Liberals & Conservatives

[MrPresidentUK]

I wonder if your problem with understanding news from other countries is that there is hardly any of that on American tv. I saw a recent study carried out over one year looking at the average news bulletin across the networks. The results where, on average, there is only one news item about a foreign country in a half-hour bulletin (this would be a nice change in my country's Euro-obessed media). Anyway, I disagree that the Democrats (and Liberals) are considered left. Traditonally America has no mainstream left-wing, due to lack of trade union movement and the good ole fear of the Reds and their revolutionary ideas. I think I can summarise your agruments around conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think the problem of society is caused by "government failure". This includes restricting the market affecting allocative and productive efficiency. Liberals think the problem of society is caused "market failure". This includes underprovision of merit goods (such as Health and Education) etc. I know this is a very simple view which will have a lot of overlay (especially since the World Bank introduced the idea of "Market Friendly" policies).

The reason Bush won the election is surely for another thread (or maybe there was one already). I agree in principle with your view on spirituality but maybe not on it being a classification. Your ideas on the environment (I didn't even know there were such things as gas-powered or petrol-powered lawnmowers) fall into the category of sustainable development. This means that development today should not come at the price of development of future generations. Personally I think the problem with America and law enforcement is that too much effort is put into catching drug users. You should do what we did and legalise it in all but name (e.g. it is illegal to use drugs but no-one will arrest for doing so). The best method of crime prevention is to improve the standard of living of the people committing the crime, therefore removing the incentive to do so. The second best method is to improve the percent of people caught per crime committed. A criminal will not commit a crime if they think they will be caught. Some people (not me) would argue that laws against abortion are the same as the laws against murder, i.e. necessary government intervention. Actually it is a lot more expensive to kill a criminal than it is for them to serve a life sentence (25-30 years). And considering there are a couple of million American prisoners there are extremely small number of executions (I believe it is around a 50, if that, a year). I'm sorry but Liberals do not see industry as "money-hungry entities", communists do. A liberal sees industry something that is essential and does a good job but occasionly needs a helping hand. Conservatives think that industry is fine on its own.

Your assessment of President Clinton and his 'amazing budget' balancing feat as lacking a few important facts. Mr Clinton was President during a time of enomorous economic propensity, which increased tax revenue while decreasing government benefit expenditure. Which is useful when trying to balance a budget. He failed to pass his most important health care when he had the chance (i.e. a Democrat-controlled congress). He scarificed his party to win the 1996 election. Also there is the incident in the oval office, which I think wasn't that unsual for a President (see Kennedy and FDR). However the problem was (and the Republicans were right to investigate) he lied and tried to obstruct justice. For me, if the highest person in my country, the commmander-in-chief of my army, the man with the nuclear button, the man representing my country to the whole of the world, openly lied to the public during office. Then I would seriously if he was fit for office. I would like to point out that I am not an anti-Clinton, in fact I consider him one of the greatest political operators of the 20th century. The problem was that this didn't convert into a great presidency.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Hamlet may I remind you that you are the one who started the argument other Labour's stance. And the topic on hand is the definition of Liberals and Conservatives.

And I did say this originally:

"Labour - Center right but there is strong socialist roots which may begin to show when Blair (finally) goes. Recently there has begun to be some dissent and rebellion among the Labour backbenchers which could have implication for the future of the party"

Just to clarify I am stating that it is the Labour leadership that is center 'right', not the Labour party as a whole.

 

[Hamlet]

A run down of some Labour policies since 1997:

Signing of The Social Chapter

Something that even the centre right (Our old friend) Major administration failed to commit to, The European social chapter represented a step forward in working rules.

The minimum wage

Also completely opposed by the Conservatives until some time after it's introduction, the minimum wage was a slightly historical event, marking an absolute minimum that workers were to be paid.

The 'New Deal'

Designed to encourage job oppurtunities, the 'New deal' aimed to cut unemployment, and can perhaps claim to be succesful - unemployment has at least remained steady and has not hugely increased, at any rate.

Investment in public services

Although Labour stuck to Tory spending plans for a good while of it's first term, a policy which has often been seen as being originally adopted to placate a perhaps wary middle-England, greater increases are now starting to become necessary for the Blair adminisatrion's credibility. Certainly, though the Blair administration would wish to disguise the fact, the government's policy has become one of 'tax and spend'.

Pensions

Although The Blair government was lambasted for a very meagre increase in The basic state pension, Pensioners have enjoyed the benefits of free TV licenses for the over 75's, and a large winter fuel allowance.



I could go on, but it seems pointless. You're either going to be convinced by what I've said or not at all.

If you could, after reading that, continue to say that Labour are centre-right with a straight face, I would be surprised.

 

[Hamlet]

Anyway, with regards to the LD's:

My opinion is that it would be foolish for them to attract disenchanted Tory voters or make any moves to a centre-right position. They're better where they are currently, attracting traditional Labour voters.

My guess is that The Tory party will experience some sort of SDP-style split between the left and the right of the party, if it suffers another electoral disaster. (A propect that has not been diminished thanks to the election of IDS) Whatever happens, I predict that the Tory party will get worse before it gets better. Certainly, electing a man who is further to the right ideologically than William Hague has not helped matters. Although Smith has said that there needs to be a rethink on party handling of issues, to me he seems to be forming some sort of 'we can't credibly advocate increased spending, but we'll advocate privatisation just to appear dynamic' apporach that I don't think will wash with voters.

Essentially the modern Conservative party has to rethink it's entire being in the same way that Labour did in the 80's, otherwise it will be in opposition for a long time, or could even face political extinction as it becomes a total irrelevance, in the same way that the Liberals did post-war. Whether it has the will to reform itself so radically is another matter, also, with it's aged membership. It's certainly at a defining moment in it's history.

 

[allan]

Hamlet: "Designed to encourage job oppurtunities, the 'New deal' aimed to cut unemployment, and can perhaps claim to be succesful - unemployment has at least remained steady and has not hugely increased, at any rate."

THAT'S a very big "perhaps".... Seriously, how can you call a program designed to reduce a problem, that DOESN'T reduce the problem, a "success" at all? Perhaps there is some perception that the problem would have gotten much worse without it--but is that just an assumption, or can it be proven or at least hypothesized soundly?

TOO often there is a cycle that goes something like this (this happens in American politics, and from what was said above, apparently in British politics as well): A problem is percieved by a growing number of people. Politicians eager for votes propose "solutions" to the perceived problem. Oftentimes these "solutions" are designed more to make the politicians "look busy" and "appear sensitive to the people's concerns" but turn out not to do ANYTHING to really reduce the problem. Then the people, with or without the encouragement of political propagandists, console themselves with arguments that "the problem would be worse if our government didn't step in"--well, it's either tell yourself that, or swallow your pride at once more being fooled and swindled by the politicians.... So anyway, its often the former, and so since the problem still persists (or even increases), the next generation of politicians can persuade the people to spend even MORE money on the "solution", without having the people stop to take stock in the "solution's" methods themselves. Thus repeats the vicious cycle, taking more of the people's money, and sometimes more of their liberties as well. Take our "War on Poverty" that presided over an INCREASE (by many estimates) of poverty, or the "War on Drugs" that didn't reduce drug use one bit, as just two of MANY examples of this type of thing.

Back on topic: Liberals and conservatives in THIS country both tend to have their blind faiths in the government, depending on their issues of concern. Liberals tend to believe government CAN fix socioeconomic ills, in spite of no real success story in that arena; while conservatives tend to believe that government CAN fix moral ills, in spite of no real success story in THAT arena. So why this continued unrequited faith? Perhaps because, without that faith, today's lopsided, overpaid monstrosity of a government would be seen for the sham it really is--and that realization could bring about--dare we say it--a revolution!

I tend to think of government as what it is--FORCE. And while force CAN be used for good (i.e. to remove murderers, other violent elements, and thieves from society temporarily or permanently; and to defend the people from outside aggression), it should be limited because it is what it is--force--a morally neutral, and oftentimes very blunt, instrument. To worship it or attach any mystical (i.e. faith-based) value to it is not only bizarrely absurd IMHO, it can sometimes be just as destructive as the worst of religious fanaticism. At the very LEAST it erodes our ability to be responsible for our own problems, and to learn and grow from them. It also encourages more unbridled use of this FORCE that government is--and unbridled (or less bridled) use of force is never good, no matter WHERE it comes from, or even what cause it is (purportedly) used in.

So in this political spectrum I am neither left or right, but LIBERTARIAN--or "classical liberal" as some would know it as. I try to have no illusions of ANYTHING around me, including our government. I know ME, I know what *I* can do, and I can trust myself reasonably well.... If everyone came to that realization, then everyone would see that they don't NEED government to change things for the better, they can each do a bit for that THEMSELVES. And get FAR more done that way, too. But they have to shuck off the crutch of their faith in government first....

"Government solutions are often like attempting to kill a fly with a sledgehammer--they often miss the fly and crack the tabletop."

--a quote I "coined" myself. How true is it? Look around you....

 

[knowltok3]

So in this political spectrum I am neither left or right, but LIBERTARIAN--or "classical liberal" as some would know it as. I try to have no illusions of ANYTHING around me, including our government. I know ME, I know what *I* can do, and I can trust myself reasonably well.... If everyone came to that realization, then everyone would see that they don't NEED government to change things for the better, they can each do a bit for that THEMSELVES. And get FAR more done that way, too. But they have to shuck off the crutch of their faith in government first....

Here's a question though: Is it possible that you have too much faith in people to be as rational and "good" as you? The same arguements you make about unrequited faith could apply to you. I ask if the great bulk of the people are actually capable of being the type of citizen that a Libertarian government would require?

"Government solutions are often like attempting to kill a fly with a sledgehammer--they often miss the fly and crack the tabletop."

Good one, but I would change it to "--you might kill the fly, but you also might crack the tabletop" Or something like that.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by allan
THAT'S a very big "perhaps".... Seriously, how can you call a program designed to reduce a problem, that DOESN'T reduce the problem, a "success" at all? Perhaps there is some perception that the problem would have gotten much worse without it--but is that just an assumption, or can it be proven or at least hypothesized soundly?

Okay, so I knocked that up a few nights ago when I was a bit tipsy

Anyway, whether it was succesful or no was largely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, which was that the policies of Labour were centre-left.

 

[VoodooAce]

Knowltok, I think the answer to your question is in US history.

Up 'til 100 years ago, big business in America was shameless in it's shabby treatment of workers. It's been proven that we can not rely on individuals to police themselves in any respect when it comes to how they treat their workers, or the environment.

I know this labels me as a big-government liberal, but I believe that this is government's job.....not only to protect its citizens from a foreign threat, but from domestic ones as well.

The disregard that these CEO's have/had for the workers is shameful.....as we can see with Enron, now.

Given a free reign, there would be no middle class, which has been the result of liberal/progressive policies being enforced.

 

[VoodooAce]

One thing I would have most people ask themselves is, who are the biggest supporters of each group....Republican and Democrats in the US.....and what are there intentions.

I know that all lobbies donate to all parties...they are what they are.....for instance Enron gave more than a quarter of all donations to non-Republican candidates.

And, of course I'm quite biased, but let's look at those lobbies:

Dems: Environmental Groups, Teachers, Unions

GOP: Oil companies, Chemical companies, Managed Healthcare companies, Big Tobacco, Big Auto...see a trend there? Oh, and let's not forget the NRA and the Christian Coalition, my favs.

you get the idea......which is more....noble.

The fact that, despite the fact they're all full of crap, Democratic politicians had the more noble pretenses than does the GOP.

The GOP places more importance in the health of the industry in the US than they do that of the populace.

The Dems at least pretend to be fighting for the common man. Whether you believe that those with $$ should pay higher taxes or not, at least the Dems want to ease the burden on the middle class relative to those with surpluss $$. Whether you believe any politician's words, this is how I interpret things and what changed me from a Reagan Republican to a liberal Dem....

 

[allan]

Knowltok: "Here's a question though: Is it possible that you have too much faith in people to be as rational and "good" as you? The same arguements you make about unrequited faith could apply to you. I ask if the great bulk of the people are actually capable of being the type of citizen that a Libertarian government would require"

You raise a good point. I think a full-fledged libertarian government, which grants favors to NOBODY and enforces the minimal of necessary laws equally upon everyone, would serve to force people to be responsible if they are to succeed.

It would also encourage people to help others, serve their community, and do more things on their own for the causes they support. Right now, many people look at the poor and say, "well, the government will take care of them, so they're none of my concern." Ditto issues of community stagnation: while some people still demonstrate admirable "community spirit" and volunteerism, so many others rely on the crutch of government (force) to somehow solve the problems that vex their communities, and when this doesn't work they become apathetic, as if nothing more can be done--if the mighty government fails to help anything, surely lowly individuals cannot hope to, right? But they CAN, in ways the government cannot, because they are much closer to their communities and their problems.

And would the many people who care about causes like the environment, community betterment, etc., just sit down if the government withdrew its ineffective, posturing programs? I don't think so. This is another thread, but there are MANY things that concerned private citizens can do about issues like these that DON'T involve any use of force at all.... And would thus be acceptable in a libertarian society. For starters, think boycotts of corporations that are exposed to abusive, but not illegal acts. These happen now to some extent, but if the ball were COMPLETELY in the people's court--not in the government sphere, which often bends over backwards to serve these very corporations, at any rate--then the PEOPLE would make the rules, and feel more empowered to do things to effect change or at least to enforce, peacefully but effectively, their idea of decency. And most people are decent, I think--it's just that many of them again have that faith in their government which overshadows their faith in themselves, and obscures the importance of their OWN potential for good.

Voodoo Ace: "Up 'til 100 years ago, big business in America was shameless in it's shabby treatment of workers. It's been proven that we can not rely on individuals to police themselves in any respect when it comes to how they treat their workers, or the environment."

And big business, then as now, was propped up by cronies in the government, who often legislated (and continue to legislate) corruptly in their favor. This, most emphatically, is NOT libertarianism. A libertarian government favors no one, and pities no business that would fail because of superior innovation by competitors, displeasure of the people, bad labor relations, or whatever. It is a completely neutral arbiter for the liberties of ALL the people, and impartial in the minimal rule of law that it WOULD strongly enforce. Strikebusting goons? They'd be prosecuted by a libertarian government like any other violent thug would, that is VERY harshly, no matter WHO sent them--and the senders themselves would be prosecuted. Ditto defense contractors who try to defraud the people of their money--fraud is fraud, like violence is violence.

Today, acts like these continue, in some ways (like overt corporate-sponsored violence--strikebusting goons and such) to far lesser extent but in other, more subtle yet more devastating ways, to perhaps even greater extent than before. To compensate, government passes a few laws that appease the people, stop a little of it, but allow most of it to continue; and with its "other hand" so to speak even helps hide the continuances from the eyes of the people. Why not instead let's bring about conditions whereby it would be virtually eliminated? Not by PUNISHING ALL corporations, but by withdrawing favoritism from them and making them stand on their own, naked to the eyes of the people, and allowing them to survive or perish under these new conditions. Imagine capitalism WITHOUT corruption, and what it could do, what more splendid technological wonders and prosperity it could bring the people....

Obviously, we have never ever had a truly libertarian government. Some would argue that we couldn't, because the will to keep such a thing, the will to continually resist lies and corruption, would have to be unbendable in the great majority of people--and corruption is perhaps too engrained in us, in various ways. Too many people want at least the illusion of getting "something for nothing."

But libertarianism is, I think, a noble goal to work toward, and something that would bring about advancements and prosperity for more people than anything else that's been tried. And most importantly, it would bring out the best in personal efforts for good in people. And would eliminate the hiding places of most of the worst scoundrels as well.

It may be a hard road to get to for many people, but getting out of what is basically a stagnant situation, a rut, is never easy....

 

[allan]

Perhaps the key to libertarianism's chance of succeeding is INFORMATION. And the internet is today's "great equalizer"--the last "great equalizer" was the gun. Today, common people have more power to expose lies, cheats, corruption, or worse things that go on than they ever did before, thanks to the internet.

There are of course many lies that get spread on the internet as well, but a concerned citizenry suddenly asked to fill the giant power vacuum left from the dismantling of the unnecessary parts of government could privately investigate, verify, and separate the wheat from the chaff on the internet.

It's either that, or let the internet, like the gun, end up becoming yet another tool of their oppression....

 

[VoodooAce]

I posted the below in another thread, where it was quite off topic. Belongs here. Besides, maybe I can get a better response/debate here than, "What's wrong with only seeing one side? If you believe in something, stick by it."

Also, I should have used 'liberal' and 'conservative' and not 'left' and 'right'. I'm not talking economics, here.

People that are overly, imo, nationalistic are usually the type that only sees their side of an issue.

Such nationalists fail to realize that other nations have nationalists that always believe that THEIR country is right. They are patriots themselves. There's nothing wrong, per se, for looking out for your nations best interests.

The problem is, as I stated in another thread recently, I think those (not targeting any individual, here) right wing/nationalistic types cause an overwhelming majority of todays problems in the world. Bear with me here.

It's the right wing Palestinians and Israelis that perpetuate the violence. There are left wingers on both sides that only want peace....they want the violence to stop. The righties say no, they must respond. They accuse the left wingers of backing the other side, or being soft on the other side, or whatever. Fact is, they just want the violence to stop.

Every nation has people of both ilk. The right wingers dislike the right wingers from adversary nations because the righties from each side are looking out for their side's best interest, which puts them at odds with the righties on the other side of the fence.

Crap, I'm tired and talking in circles. Hopefully you get my meaning, though.

The right wing Palestinians get mad at the left wing Palestinians. They blast them by saying they support the violence Israel does against the Palestinians. The right wing Palestinians are NO DIFFERENT than any other right wingers. You are all the same, even if you argue opposite points.

Check some of the threads about the never ending confict in Isael. It's ridiculous to see righties from each side go at each other. Only thing they have in common is they hate the lefties on their side, but tend to agree with the lefties on the other side. Ridiculous.

So, it's probably not realistic that the other side's lefties are going to be put in charge, so our righties must maintain the first and last line of defense.

I, being a left winger in this sense, believe that both sides in that conflict are guilty. It's like a gang war, with drive bys to retaliate against last nite's drive by. But whenever I voice that opinion on a specific issue, I get blasted by the nationalists, from either side, depending on the issue/circumstance.

If I say Arafat is a D!ck that cares not for his people, but only to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, right wing backers of Palestine will blast me.

If I say the same about Sharon, Israeli righties hate me.

Fact is, I believe fully in both statements.

I also believe that even if Arafat wanted peace, and worked toward it, he'd be a dead man as the right wing there would have none of it.

Same goes for Israel. Fact is, it was unfortunately played out that way with Rabin, when a right winger, that didn't like all this talk about peace, put a bullet in him.


__________________
- It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.