feedback.pdxradio.com

feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

1. roger_2.0
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 393

   Since we as a nation seem so polarized, I am curious,

   For those leaning left, can we swing too far left?

   Wonder if there is a too far left for the Rachel Maddow-Sean Penn crowd

   For those on the right, Can we go too far right?

   Is there a limit for the Limbaugh-Beck group?

   For the Liberal PDXers, Obviously Boosh was too far right, but at what point would we be too far left?

   For those at PDX labeled neo-coners, Oh-bama is too far left, but would you ever think there was a point where we could be too far right?

   Just curious because every discussion seems to decay to the point where the other guy is dead wrong.

   Posted on April 6, 2010 - 07:49 AM #
2. Darktemper
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 764

   If you've gone Far Left or Far Right then you've gone to far.

   This video explains it very well: http://www.motionbox.com/videos/069bdeb31916e98f
   

   Posted on April 6, 2010 - 07:57 AM #
3. missing_kskd
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 3,302

   On the economic axis (remember the cube), too far left would be commies. nobody wants that. Too far right would be a corporate nation, with little fiefdoms, each owned by a corporate overlord.

   On the social axis, too far left would be rampant social freedom, few boundaries, and a state sanctioned "woodstock". Too far right would be no social action left unconstrained by very rigid, and faith based boundaries, discrimination, etc...

   Where authority is concerned, lefties would have a totally decentralized government, all local, with just a token state, righties would have kings, fiefs, etc... little to no local power at all.

   Posted on April 6, 2010 - 08:41 AM #
4. Andrew
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 1,083

   I prefer not to look at it too much as "left" or "right." That's much too simplistic a way to categorize people and issues. I look at what someone actually does rather than simply trying to stick a label on him/her.

   George W. Bush was a terrible president not because he was "too far right" but because of his actual policies, which were often not conservative. Growing the size of government and increasing the size of the national debt is NOT supposed to make one "conservative" but both Reagan and George W. Bush did so in the most extreme way possible. Balancing the budget is supposed to be a conservative priority, but Bill Clinton did it.

   Barack Obama is hard to pin down with a label, too. He's increased the American commitment in Afghanistan and has moved to increase off-shore oil drilling and re-start America's nuclear power program. He recently signed an executive order re-affirming a ban on federal funds to pay for abortions. Are these the policies of a left-wing socialist?

   Let's try to be intelligent people and try to look beyond the labels, eh?

   Posted on April 6, 2010 - 09:20 AM #
5. Master of Disaster
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 528

   Having left/right questions and opinions isn't the problem. What I think should be done more often is everyone agrees that they disagree on some controversial issue and leave it as that. I know the term "23 percenters" was used during the Bush Administration, representing those who supported him and his stance on issues no matter what, and there was no way one could convince them otherwise. I think when talking to those who discuss partisan politics online, we're probably talking to that 23 percent right there.

   I prefer not to look at it too much as "left" or "right." That's much too simplistic a way to categorize people and issues. I look at what someone actually does rather than simply trying to stick a label on him/her.
   Totally agree 100% on this. So much information is available online these days. However, many people still vote based on hearsay. It's so easy, especially with vote by mail elections like here in Oregon, to sit down with your ballot in front of the computer, pull up a search engine, and type in the name of each candidate individually. You get so much more information than what the candidate will say about themself in an ad (including the voters pamphlet), and you could find some good yet otherwise obscure candidate you agree with completely who didn't or couldn't take out a voters pamphlet statement.
   A few years ago, I was going to vote for someone, but realized that they prominently said one thing on their website, but on another page written around the same time said something totally contradictory on the very same issue!

   Posted on April 6, 2010 - 09:39 AM #
6. Vitalogy
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 1,919

   I don't think it's fair to lump Rachel Maddow with Sean Penn.

   Posted on April 6, 2010 - 10:06 AM #
7. RadioBuggie
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 288

   http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=23537848

   Posted on April 6, 2010 - 10:10 AM #
8. Alfredo_T
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 1,493

   In today's political climate, the extremes of the political spectrum can sometimes "wrap around" when a simple left/right model is used. In other words, if one looks at people on the extremes, one can sometimes find them supporting very similar positions, albeit for different reasons. For instance:

   • There are people on both extremes who would like to see US forces pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as less overall involvement in the political affairs of foreign countries.
   • There are people on both extremes that would like to see the government take on a more protectionist approach with regards to its borders. Both the left and right are afraid of the loss of US jobs to lower wage countries. Anxiety over the loss of American cultural identity, however, exists exclusively on the right part of the spectrum.
   • There are people on both extremes that oppose the fluoridation of municipal water supplies.

   Posted on April 6, 2010 - 10:52 AM #
9. missing_kskd
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 3,302

   Neither would I. Rachael is solid left on social, authoritarian and economic axis, but she's also very rational about it, easily able to support her positions.

   Sean is similar, but not the same quality of thinker.

   Re: 23 percenters. I will find it very difficult to surrender that term, given the current body of racists, theocrats, bigots working hard to escalate the conflict. Sadly, there is no "agree to disagree" on those particular things. They are always wrong, without question. When I use the term "23 percenter", I am generally referring to these people, who exhibit those core character issues.

   Posted on April 6, 2010 - 10:56 AM #
10. Skybill9
    

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,749

    "I don't think it's fair to lump Rachel Maddow with Sean Penn."

    I agree. Sean Penn is an idiot in a catagory all by himself.

    Posted on April 6, 2010 - 11:13 AM #
11. Andy_brown
    

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 944

    Left and right seem to refer more to ideologies than practice.
    Liberal and conservative seem to refer more to practice then ideologies.
    Politicians rarely practice what they preach.
    Politicians running for office will position themselves for votes.
    Politicians in office will position themselves for re-elections.
    Democrat and Republican seem to just be labels for the two major "teams" in the political sport.
    Each side has members covering a large range of ideologies. Clearly, the window for Republicans
    will start slightly left of center and go to the extreme right. The window for Democrats will start
    slightly right of center and go to the extreme left. Hence, there is a lot of overlap. Unfortunately,
    most politicians come to bat, they will not ignore the signals from the third base coach.

    The media is in business to sell airtime, print ads, net ads, etc. They are focused on that, not
    getting the story totally accurate or complete.

    OK. So we all know this. So the question is can we swing too far?

    Left No. We are a conservative nation made up of many factions ranging across the political spectrum.
    Right No. We are a progressive nation made up of free thinkers with liberal ideas to make life better for all.

    What we've got here in this country is a failure of the politicians to stay focused on their jobs. It seems very few actually get to Washington and remember this is about us, not them. The beauty of the system is that their elective appointment is usually for a term, and next time around they have to be re-elected. That's the good thing since we can throw them out, and it's the bad thing since they will try to "cash" in on their new found powers as soon as they get there.

    It's interesting, at least to me, that the political center moves. It is dynamic. It wanders left and right over the decades. Case and point: SCOTUS Judge Stevens. Appointed by Ford, a conservative now labeled a liberal.
    As he has said, "I haven't changed" although the political vapors in D.C. sure have.

    Go figure. It seems whatever "label" sells, that's what political neophytes will latch on to.

    Posted on April 6, 2010 - 01:14 PM #
12. Brianl
    

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,280

    "Left and right seem to refer more to ideologies than practice.
    Liberal and conservative seem to refer more to practice then ideologies."

    Well said.

    I really think that the vast majority of people pin the "left-right" or "liberal-conservative" button on their chests based much more on their social views, than economic views.

    If you look at the last 50 years, our two most "conservative" Presidents were Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. If you look at their fiscal records, the only true "conservative" viewpoints they practiced were:

    -lower taxes, especially on the highest income bracket people
    -HUGE military spending
    -Corporate deregulation en masse

    Neither practiced fiscal restraint, in the least. The size and spending of the federal government increased dramatically under both; and instead of raising taxes to pay for it, they borroed. Instead of practicing the conservative mantra of fiscal restraint, they went apeshit in spending.

    Both are considered staunch conservatives more for their stances against abortion, gay marriage, religion, gun rights, etc, etc. In those areas, they fall rank and file with what a traditional conservative is, in this country.

    Conversely, look at Bill Clinton. Considered by most to be liberal. Here is where Clinton was in line with the left fiscally:

    -A more progressive tax system, lowering the burden on the middle class and raising it on the higher income folks.
    -A (failed) attempt at socialized health care.

    And here is where he went against the liberal grain:
    -Real welfare reform, making it more difficult to get.
    -A budget SURPLUS. (!)
    -Clinton did next to nothing to reign in the deregulation.

    Fiscally, I would hardly paint his track record as "liberal". Socially, though, he was much more a traditional lefty:

    -Pro-choice
    -The aforementioned stab at socialized medicine
    -Our first true "gay-friendly" POTUS (settled for Don't Ask, Don't Tell)

    Where Obama ends up remains to be seen, but he clearly is not the "socialist", lockstep liberal that some make him to be. Being a proponent of offshore drilling and the expansion of nuclear power has pissed off his Democratic constituents, and shown that he's not some shill guy for the liberals.

    Posted on April 6, 2010 - 01:59 PM #
13. skeptical
    

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,684

    If Obama is pissing off people on both sides of the aisle, he may be just what our country needs politically.

    Posted on April 6, 2010 - 02:12 PM #
14. Listener_Pete
    

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,907

    Being pissed off is better than being pissed on, that's what George W. Bush did.

    Posted on April 6, 2010 - 02:57 PM #
15. skeptical
    

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,684

    There we go!

    Posted on April 6, 2010 - 03:30 PM #
16. Andrew
    

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,083

    "Lower taxes" all by itself is not a true conservative value. "Fiscal responsibility" and "smaller government" are traditional conservative values - and if practiced together should by default result in lower taxes. Cutting taxes by increasing the size of the national debt is not a "conservative" approach.

    Posted on April 6, 2010 - 04:17 PM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.