Political Ideologies of Fellow Civvers

[Narz]

Someone I'll disagree with alot?

 

[Joecoolyo]

Someone I'll disagree with alot?

I'd think you'd be a welfare supporter, though.

 

[Narz]

Kind of. I do think it can sap motivation & keep people stuck in poverty though. I do believe the government has a role to serve it's communities though (instead of worrying about "building back" foreign countries it invaded) but there are better ways than direct welfare.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Kind of. I do think it can sap motivation & keep people stuck in poverty though. I do believe the government has a role to serve it's communities though (instead of worrying about "building back" foreign countries it invaded) but there are better ways than direct welfare.

What other ways are better than direct welfare?

And I'm not asking that to deride you, I'm actually curious. My support of a welfare state comes solely from the fact that I can't really think of any other way to help the individual who is in desperate poverty. It's probably one of my weaker/less developed areas of my ideology.

 

[Narz]

Well, decreasing the cost of living (rent specifically) would go a long way & more places like this which provide free meals, clothing & food (for home use). They get some support from the govt. (USDA I believe donates part of the food, the rest are non-expired but near-expiration donations from Trader Joe's & Whole Food's in the area as well as private donations).

Direct financial assistance can be helpful but when you're in a crappy neighborhood with no opportunity surrounded by fast food & liquor stores with no public service & the feeling that no one really gives a crap about you or your community cash alone isn't going to help much (just help you survive but probably also help you get into trouble).

So, anyway, I'm a supporter of building up communities (better pay for teachers, better schools, better public services, reward people somehow for giving back to their communities, etc.).

I imagine if we ended corporate welfare & ended foreign occupations we could run public libraries, rec centers & counseling services nationwide 24 hours a day.

I haven't really thought about the logistics of what I'd actually want to see in too much depth simply for the pragmatic reason that I don't have the power to make it happen anyway (nor do I expect to ever gain political power).

 

[shadowplay]

Capitalist, non-interventionist, socially liberal.

So I consider myself a libertarian.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is not true.

In the 19th century the Democrats, from Thomas Jefferson to Grover Cleveland, were liberals in the classical sense - believers in liberty. They opposed the Whigs (and later the Republicans) who were the party of big business and special interests. For example, when Lincoln came to power he massively increased tariffs to force people to buy from his cronies in Northern industry instead of cheap foreign goods. Similarly he gave out huge concessions to the railroads to build lines to the Pacific.

In the 19th century people understood that the only way that ordinary people can defend themselves from the depredations of the wealthy and well-connected is through fighting for liberty for all and keeping the government as small as possible. Thus the democrats were the liberals, the party of the ordinary people.

In 1896, the Democratic party was hijacked by Progressives and has remained in their hands ever since. The Progressive argues that the way to prevent the influence of the wealthy and well-connected is to use the government to keep them in line. It's nonsense, of course. The purpose of the state is enable the wealthy and well-connected to steal from the general populace in a legal fashion.

Even so the Progressives claimed to be party of the people, which historically the Democratic party had been. Thus the word liberal gradually came to be a synonym for Progressive. A very different kind of party of the people, but one that still made its old claims. This is even more clear in Canada where the party which was hijacked is called the "Liberal Party".

In places like Britain where the Progressives founded their own party (Labour) instead of taking one over, the word Liberal retained its original meaning. I believe this is also true in most of continental Europe.

For someone so enthusiastic about "the ordinary people", you seem rather unwilling to attribute them the slightest historical agency. Any particular reason for that?

 

[mayor]

I like to see myself as a socially liberal

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm a capitalist supporting, free marketeer with sympathies in a welfare state like apparatus and an interventionist foreign policy of sorts.

What the hell am I?

Johnson Democrat.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Great, so now me and Traitorfish and Max Stirner and Trotsky are all in the same group.

And Tolstoy!

 

[Abegweit]

For someone so enthusiastic about "the ordinary people", you seem rather unwilling to attribute them the slightest historical agency. Any particular reason for that?

The number of times and places where ordinary people had even the slightest historical agency is vanishingly small. IMO, the vast majority of people are victims of Stockholm Syndrome. Anyone who thinks that it is possible to use the tools of power for the benefit of those who are powerless simply knows nothing about history. And has abandoned all use of his Common Sense too.

I do think that the Internet gives some hope for getting the truth out despite the official gatekeepers.

 

[Quackers]

I'm a capitalist supporting, free marketeer with sympathies in a welfare state like apparatus and an interventionist foreign policy of sorts.

What the hell am I?

Don't take this the wrong way, this is a genuine response.

Neo-Conservative..

Now why do I say that?

Lets see:
Neoconservatives believe in the free market with some regulation and welfare for the common good. However their main thrust is in foreign policy with the goal of spreading American ideas of democracy and freedom to other nations. Neo conservatism isn't really a proper political identity; it's relatively new, iirc it's main idealogue Irvin Kristol was born in the 20th century!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, a true 80s neo-con supports limited welfare and regulation, but in the last 20 years their position has effectively become conflated with fiscal and/or evangelical conservatism. The only remaining "true" neo-cons are Cold Warriors like Pipes and Hegelians like Fukayama.

So I would not be so quick to self-identify as a neo-con. I think you need to qualify what "sympathies for the welfare state" entails. Neo-cons don't really have sympathy for the welfare state, they simply acknowledge the limited welfare state's usefulness in keeping people somewhat satiated.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Well, decreasing the cost of living (rent specifically) would go a long way & more places like this which provide free meals, clothing & food (for home use). They get some support from the govt. (USDA I believe donates part of the food, the rest are non-expired but near-expiration donations from Trader Joe's & Whole Food's in the area as well as private donations).

Direct financial assistance can be helpful but when you're in a crappy neighborhood with no opportunity surrounded by fast food & liquor stores with no public service & the feeling that no one really gives a crap about you or your community cash alone isn't going to help much (just help you survive but probably also help you get into trouble).

So, anyway, I'm a supporter of building up communities (better pay for teachers, better schools, better public services, reward people somehow for giving back to their communities, etc.).

I imagine if we ended corporate welfare & ended foreign occupations we could run public libraries, rec centers & counseling services nationwide 24 hours a day.

I haven't really thought about the logistics of what I'd actually want to see in too much depth simply for the pragmatic reason that I don't have the power to make it happen anyway (nor do I expect to ever gain political power).

Yeah, a key to building a good society is to build up towns from the crapper, and give everyone an opportunity to succeed in the free market. Which is why I'm thinking a welfare state in combination with internal development would lead to success, though, as you noted, it's a pipe dream considering I have no idea if it's even possible to budget something like that.

Johnson Democrat.

Hmm... interesting, haven't thought of that

Don't take this the wrong way, this is a genuine response.

Neo-Conservative..

Now why do I say that?

Lets see:
Neoconservatives believe in the free market with some regulation and welfare for the common good. However their main thrust is in foreign policy with the goal of spreading American ideas of democracy and freedom to other nations. Neo conservatism isn't really a proper political identity; it's relatively new, iirc it's main idealogue Irvin Kristol was born in the 20th century!

Well, a true 80s neo-con supports limited welfare and regulation, but in the last 20 years their position has effectively become conflated with fiscal and/or evangelical conservatism. The only remaining "true" neo-cons are Cold Warriors like Pipes and Hegelians like Fukayama.

So I would not be so quick to self-identify as a neo-con. I think you need to qualify what "sympathies for the welfare state" entails. Neo-cons don't really have sympathy for the welfare state, they simply acknowledge the limited welfare state's usefulness in keeping people somewhat satiated.

Well, I'm not really sure if it's the right wording or not (remember, I'm not really all too developed on this) but by welfare state basically I believe that everyone should be able to have the ability to compete in the free market, have the same opportunity for success. And this would be achieved with the help of some sort of welfare state apparatus, that would allow even the poorest in society to have the possibility of success.

Maybe the welfare state isn't the best way to go about it, I'm not sure, I not very well versed in it at all. Just as of now that's the best way I can think of.

 

[amadeus]

And Tolstoy!

And you!

Well, a true 80s neo-con supports limited welfare and regulation, but in the last 20 years their position has effectively become conflated with fiscal and/or evangelical conservatism. The only remaining "true" neo-cons are Cold Warriors like Pipes and Hegelians like Fukayama.

So I would not be so quick to self-identify as a neo-con. I think you need to qualify what "sympathies for the welfare state" entails. Neo-cons don't really have sympathy for the welfare state, they simply acknowledge the limited welfare state's usefulness in keeping people somewhat satiated.

The neocons have always supported the welfare-warfare state and the neocons of today are just as aggressive in their support as they were in the 1980s.

 

[useless]

[Citation Needed]

Not so much for Cutlass' point, but racism was an acknowledged factor in the race:

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.


Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?


Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "[Racist N-word repeated three times]." By 1968 you can't say "[Racist N-word]" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "[Racist N-word repeated twice]

From an interview with a member from Reagan's own administration (at the time).

 

[Glassmage]

I am a homosexual neocon....

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I am a homosexual neocon....

I suspect they are more common than you think

 

[aronnax]

Dinosaur Party!

I'm pro-omnivorous, anti-T-Rexian and believe that as little as meteor intervention possible is the best route.

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

I'd be in favor of a welfare state. I just put myself down as liberal independent.