When Americans are polled on any variety of issues, they consistently espouse Liberal values - equality, respect for all, rule of law, etc. The only thing propping up the right at this point is the gerrymander, and a shitload of money from a very small number of donors. That money buys advertising, which bamboozles enough low-information voters, and lets the right keep a tenuous grasp on power.
But it can’t last forever. Fewer and fewer people base their vote on their racism, or pick the candidate who hates queers the most. Those wedge issues worked for Nixon, but they’re not working any more.
Watch the demographics. As more Hispanics become active voters, it’s actually possible we will see a blue Texas in a decade or so. The dirty tricks we keep seeing on the right are a frank admission that their ideas are unpopular.
So no, we’re not headed for a Civil War II, unless the Koch brothers actually hire mercenaries to occupy Washington. I really hope that doesn’t happen.
I disagree. You can’t find a compromise between equality for all, and oppression for some. There is no compromise between democracy and aristocracy. And there’s no compromise between science and superstition. One is right. One is wrong.
There is no “all”, right or wrong for whom? For everybody? There is no true “pleasing everybody” even within a group of a couple thousand. For millions? Not even close. This is the cause of the desperation, assuming that others need to agree so we can do the same thing. Rather than chase this phantom for a few generations, I prefer to split up into manageable groups. I start a nice little country right here with a few friends. You do the same! This is how to get rid of tyranny, instead of finding a few hundred million people who you more or less agree with.
I agree with you absolutely on everything in that paragraph. But as I don’t live in the US, it’s very easy to see that from the outside.
But thus, I fear, my point is proven. That paragraph uses words that may mean different things to to different people and espouses a view that there can be no compromise unless the reader agrees with the writer. The quest for a mutually agreeable solution probably falls at step 1 …
I asked in hopes you would narrow down the scope: it was your set of questions, after all. I don’t know who we are. I espouse few affiliations of any kind and even those few people I know who do, would claim they have a political agenda, much less a common one. This is one of the most hyper-individualistic countries in the world; the Boingers are closer to the rule rather than the exception.
It would be interesting to me to know how many here took the Nolan test and were told based on their answers they’re Social Libertarians, and therefore, no political party represents their interests. What if most the Boingers are Social Libs? What if we followed the advice at the end of the quiz and investigated the modern Whig party and then joined, in a grassroots effort to break the stalemate of the so called two-party system? Or any other party, other than Democrat or Republican? If we succeed, WE stand some chance, all though a small one, of real representation in government and addressing this country’s many enormous problems.
I hold out little hope that 360 million plus people will snap out of their love affair with their own reflections in time to get behind some actions that will save us the consequences of our most pressing domestic and global problems. I am instead looking to countries whose governments know how to move their populations, however brutally, in the directions that are self-preserving, as a country, culture and species. The answers won’t come from prideful, though innovative, US… but I’m more than willing to be pleasantly surprised.
I’m not from the US but there are similar issues in Britain so I’ll offer an opinion.
I tried to take the Nolan test a few weeks ago and couldn’t answer half the questions as they were set as state vs free market issues.
Looking for Social Libertarian on Wikipedia redirects to Libertarian Socialism (which I do identify with) but I doubt that is what the Nolan test means as Lib-Socs tend to be collectivist (with a few exceptions) as well as socialist, and to the left of the Democratic Party. The Modern Whig party are most definitely not Libertarian Socialists.
In my case there is no party that represents me because the current concepts of government being offered do not represent me. About the closest I can get to my views are the IWCA or the Socialist Party of Great Britain. If we limit the parties to those who have a chance of being elected in East Oxford, then I would say it was the Greens.
I don’t think the Whigs are Social Libertarians; I don’t think I’m a Social Libertarian. I don’t think the Whigs will be the third party that breaks the two party stalemate. I vote Green when I bother to vote at all, although I’m watching the Working Families party in NY with interest; they seem to gathering a little momentum. And also Sweden… but that’s a story for another day.
I was wondering if there was any political platform on which the Happy Mutants would agree. Who are we and how would we characterize our political views? Do we think social problems are best addressed from the top down or the bottom up? If we don’t identify with each other or find common cause here, what hope of motivating millions toward their own self-interest?
I like these questions! And this is why I like this community…
I think that we are a diverse group and we have a variety of views, generally speaking. I think we’re, as a group, more into bottom up than top down, and we’re open to new ideas and thinking about new ideas… But you’re dead on about common cause. I do think that most people here are interested in really understanding the truth of things and are open to new ideas.
I can see demonization and misrepresentation of the “Other” going on right here in this thread.
Take the cartoon on equality, for example. Or the idea that the opposite of science is superstition. Those are both dehumanizing and denigrating memes that don’t really advance any dialog, ever.
When you were young and your heart was an open book
You used to say
live and let live
you know you did,
you know
you did
you know you did
But if this ever changing world
in which we’re living
Makes you
give in and cry
SAY LIVE, AND LET DIE
What does it matter to ya
When you got a job to do
You gotta do it well
You gotta give the other fella hell
You used to say live and let live
But if this ever changing world
in which we’re living
Makes you
give in and cry
That’s a neat website, but I don’t find a lot of company where it puts me. I’m solidly socialist economically, but only just over to the libertarian side on the authoritarian - libertarian scale. Maybe explains why I like a good compromise, but seem to annoy “conservatives” and “progressives” alike …
Mine is apparently Economic Left/Right: -7.00 and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.15… I’d suspect I’ve also drifted further than from when I was in my early 20s… They say you get more conservative as you age, but - and maybe this is a byproduct of going to school - I’ve done the opposite…
to not be too de-rail-ish, my point in posting pop-culture icons - Wings and Bond and Rocky and James Brown, is to show how culture trains us to have a stark “us vs. them” mentality.
For what it’s worth, I came out as “Economic Left/Right: -9.50; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.36”, which is consistent with what I got in the past.
However, I’m surprised how often this test comes up, given how crude it is, how limited in applicability, and how questionable its assumptions. It looks very much like it only makes sense in terms of contemporary US politics, and from a conventional point of view.
For instance, a lot of right-wingers would argue that my views on property and political economy are emphatically authoritarian – and to some extent, they’d be right, in that I would support the use of state authority to expropriate wealth, provided it’s a state that’s genuinely acting to bring the economy under popular control.
I’m solidly socialist economically, but only just over to the libertarian side on the authoritarian - libertarian scale. Maybe explains why I like a good compromise, but seem to annoy “conservatives” and “progressives” alike …
