Why Slayer420 is Wrong

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Salt,

You're wrong on this one. The two major parties in the US are so broad ideologically they are virtually identical and will say almost anything to get into power. Remember in 2008 Candidate Obama, when asked, opposed Gay marriage. Our two parties have one unifing principle, they will do anything and say anything to retain their power. Hence, I call them the duopoly.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Raidne,

In case I haven't said so, I love your sig line. And if I haven't said it before I think big business and big government are a feedback loop. They need each other to empower themselves. It's a big reason why I really like the local food movement and shop at our local farmers market every chance I get.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Therefore, obviously the solution is just for us to all fuck each other.

So, get out there and bang a greedy capitalist/nanny stater. It's for America.

At last. Common ground for Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton. You're just 15 years too late.

[Galactus]

I think an interesting point is the lack of.... Faith in the democratic system/engaged citizenship aspect of politics.

I mean, I doubt there's any real difference in *actual* participation, but there's a sense in swedish politics that citizens should be involved, that being informed and participating is a good thing. Close to election thing pretty much every politician will say something like "And now go vote, best if you vote for me of course, but it's most important to get your voice heard." Whether or not they're commies or hard-core liberals or green whackos they'll agree on that. There's at least a kind of lip-service to the idea that politicians are there for *us*, and that by voting and participation we are actively selecting our politicians.

I haven't seen an american politican say that he'd rather you voted for his opponent than that you stayed at home.

[Galactus]

Canada has founding figures?

I think a main difference between american and other founding figures is that most european founding figures belong to a time when sorting your enemies skulls into pyramids was considered proper form, and the best founder was the guy with the biggest pyramid of skulls.

[salt]

No Brazilian ever thinks of the Dems as "left-leaning", far as I am aware.

In fact, most Brazilians barely even recognize any significant political difference between Dems and GOP'ers.

The (admitedly prejudiced) common understanding is that the USA as a whole is very far-right.

I used to disagree. Until I saw the response to 9/11. If OBL's target happened to be the public image of the USA as opposed to the towers, one must concede that he was wildly succesful.

I can understand that mosr Brazillians would not recognize the differences between the two parties, or have an understanding of the US not based on stereotypes. And why would they? if I had to try to piece together an understanding of a nation of 300 million people through second hand information, I wouldn't understand it much either. Brazil is in its infancy as a political stable nation, its been a civllian controlled democracy for less than 25 years. It is taking its first steps as a free poltical entity, and while it is posed to develop into a world economic and poltical power, it is a developing country with many challanges ahead. No one expects them to recognize the political compexities of a nation with a 230 year head start on them. By the standards of Brazil which is curently in a love affair with charasmatic and popular leftist Lula (who is a wonderful politician and a very likeable man), the political middle ground in the US is going to be to the right. Switch up the perspective to a country like China, and suddenly Lula isn't so far to the left. Hell, almost every country on earth would be right-wing if you looked at it through the eyes of a communist state. That doesnt make Lula right-wing any more than it makes the Democrats right-wing. It would take an exhausting amount of convoluted reasoning to think that the Democrats are a right-wing party, and I've never heard that idea seriously put forth by a respected poilitical scientitst. The world does not calibrate its measurement of right wing/left wing on the Brazillian standard.

I also wouldn't call the murder of thousands of people wildly successful because it caused someone in Brazil to think of both major US political parties as right-leaning. International politics is not high school, the goal is not to look popular so you can take the hot girl to prom. People are fickle things with short memories and shorter attention spans, the "image" of countries in the minds of foreign citizens at any given day, month, or year are nearly incosequential. I think the idea of voting for someone to "rebrand" your state in the eyes of others is foolish. Sure, the opinions of your country abroad is something for political leaders to think about, but it doesn't even make the list of the top 20 things states should be concerned with. It comes and goes with the wind and at then end of the day doesn't amount to much. I promise you no US political leader has ever stopped before making an important decision and though to themselves, "I wonder what Brazil thinks about this?" The world hasn't really changed that much in 5,000 odd years of recorded human civiliation, the course of history is not decided by minor powers eating popcorn on the sidelnes and saying "Hey, I dont like what that country did right there. Whoa, look at this country! I don't like that either."

Tragically, familiarity tricks people into believing that their own hastily thrown together steretypes and conception actually hold water. For example, I'm exposed to many aspects of British culture and life. I get most of my news from the BBC, I listen to music made by British people, I watch Britsh television shows and keep up on their politics. All that exposure to British culture and news will make me start to think that I understand Britain, unlike a place that I rarely hear about or am exposed to, like Nepal. In reality, its bullshit. I don't understand Britian any more than someone in Essex could understand the US from these same kind of 2nd hand experiences. yet this often happens because the US is in the news so much more than almost any outher country and its culture has impacted every corner of the globe. In reality, you can live in a country your entire life and struggle to truly understand the nature of its policitcs and people. To try to do that to a foregin nation is almost an excerise in futility. Whenever you find yourself making sweeping generalizations about hundreds of millions of people you've never met, take a step back. Its human nature to do it, and national stereotypes are hillarious, but we shouldn't trick ourselves into thinking that that is where the truth is found.

But going back to the political differences between Democrats and Republicans, my impression is that while the discourses are certainly different (but not to the point where I would ever call Democrats "left-leaning"), it doesn't look like it makes much of a difference on actual results when a Democrat is elected.

I understand that you don't see the difference, in the same way that I, living on the east coast, don't see the Pacific Ocean. I don't recall ever claiming thay it didn'y exist, however. The sort of political apathy that causes one to think both parites are the same reminds me of the old Futurama joke where Fry is trying to decide between the two candidates: Jack Johnson, and bitter rival, John Jackson. I'm not doing it justice but its a great joke, and that was the feeling many people had in the race between Bush and Gore. Then, of course, Bush took office. Naturally people look similar when theyre running for office: campaigning is adveritzing, they're going for the common denominator, theyre trying to get half of the country plus 1. Once they actaully take office, stark differences between visions for the country become clear. The idea that "meh, the're all the same" is the kind of attitude that puts idiots like Bush in the white house.

[salt]

I think a main difference between american and other founding figures is that most european founding figures belong to a time when sorting your enemies skulls into pyramids was considered proper form, and the best founder was the guy with the biggest pyramid of skulls.

I believe this pratice fell out of style in the mid 1800s, when Parliament finally asked Queen Victoria to dismantle her skull pyramid due to complaints that it was blocking out the sun.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I think a main difference between american and other founding figures is that most european founding figures belong to a time when sorting your enemies skulls into pyramids was considered proper form, and the best founder was the guy with the biggest pyramid of skulls.

Sweden was founded by Timur?

As a liberal, it sort of pisses me off when liberals say something like "voting against their economic self interest." First, because they're asking people make their decisions with selfishness that's opposed to the collectivist ideal that liberal espouse. Second, because they just don't get it. People, generally, don't vote because they ran a net present value analysis of their future earning with Republican v Democratic governments. People vote one party because they identify culturally or tribally with that party. It's more like choosing between the Jets and Giants than it is choosing between two retirement plans.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I think an interesting point is the lack of.... Faith in the democratic system/engaged citizenship aspect of politics.

I mean, I doubt there's any real difference in *actual* participation, but there's a sense in swedish politics that citizens should be involved, that being informed and participating is a good thing. Close to election thing pretty much every politician will say something like "And now go vote, best if you vote for me of course, but it's most important to get your voice heard." Whether or not they're commies or hard-core liberals or green whackos they'll agree on that. There's at least a kind of lip-service to the idea that politicians are there for *us*, and that by voting and participation we are actively selecting our politicians.

I haven't seen an american politican say that he'd rather you voted for his opponent than that you stayed at home.

I reckon this is a Scandinavian thing. The attitude is probably fairly common among small, ethnically and religiously homogenous societies.

[Fez]

I think a main difference between american and other founding figures is that most european founding figures belong to a time when sorting your enemies skulls into pyramids was considered proper form, and the best founder was the guy with the biggest pyramid of skulls.

The big problem for liberals is that the American system came about a little too soon. It was developed before it was fully realized what government can be capable of and all the ways the social contract can look but it was just good enough that America didn't go through the same wave of social change in Europe that started in 1848 and continued throughout the century. If Washington had named himself a king and America became a constitutional monarchy I think there would have been the same upheaval here and things would be very different today. Instead we continue to have a mid-Enlightenment system while the rest of the Western world has a post-Enlightenment system. The biggest difference being that there continues to be an "everyone for themselves" undercurrent here whereas elsewhere has a much stronger egalitarian tradition.

ETA:

But that's something reasonable minds can disagree on.

No, its not. I mean sure, in the abstract it is. But the facts are the facts and while proving a counterfactual can be difficult all the evidence suggests that the stimulus was wildly successful (although it should've been much bigger) and that the current Republican proposals would be incredibly damaging to the economy. Or, as in the case of the Keystone pipeline, not make much of a difference (the exisitng pipelines aren't anywhere near capacity) except to the environment.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Thankfully, that means I can take my gun down to the bar and deny the holocaust en route :P

[TrueMetis]

I think a main difference between american and other founding figures is that most european founding figures belong to a time when sorting your enemies skulls into pyramids was considered proper form, and the best founder was the guy with the biggest pyramid of skulls.

Interestingly enough that's how John A Macdonald came into power. (I find it odd that I felt the need to google the name of our first Prime Minister to make sure I spelled his name right but wouldn't have to do that with American figures like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No, i don't think that describes FLOW. But i think he's a minority.

I'm a minority because I'm an attorney and know how to present my views so as to be most persuasive to people who are undecided. I'm pretty good at that here and elsewhere. Not bragging, just stating the facts. And I'm usually pretty good at keeping my cool when I'm the only one, or close to it, on one side of an issue and am catching shit. But again, that's part of the job/training. Others are good at other things I'm shitty at.

Most people don't do that. They don't measure every word they say and imagine how it comes across to others. They tend to spout off when they're fired up, exaggerate their true beliefs for effect, or talk in hyperbole, especially when they're on camera, trying to make a point, or arguing with folks on the other side. Or more commonly, they make statements without enough qualifiers, which are then picked apart and taken literally. But if you are actually sitting down with those people in a non-adversarial way, where there is no posturing and people are just talking, they are a lot more reasonable than you might think. I've never met a single Republican who thinks there should be no economic/environmental regulation/legislation at all, or believes that all businesses are good and honest, etc.

When my neighbor gets fired up, he's someone who would gt laughed and and ridiculed here as the stereotypical nutty conservative. But then when we're sitting down later, he'll say "I know I get fired up sometimes, and I know we need regulations, etc. etc.". He's a reasonable guy, and not what you'd think he is if you just heard him rant on occasion.

But when other conservatives come here, who maybe aren't as old and mellowed as I am sometimes, they post a bit more exuberantly, then get ridiculed for it. And I'd bet that 90% of the folks here who posted regularly on a conservative board would end up saying something they later wish they'd have phrased better as well. But when you walk into what may seem like an ambush to some, its kind of natural to start firing in all directions.

I very often don't agree with the literal words of what some of the newer conservatives who dip their toes in here may say. But I do get where they're coming from, and understand that many times, the problem is that they don't realize how carefully they have to measure their words here, because use of hyperbole, etc. here by folks on the right is treated a whole lot differently than it's use here by the left. The former is considered conclusive evidence of being batshit crazy, and representative of "those kooky conservatives" in general, and the other is "oh, that's just how so-and-so talks, but he/she is really decent otherwise."

[Seli]

Sweden was founded by Timur?

...

No scandinavians are different, they went for the people with the nicest drinking-skulls

[TerraPrime]

Re: Raidne

I could not do this with a social conservative, mind you, but I've come to a place where I feel like I've identified most of the sources of conflict between American liberals and conservatives on the fiscal end, and it's just not so bad, really, short of the whole "all regulation is bad" thing, which, IMO, is overly simplistic and betrays a lack of understanding of the administrative state that a lot of liberals don't really have either, but is tempered by their greater distrust (or at least equal) for business in addition to government (see sig line). Otherwise, it's like the thing I described above, and, if I'm being honest, I think I'm right and I'll argue for my position, but I'm not 100% sure like I am about, say, the right to birth control.

I've used that delineation, too, "fiscal" versus "social" conservative.

More and more, though, I'm not sure that the distinction has merit.

The fiscal policies do have social impacts, no? When a fiscal conservative says that we need to cut taxes to stimulate economic growth, there's a direct consequence on many fronts, such as funding for social programs like treatment for the mentally affected homeless person, or the number of soup kitchens that can operate in a neighborhood. Money is power, and a policy on distribution of money is a policy on the distribution of power. I am beginning to see more and more that fiscal conservatives *are* social conservatives, even if they're not rabidly anti-gay and even if they are pro-choice. The fundamental divide between me and a fiscal conservative's view on how tax ought to be collected and the appropriate ways to spend that tax is no less unresolvable than the fundamental divide between me a social conservative who thinks that abortions ought to be illegal because life begins at fertilization. Compartmentalizing them into different boxes might help focus the discussion on the internet, but in real life, I don't really see how the distinction is useful.

Re: S John

My thought is that we have deep ideological roots in individualism, free enterprise, and a general mistrust and dislike of government. Its like those scenes in Deadwood where everyone seems a bit chafed that it wont be long before the camp is annexed by the US government who will then certainly start interfering with everyone - that they weren't able to outrun the government after all. We're still sort of a frontier culture in that way. We idolize the pioneer, the frontiersman, the cowboy - people who were able to thrive untethered - and we fancy ourselves to be like them still despite the fact that half of us can't take a shit without bringing an iphone.

Just so.

I'd also add that this streak of individualism has been fetishized in some circles, like the libertarians. If there's a national myth associated with the U.S., then surely, it is the triumph of individualism, complete with cowboys, boots, guns, horses, and a frontier town.

(Incidentally, I cannot watch Deadwood. Tried, but I feel dirty watching it, like I'm watching Rugged Individualism Porn).

[Shryke]

Hmmm...if there is one thing the tea party has done for me, it's given me a name for the type of conservative that you're talking about. But do you really think that describes, say, FLOW?

Corporatist?

The conservatives I know - my Dad, uncle, ex-father-in-law, co-workers, boyfriend - are not that type of conservative, but rather just think if the business is going down, you cut employee benefits before you take out another loan from the bank.

I could see this view, honestly, it has a nice common-sense simplicity to it - were not for the data from the Clinton years that shows me the kind of truly mind-blowing economic gains we are capable of making over a short-period, spurred by technological innovation. Now, I know some of that was a bubble, but I'd rather see a speculative bubble because of over-investment in actual businesses than the kind we've seen recently. The problem with my POV is that it counts on someone with fiscal responsibility being in charge of the government when that recovery happens - someone who's going to pay down the debt with those funds, and not spend off the money we borrowed to get there, like Bush did. Where would we be if Clinton had been President for four more years? Or sure, the "amazingly lifelike" Al Gore?

The conservative POV doesn't have this weakness - it doesn't count on some unknown power in the future doing the right thing because you take the hard knocks now. I'm just not sure our economy could really handle it at the levels that this would need to happen to really reify the notion. But that's something reasonable minds can disagree on.

The data on the ground in Europe is hardly giving the liberals much in the way of talking points ATM.

Wha? The data in Europe is fantastic for Liberals. It's basically an avalanche of "Why Austerity Fails" examples for all to see.

The Conservative examples weakness is that it equates suffering with gain. Economics is not a morality play. You do not get rewarded for your hardship.

The perpetual Conservative issue is an inability to understand things like collective action problems. Essentially, how the micro-level decisions of individual players add up to macro-level effects that are not the same.

Or, for more micro-level issues, the kind of thinking you are talking about in the first paragraph is the same kind you see in alot of business these days: short-term thinking.

[Galactus]

I believe this pratice fell out of style in the mid 1800s, when Parliament finally asked Queen Victoria to dismantle her skull pyramid due to complaints that it was blocking out the sun.

That's the point. Apart from the american countries (Latin america seems to have a similar infatuation with Bolivar) most countries' founding figures are so far back in time their political philosophies are patently and utterly alien. Even at best they tend to be looked at more as an inspiration for some kind of fuzzily defined "national values" like bravery or whatever, rather than actual policy.

[Galactus]

Sweden was founded by Timur?

Not quite, but both our founding figures weren't exactly nice people. Gustav Vasa literally ended up killing or exiling every single person who helped him get to power. Which is kind of amazing.

As a liberal, it sort of pisses me off when liberals say something like "voting against their economic self interest." First, because they're asking people make their decisions with selfishness that's opposed to the collectivist ideal that liberal espouse. Second, because they just don't get it. People, generally, don't vote because they ran a net present value analysis of their future earning with Republican v Democratic governments. People vote one party because they identify culturally or tribally with that party. It's more like choosing between the Jets and Giants than it is choosing between two retirement plans.

Long leftist tradition of that kind of thing, False Consciousness and all that.

[LuisDantas]

I can understand that mosr Brazillians would not recognize the differences between the two parties, or have an understanding of the US not based on stereotypes. And why would they?

I can think of several very good reasons. Most of them derived from a desire of knowing how to deal with the international political reality.

if I had to try to piece together an understanding of a nation of 300 million people through second hand information, I wouldn't understand it much either.

Even if news and reports from that nation were readily available on a daily basis and you had a reason to try and understand the values and goals of that nation?

Even if that nation was the sole remaining military power and a major commercial partner?

Even if a significant percentage of your youth acquaintances actually emmigrated to that country?

No, I don't think that is all that difficult. I'm not quite sure why so few try.

Brazil is in its infancy as a political stable nation, its been a civllian controlled democracy for less than 25 years. It is taking its first steps as a free poltical entity, and while it is posed to develop into a world economic and poltical power, it is a developing country with many challanges ahead.

You have no idea. Political maturity in Brazil is almost unheard of. We still have a very much monarchy-inspired mindset, with little space for actual pursuit of political representativity or democratical traditions. We simply have no experience with actual representative democracy, nor do we much understand why it would be wise to pursue it.

No one expects them to recognize the political compexities of a nation with a 230 year head start on them.

Again, I beg to differ. For one thing, we are not talking about particularly subtle matters, nor is it all that difficult or unimportant to understand US politics.

By the standards of Brazil which is curently in a love affair with charasmatic and popular leftist Lula (who is a wonderful politicians and a very likeable man),

He was a nasty demagogue, actually. And his successor, Dilma, is a non-entity. Myself, I wish Brazil sectioned into smaller nations. It would do wonders for our political advancement and even economic prosperity, albeit not in the short term.

the political middle ground in the US is going to be to the right. Switch up the perspective to a country like China, and suddenly Lula isn't so far to the left. Hell, almost every country on earth would be right-wing if you looked at it through the eyes of a communist state. That doesnt make Lula right-wing any more than it makes the Democrats right-wing. It would take an exhausting amount of convoluted reasoning to think that the Democrats are a right-wing party, and I've never heard that idea seriously put forth by a respected poilitical scientitst. The world does not calibrate its measurement of right wing/left wing on the Brazillian standard.

True enough, I suppose.

Still, the average understanding of what left and right are is much closer to the Brazilian understanding of same than to the American one.

I also wouldn't call the murder of thousands of people wildly successful because it caused someone in Brazil to think of both major US political parties as right-leaning.

Are we talking about 9/11? You misunderstood me. It was quite unrelated to the general perception that there is no such thing as a succesful left party in the USA.

What 9/11 (or more accurately, the ufanistic and military response to that terrorist act, which involved a direct challenge to UNO directives) brought was something else entirely: a general perception that the USA are not a politically and ethically mature nation worth of a lot of respect. After all, a nation that makes a point of flexing its military muscle in challenge to the UNO can't desire a lot of good will. It didn't help that GWB was basically reelected because of that posture.

The main victims of 9/11 was the USA's economical stability (war is expensive) and global image. And the hitman was GWB, far more than OBL.

International politics is not high school, the goal is not to look popular so you can take the hot girl to prom. People are fickle things with short memories and shorter attention spans, the "image" of countries in the minds of foreign citizens at any given day, month, or year are nearly incosequential. I think the idea of voting for someone to "rebrand" your state in the eyes of others is foolish.

It would be, perhaps even well into the 19th century.

Not today. Nations, never the most solid of concepts, are nearly meaningless now (and that is a good thing, btw). We all must be aware of the challenges and opportunities that other nations offer, as well as those of "our" own. We are much too interdependent in the cultural, military, ecological and economical senses to pretend otherwise.

Sure, the opinions of your country abroad is something for political leaders to think about, but it doesn't even make the list of the top 20 things states should be concerned with. It comes and goes with the wind and at then end of the day doesn't amount to much.

I SO disagree... :)

I promise you no US political leader has ever stopped before making an important decision and though to themselves, "I wonder what Brazil thinks about this?"

Oh, I fully believe that you are right. And I know for a fact that Lula, that slimy character, made a point of getting in the USA's nerves on occasion just because.

Neither attitude is all that mature or really acceptable far as I am concerned, either. Not from someone who purports to represent a whole nation with hundreds of millions of people.

The world hasn't really changed that much in 5,000 odd years of recorded human civiliation,

The end of slavery, the expanded civil freedoms and the tremendous advancement of knowledge and social sciences tell me otherwise.

Granted, we are struggling some very hard struggles with the implications of our newfound mutual influence. But that is only further evidence that the world has changed and we are not really knowing how to handle that change, not that it hasn't changed.

the course of history is not decided by minor powers eating popcorn on the sidelnes and saying "Hey, I dont like what that country did right there. Whoa, look at this country! I don't like that either."

True enough. Traditionally, it is decided by major powers stumbling upon their own lack of wisdom instead.

Tragically, familiarity tricks people into believing that their own hastily thrown together steretypes and conception actually hold water. For example, I'm exposed to many aspects of British culture and life. I get most of my news from the BBC, I listen to music made by British people, I watch Britsh television shows and keep up on their politics. All that exposure to British culture and news will make me start to think that I understand Britain, unlike a place that I rarely hear about or am exposed to, like Nepal. In reality, its bullshit. I don't understand Britian any more than someone in Essex could understand the US from these same kind of 2nd hand experiences. yet this often happens because the US is in the news so much more than almost any outher country and its culture has impacted every corner of the globe. In reality, you can live in a country your entire life and struggle to truly understand the nature of its policitcs and people. To try to do that to a foregin nation is almost an excerise in futility. Whenever you find yourself making sweeping generalizations about hundreds of millions of people you've never met, take a step back. Its human nature to do it, and national stereotypes are hillarious, but we shouldn't trick ourselves into thinking that that is where the truth is found.

Neither should we avoid finding it, either. Ignorance isn't beneficial.

I understand that you don't see the difference, in the same way that I, living on the east coast, don't see the Pacific Ocean. I don't recall ever claiming thay it didn'y exist, however. The sort of political apathy that causes one to think both parites are the same reminds me of the old Futurama joke where Fry is trying to decide between the two candidates: Jack Johnson, and bitter rival, John Jackson. I'm not doing it justice but its a great joke, and that was the feeling many people had in the race between Bush and Gore.

Actually, I see lots of difference between Bush and Gore. I will even bet that I care more about the difference than the average American. I would definitely vote for Gore if I had the chance, particularly if the choice was between him and some GOP name.

Then, of course, Bush took office. Naturally people look similar when theyre running for office: campaigning is adveritzing, they're going for the common denominator, theyre trying to get half of the country plus 1. Once they actaully take office, stark differences between visions for the country become clear. The idea that "meh, the're all the same" is the kind of attitude that puts idiots like Bush in the white house.

From my perspective, Dem and GOP presidential candidates are usually very different from each other. In Obama's case it was the actual practice that made him look so much like a Republican. In fact, so much like a not-particularly-bright republican.

Which is saying something.

[TerraPrime]

From my perspective, Dem and GOP presidential candidates are usually very different from each other. In Obama's case it was the actual practice that made him look so much like a Republican. In fact, so much like a not-particularly-bright republican.

No, no, no. A hundred-fucking-times, no. No. Just, no.

Stop saying such stupid and inane things.