so hot either.
Political donations 1989-2010:
Time-Warner $13,036,767 -- 67% to Dems 32% to Repubs
Walt Disney Corp $8,226,895 -- 65% to Dems 33% to Repubs
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
