Jump to content

"Statism v. Anti-Statism" will it replace "left v. right"?


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

What does everyone think? I'm anti-statist I see the State as a necessary evil. It should be small and weak in my opinion. Many on the left would like ot increase the power of the State. However, in the OWS movement there is a strong undercurrent of anarchism.

Will stateism v. Anti-statism become the new polarity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doubtful. teabaggers have no problem with incarcerating some kid for 20 years because of some minor theft or smoking a joint or whatever, but get incensed at the imposition of having greater rights vis-a-vis health insurance.

the new polarity is accordingly stupid vs. smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ser Scot,

Yes. I don't know whether my perception has changed or my memory is failing, but my recollection is that we used to be far more "united" than we are now. With the fragmentation I see now, we would need either a common enemy or strong state to hold it all together. I guess that isn't a popular view. :crying:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pushing for increases in state power is hardly exclusive to the left, though the right have rather different agendas.

It should be no surprise that I'm more pro-state than anti-, but with the strong proviso that the state should be there to defend its citizens from the vagaries of the market (and other vested interests), and not the other way round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scot - where would you like to see the State dial back its power?

I think the issue is right now you have camps that aren't decided on genuine state vs anti-state principles (edit: sorry, principles on government power) but rather on a litmus style politics. Things like states rights and adherence to the framer's intent seem, at least to me, to be secondary things utilized to get what a side wants (medical marijuana, state control over gay marriage and abortion, other examples I can't think of at the moment).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least in the US I don't think that's the sole case. Limited government has been the focus of the right for the past couple of years with the Bush backlash, TARP etc., but prior to that they were all about the moral majority. And I think you can still see a lot of that in the base, it's seemed to be a big part of Santorum's support.

And I don't think the other side would define themselves primarily as statist, which makes the polarity imprecise IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought both Tormundists and Cocoistas were anti-statist.

In any case I always thought that Tormundist sounded better and that was before I heard they were offering pie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does everyone think? I'm anti-statist I see the State as a necessary evil. It should be small and weak in my opinion. Many on the left would like ot increase the power of the State. However, in the OWS movement there is a strong undercurrent of anarchism.

Will stateism v. Anti-statism become the new polarity?

So-called anarchists don't necessarily want a weak government, else they'd be laissez-faire capitalists. For the most part, they believe it is necessary to control the accumulation and distribution of wealth, and to provide some level of guaranteed income for everyone. Rhetoric aside, that can't be done without a strong government, even if they choose not to call it that.

That being said, I think you've really sort of hit on the core point of disagreement regarding politics in the U.S.. Should the government do more, or less? I don't think that dividing line breaks down perfectly between parties, and some people are more consistent in their views than others. But I do agree that is the most central issue.

Actually, I think wealthy vs non-wealthy is more likely to be the divide. While it is more class than political, it appears to be the thing that everyone can relate to.

Yeah, that's another good point, and that's why I don't think the OWS types fall quite where Ser Scot thinks they do. So maybe it's more accurate to say that conservatives generally want the debate to be stateism v. anti-statism, and progressives want it to be more about wealthy v. non-wealthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there are pro and anti statists on both sides of the spectrum. That's why I'm asking if pro and anti Statism could replace left and right as the meaningful polarity of the political divide.

I don't think so. My impression is that anti-statism is very much a specialised taste outside of the USA, but I agree that left vs right is less useful since 1989 to describe political movements.

The new thing that you can see in parts of Europe are parties that cross and mix up the traditional boundaries, like the blond guy with buffont hair in Holland Geert Wilders. Parts of his programme seem traditionally right-wing (anti-immigrant), others traditionally left wing (pro-equal rights (so long as you are Dutch)). Or the third party candidate in the last French Presidental election (not Le Pen, the other one), there seems to be a kind of pick and mix approach going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So maybe it's more accurate to say that conservatives generally want the debate to be stateism v. anti-statism, and progressives want it to be more about wealthy v. non-wealthy.

I don't know, given the calls for a Marriage Amendment, past opposition to medical marijuana laws (and IIRC legalization of prostitution), and erosion of privacy it's hard for me to believe conservatives truly desire weakening of government power.

I think it is important to some, but it seems like they want that government power to step in selectively. Same with liberals, which is why I don't think Statism vs. Anti-Statism will replace left vs right. The goals "government out of our lives!" and "the government needs to intervene in other people's lives!" are more means to ends rather than something either political party actually is willing prioritize IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone,

I know there are pro and anti statists on both sides of the spectrum. That's why I'm asking if pro and anti Statism could replace left and right as the meaningful polarity of the political divide.

I think it is the only meaningful polarity.

Left and right is illusory. What kind of spectrum puts Gandhi on the same side as Stalin, and Franco on the same side as Thomas Paine?

And I do think that we are heading in the direction. Because of the greater information available from the net, and because of the increased distance of the two major parties from the views of their constituencies, Anti-Statists from both sides of the spectrum will realize they have more in common with each other than with their supposed left or right brethren.

Eventually, the current alignment will end, as it has so many times in the past

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...