Obama V. Romney

[IdleRich]

"Since you seem to agree with the second premise, I'll just say that the first is only contrary to internet conventional wisdom. Historical conventional wisdom is the single axis. The French national assembly had two sides: revolutionaries and reactionaries. Stalin was some sort of communist, Franco was some sort of fascist. It's easy to place people and movements. I don't see the need for another dimension."

Not all battles with two sides divide in the same two ways - I don't think that the difference between revolutionaries and reactionaries is the same as that between Manchester United and Manchester City. If most wars have two sides it doesn't mean that they're always about the same thing.
And even if historically people thought that then that's hardly an argument for insisting it's the case now.
Is this an unfair characterisation and if so why?

"I just don't think that any two people who agree on immigration or gay rights can be assumed to have the same views on whether or not unfettered capitalism is a good thing (or even that it's an especially good predictor) and that's basically what you're asking us to accept."

 

[IdleRich]

"If you go back far enough, you don't really see any economically liberal right-wingers. Historically speaking, economic liberals were also political liberals."

But if what you are saying is correct then you should have no need to go back, it should be the case now, yesterday and tomorrow.

 

[vimothy]

What do you think the answers to these questions are?

People fight for power, by definition.

The possibility of achieving it has to be positive, or there's no point.

The chance of achieving it can only be positive if someone in power is prepared to listen, or if they don't actually have as much power as they think they do.

If the people in power really do have power, what's to stop them firing the rebels out of cannon, or running them over with tanks, or destroying their town with grid-square bombing, or bringing out the Maxim guns. "Pour la canaille, la mitraille."

The answer is, there's nothing to stop them, because they have power and their opponents do not. The powerless can't defeat the powerful. It's a contradiction in terms.

 

[IdleRich]

What I'm objecting to is the sleight of hand that you're using to say "blacks have more rights, therefore economic policy has trended to the left".

 

[Mr. Tea]

Nazis: Right-wing.

Libertarians: Left-wing.

If you go back far enough, you don't really see any economically liberal right-wingers. Historically speaking, economic liberals were also political liberals.

I'm not saying that libertarians were communists. But they're not got anything in common with traditional conservative thought, and plenty with contemporary liberalism, sharing a common ancestor. And you can always compare groups and get a relative measure. Stalin was more right wing than Lenin, or whatever. (Actually, there's that essay by Lenin: "Left-wing communism: an infantile disorder").

So really, you're ignoring the economic aspect entirely? I'd always thought of libertarians as being regarded as far-right, economically speaking. I think your classification of right-wing/left-wing is a bit idiosyncratic, since most definitions I've ever read place paramount importance on the relationship between private enterprise and the state. That's generally regarded as *the* deciding factor, before you get anywhere near abortion, gay marriage, drug laws and whatever.

 

[vimothy]

But if what you are saying is correct then you should have no need to go back, it should be the case now, yesterday and tomorrow.

Like I've been saying, the centre has drifted. You might say, "libertarians are right-wingers". You might say anything. But it's still easy to put people on the original scale.

 

[IdleRich]

"Like I've been saying, the centre has drifted. You might say, "libertarians are right-wingers". You might say anything. But it's still easy to put people on the original scale."

I just don't see how you can say that a different mixture is a movement along a linear axis.
Again, is this fair?

"I just don't think that any two people who agree on immigration or gay rights can be assumed to have the same views on whether or not unfettered capitalism is a good thing (or even that it's an especially good predictor) and that's basically what you're asking us to accept."

 

[droid]

What I'm objecting to is the sleight of hand that you're using to say "blacks have more rights, therefore economic policy has trended to the left".

I also object to the socratic dialogue, the patronising, disingenuous tone, the lack of straight answers, the constant gnomism.

Its like smoking weed with a 2nd year phil/pol science student.

Its all good though still. Reminds me a bit of the old days.

 

[vimothy]

So really, you're ignoring the economic aspect entirely? I'd always thought of libertarians as being regarded as far-right, economically speaking. I think your classification of right-wing/left-wing is a bit idiosyncratic, since most definitions I've ever read place paramount importance on the relationship between private enterprise and the state. That's generally regarded as *the* deciding factor, before you get anywhere near abortion, gay marriage, drug laws and whatever.

I'm just saying that being economically liberal doesn't make you a right-winger. Adolf Hitler was not economically liberal. Is he on the left or the right? Franco? Salazar? What about Bismark, the inventor of the welfare state, was he a left-winger?

The way most economic questions are framed presupposes the technical perspective that conservatives have traditionally rejected. They don't care about the efficient allocation of resources. They care about Natural Law and maintaining a moral society.

 

[vimothy]

What I'm objecting to is the sleight of hand that you're using to say "blacks have more rights, therefore economic policy has trended to the left".

Well, it's strange that you're objecting to that, because it's not what I've said.

 

[baboon2004]

People fight for power, by definition.

The possibility of achieving it has to be positive, or there's no point.

The chance of achieving it can only be positive if someone in power is prepared to listen, or if they don't actually have as much power as they think they do.

If the people in power really do have power, what's to stop them firing the rebels out of cannon, or running them over with tanks, or destroying their town with grid-square bombing, or bringing out the Maxim guns. "Pour la canaille, la mitraille."

The answer is, there's nothing to stop them, because they have power and their opponents do not. The powerless can't defeat the powerful. It's a contradiction in terms.

People gain power by fighting against the existing power structures. Of course, you can retrospectively claim that they actually had the power to begin with, but it's kind of meaningless. Power is rarely or never willingly ceded, as someone once said.

 

[IdleRich]

Or to put it another way. Suppose we considered the traditional left-right axis of politics and then we looked compared that to the now more popular two dimensional version - doesn't the second thing contain more information than the first? If you (Vimothy) are correct then any representation should collapse down to the simple one when you needed it to.

"Well, it's strange that you're objecting to that, because it's not what I've said."

I kinda think it is - you agreed with me that your assertion was that the political centre had shifted, this was based entirely on the argument that progressives had triumphed in terms of rights along with the fact that a one-dimensional view of left/right politics ties social beliefs and economic ones together.
I've asked three times if I'm not right that that's what you're saying.

 

[vimothy]

I just don't see how you can say that a different mixture is a movement along a linear axis.

Again, is this fair?

"I just don't think that any two people who agree on immigration or gay rights can be assumed to have the same views on whether or not unfettered capitalism is a good thing (or even that it's an especially good predictor) and that's basically what you're asking us to accept."

I don't think so.

It's a scale. It has more than two points. Also, it's just a scale. Why not have an infinite number of dimensions, then you'll be able to capture everyone's views perfectly?

 

[vimothy]

I also object to the socratic dialogue, the patronising, disingenuous tone, the lack of straight answers, the constant gnomism.

Its like smoking weed with a 2nd year phil/pol science student.

Its all good though still. Reminds me a bit of the old days.

Is this suppose to be a joke, or...?

 

[droid]

Is this suppose to be a joke, or...?

Well... you havent given a straight answer or answered a question without another question since sometime in 2009.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I'm just saying that being economically liberal doesn't make you a right-winger. Adolf Hitler was not economically liberal. Is he on the left or the right? Franco? Salazar? What about Bismark, the inventor of the welfare state, was he a left-winger?

Well my position is that these questions can't be answered with a one-word answer since, as I see it, left-wing-ness and right-wing-ness aren't scalar quantities.

 

[IdleRich]

"It's a scale. It has more than two points. Also, it's just a scale. Why not have an infinite number of dimensions, then you'll be able to capture everyone's views perfectly?"

I just knew that you were gonna say that.
Two dimensions is good because -

1. You can draw the diagram on a piece of paper
2. I think that there are two main threads - economic policy and social policy

But I don't think that you need more. Above I asserted that someone's stance on abortion won't tell you about their stance on capitalism but I think it will give you a good idea about their views on gay marriage. Do you disagree?
It's especially relevant here because we're talking about the Republican party and whether they can separate their economics from the scarier bits of their social policy - a one-dimensional take doesn't really allow you to discuss that question.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I'm just saying that being economically liberal doesn't make you a right-winger.

OK, how about a test case. Would the abolition of the NHS be an inherently right-wing thing to do?

 

[vimothy]

Jonah Goldberg's argument is basically that Hitler was a leftist because Hitler was an economic collectivist.

But Hitler was not a leftist. Bismarck was not a leftist. Salazar was not a leftist. These guys were all on the side of political reaction.

 

[IdleRich]

"Jonah Goldberg's argument is basically that Hitler was a leftist because Hitler was an economic collectivist.
But Hitler was not a leftist. Bismarck was not a leftist. Salazar was not a leftist. These guys were all on the side of political reaction."

But isn't this an example of the inadequacy of the language when using the one-dimensional approach?
Anyway, enough, I'm not interested so much in how you graph left and right, what I found dishonest was that you were using your approach to argue that social "progress" meant that the centre had moved to the left whereas to most people that is far from the whole story.