Obama V. Romney

[vimothy]

How so?

Is some of your comment missing? Not sure if I understand the question.

* * * * *

The sad truth of the matter is that we all believe the things we believe in because elites thought them up and propagated them through the system.

 

[baboon2004]

Why do you think the family is the answer?

 

[luka]

my instinctive response would be people fight becasue they are desperate and people listen becasue they are scared.
concessions are granted in return for maintenance of power.

 

[IdleRich]

Vimothy - you're asserting that the US political spectrum has moved to the left, you're basing that on two assumptions.

1. Contrary to conventional wisdom there is only one axis along which one can measure political affiliation and it is therefore not helpful to separate left and right in terms of social ideas and financial ideas.

2. Changes in rights of minorities, universal suffrage etc etc represent a movement to the left in terms of social ideas.

If you put 1 and 2 together then the only possible conclusion is that the centre of political discourse has moved to the left over the last century or more.

Edit: That obviously relates to the debate a page or two back. I am also interested in why you think the family is so important though.
I think that I'd tend to agree with point 2, give or take a number of caveats that Droid has outlined. In general there are real changes for women, gays etc and whether they have been granted by people in power or not they have still happened and that means something. Of course this is a general trend so there are steps back and occurrences that buck this trend but this does seem to be the way the western world has gone.
Not at all convinced by point 1 though - 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.

 

[baboon2004]

my instinctive response would be people fight becasue they are desperate and people listen becasue they are scared.
concessions are granted in return for maintenance of power.

well exactly, look at South Africa, being an even more blindingly obvious example.

 

[vimothy]

Because they were oppressed; as you know, that's a very complex question. Why do you think they listened, assuming of course that they did listen, and didn't just co-opt people's anger (out of fear of it destabilising the country) by offering them a vote but little economic power?

But think about what changed.

This situation is: People are oppressed. Presumably this goes on for a long time. Do they suddenly start fighting, or were they always fighting? If they suddenly start fighting, why? What happened?

The outcome is: some measure of success. Why did the revolt succeed? What stopped The Powers That Be from bloodily suppressing it and getting back to whatever it is they do?

Look at it as a system that is stable for hundreds of years, but then goes crazy. What is the difference between the two states?

 

[Mr. Tea]

maybe you should worry less about whether the CEO of General Motors has bollocks

Yeah, it does strike me as a bit odd that people who hold a strongly ant-capitalist position can suddenly seem quite keen on the idea of more women joining the same super-wealthy elite they usually rail against. [Germaine Greer: "I didn't fight to get women out from behind vacuum cleaners to get them onto the board of Hoover."] Increasing the proportion of senior bankers and CEOs who are female is not going to do much for the position of the vast majority of women who, like the vast majority of men, are not senior bankers and CEOs, any more than having a black president has automatically worked wonders for ordinary black people as a whole.

and more about the most important institution in all of human society for all of its existence, the family.

Nomadologist was always gleefully cheering on the demise of the family. The correlation between men growing up in families with no father (or father figure) and a huge complex of various social ills was neither here nor there; it was "ha, take THAT, the Oedipal family unit!". (Quite where the 'Oedipal' bit comes from I'm not sure, but that's the usual socio-psych jargon for some reason.)

 

[vimothy]

well exactly, look at South Africa, being an even more blindingly obvious example.

Did you buy South African oranges? Was this because you were scared, or was it principled?

 

[IdleRich]

Vimothy - you're asserting that the US political spectrum has moved to the left, you're basing that on two assumptions.

1. Contrary to conventional wisdom there is only one axis along which one can measure political affiliation and it is therefore not helpful to separate left and right in terms of social ideas and financial ideas.

2. Changes in rights of minorities, universal suffrage etc etc represent a movement to the left in terms of social ideas.

If you put 1 and 2 together then the only possible conclusion is that the centre of political discourse has moved to the left over the last century or more.
I think that I'd tend to agree with point 2, give or take a number of caveats that Droid has outlined. In general there are real changes for women, gays etc and whether they have been granted by people in power or not they have still happened and that means something. Of course this is a general trend so there are steps back and occurrences that buck this trend but this does seem to be the way the western world has gone.
Not at all convinced by point 1 though - 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.

Edit: That obviously relates to something said a couple of pages back. But I am also interested in why the family is so important here.

 

[baboon2004]

What do you think the answers to these questions are?

But think about what changed.

This situation is: People are oppressed. Presumably this goes on for a long time. Do they suddenly start fighting, or were they always fighting? If they suddenly start fighting, why? What happened?

The outcome is: some measure of success. Why did the revolt succeed? What stopped The Powers That Be from bloodily suppressing it and getting back to whatever it is they do?

Look at it as a system that is stable for hundreds of years, but then goes crazy. What is the difference between the two states?

 

[baboon2004]

Did you buy South African oranges? Was this because you were scared, or was it principled?

Whether I bought them or not isn't a point of great relevance, as not to buy them would involve zero sacrifice and next-to-zero thought on my part. When we talk about people being scared, we're talking about white South Africans.

A question in return: over your life, what would you say is the greatest sacrifice you have made in support of a moral principle applying to the way in which people treat each other, or in support of other people who you do not directly know? (An entirely open question; I'm going to have to think a while about the answer to this for myself)

 

[IdleRich]

Um, not sure why that came up twice. Sorry.

 

[vimothy]

Vimothy - you're asserting that the US political spectrum has moved to the left, you're basing that on two assumptions....

I think that's a reasonable characterisation of where I'm coming from.

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.

 

[baboon2004]

Yeah, it does strike me as a bit odd that people who hold a strongly ant-capitalist position can suddenly seem quite keen on the idea of more women joining the same super-wealthy elite they usually rail against. [Germaine Greer: "I didn't fight to get women out from behind vacuum cleaners to get them onto the board of Hoover."] Increasing the proportion of senior bankers and CEOs who are female is not going to do much for the position of the vast majority of women who, like the vast majority of men, are not senior bankers and CEOs, any more than having a black president has automatically worked wonders for ordinary black people as a whole.

exactly. See also Stonewall's list of the best companies for gay people to work for, including the Home Office, quite famous for sending gay people back to countries where they are in mortal danger. Co-opt a few black people, a few women, a few gay people, and then we can say 'problem solved', as long as they're fine with oppressing others.

 

[Mr. Tea]

It's easy to place people and movements. I don't see the need for another dimension.

So then where on your one-size-fits-all axis would you put, say, the early Nazi party (before it moved to a more corporatist position), which was economically left-wing while obviously hyper-reactionary in social terms? Or, for that matter, the diametric opposite: libertarians? (I mean theoretical do-what-thou-wilt libertarians, as opposed to Paul & co.)

 

[vimothy]

Whether I bought them or not isn't a point of great relevance, as not to buy them would involve zero sacrifice and next-to-zero thought on my part. When we talk about people being scared, we're talking about white South Africans.

But you didn't refuse to buy them because you were scared. You refused to buy them on principle. It was a free choice and you did it because to was the right thing to do. That was my point.

If you want to say that all change only happens because people are scared, then how do you explain your actions here? So it looks like there's something more going on.

A question in return: over your life, what would you say is the greatest sacrifice you have made in support of a moral principle applying to the way in which people treat each other, or in support of other people who you do not directly know?

No idea, I'm afraid. Probably nothing worth posting.

 

[droid]

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.

Nonsense and ludicrously reductionist. You're just trolling now.

There's a huge amount of research and study done on political spectrums which contradict the basic left/right axis, which no one with an interest in the subject has taken seriously since the 60's. Eysenck springs to mind but there's plenty more out there.

 

[vimothy]

So then where on your one-size-fits-all axis would you put, say, the early Nazi party (before it moved to a more corporatist position), which was economically left-wing while obviously hyper-reactionary in social terms? Or, for that matter, the diametric opposite: libertarians? (I mean theoretical do-what-thou-wilt libertarians, as opposed to Paul & co.)

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").

 

[Mr. Tea]

I can think of three basic axes that might be useful for classifying political positions:

liberal values <---(moral)---> traditional values
emphasis on duty to society <---(social)---> emphasis on personal freedom
state-run industry <---(economic)---> private enterprise

corresponding very roughly to 'left' and 'right' in each case.

 

[baboon2004]

But you didn't refuse to buy them because you were scared. You refused to buy them on principle. It was a free choice and you did it because to was the right thing to do. That was my point.

If you want to say that all change only happens because people are scared, then how do you explain your actions here? So it looks like there's something more going on.

No idea, I'm afraid. Probably nothing worth posting.

Well, I wouldn't use the word 'scared' without further qualification- that was Luka, though I did broadly agree - rather that change is driven much more by pragmatic concerns over moral ones.

Anyways, the point is that in describing people as 'scared', this would refer to (mostly) white South Africans, not to foreigners who would not have been directly affected. Do you think that white south Africans gave black people the vote because they were principled, or because they used it as a pragmatic trade-off to ensure they could keep economic power, and ensure many things would not change?

And more broadly, it is always easier to be 'principled' when your decision will not (a) lead to loss for you in the long term (of power, money, whatever), or (b) lead to any perceived loss for you in the short term, through taking up your effort, time etc. Truly principled action has to be when there is something at stake for you. Which is why people will recycle their items and claim themselves into saving the planet, but not agree to give up plane travel; why they will support justice in other countries but not necessarily in their own (or at least, not any real change in the status quo). We're all guilty of it to a greater or lesser extent.