Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[Brad Sallows]

Actually - "simplistic conventional political science", run by academics (an overwhelmingly pro-left "profession" if ever there was one), is part and parcel of the ongoing effort to stick the label on the forehead of the political right.  They are not disinterested honest brokers in this matter, nor do I trust the objectivity of Wikipedia articles on anything to do with politics except raw data (eg. election results).  Use as a shorthand for "oppressive governance" is sloppy, and means the label is firmly back on the left.  "Oppressive governance" by definition is absent as one starts on the far right with anarchism and proceeds through minarchism, flavours of libertarianism, classical liberalism on a journey toward the political centre.  You can't get to "oppressive governance" on the right, except by mistaking the difference between statist and individualist doctrines.  Those who don't believe facets of fascism such as nationalism belong on the left should consult Stalin on the concept of "rodina"; regardless, the substitution of "party" for "country/motherland" has historically been an easy one to make (see almost any "Communist" regime).  The undesirable aspects of capitalism are the result of the drift of modern governance to the left - you can't have effective lobbying if government hasn't taken a lot of authority and power unto itself to deliver results to the lobbyists.  That too has nothing in common with pro-individual doctrines.

If you look to things like "nationalism" (if you insist it must be considered separately from pro-Party fervour) and egalitarianism, all you have done is show that fascism and socialism are two trains running the same pro-state direction on double tracks.  That is the same tired rationalization tactic used ad nauseum - find some small differences, adopt a posture of solemn exactness, and claim "it isn't really X" as if only "true" socialism and communism belong on the left and everything else must, therefore, belong on the right.  Those factors are nowhere near as significant as the real deciding factor: does the doctrine favour the power and authority of the state, or does the doctrine favour the individual?  If you want to separate the "fused" elements, you need to add a vertical axis.  That will still leave statism on the left where it all belongs in all its flavours and mixtures, but you can feel free to shuffle the pieces apart in the vertical.

 

[Redeye]

Actually - "simplistic conventional political science", run by academics (an overwhelmingly pro-left "profession" if ever there was one), is part and parcel of the ongoing effort to stick the label on the forehead of the political right.  They are not disinterested honest brokers in this matter, nor do I trust the objectivity of Wikipedia articles on anything to do with politics except raw data (eg. election results).  Use as a shorthand for "oppressive governance" is sloppy, and means the label is firmly back on the left.  "Oppressive governance" by definition is absent as one starts on the far right with anarchism and proceeds through minarchism, flavours of libertarianism, classical liberalism on a journey toward the political centre.  You can't get to "oppressive governance" on the right, except by mistaking the difference between statist and individualist doctrines.  Those who don't believe facets of fascism such as nationalism belong on the left should consult Stalin on the concept of "rodina"; regardless, the substitution of "party" for "country/motherland" has historically been an easy one to make (see almost any "Communist" regime).  The undesirable aspects of capitalism are the result of the drift of modern governance to the left - you can't have effective lobbying if government hasn't taken a lot of authority and power unto itself to deliver results to the lobbyists.  That too has nothing in common with pro-individual doctrines.

I love people who dismiss wikipedia out of hand. It's usually because of that long-standing problem of "facts having a known liberal bias". The entry in question cites myriad sources. It's funny to that the people who will make this sort of statement are overwhelmingly the people who get all their "news" from RW blogs etc.

Oppressive governance is absent on the far right? ARE YOU KIDDING? Ever hear of Pinochet? Or the Argentine Junta? Franco? Seriously, in what dream world is that true? And your comments pretty much go downhill from there.

If you look to things like "nationalism" (if you insist it must be considered separately from pro-Party fervour) and egalitarianism, all you have done is show that fascism and socialism are two trains running the same pro-state direction on double tracks.  That is the same tired rationalization tactic used ad nauseum - find some small differences, adopt a posture of solemn exactness, and claim "it isn't really X" as if only "true" socialism and communism belong on the left and everything else must, therefore, belong on the right.  Those factors are nowhere near as significant as the real deciding factor: does the doctrine favour the power and authority of the state, or does the doctrine favour the individual?  If you want to separate the "fused" elements, you need to add a vertical axis.  That will still leave statism on the left where it all belongs in all its flavours and mixtures, but you can feel free to shuffle the pieces apart in the vertical.

You realize that I could reverse this argument and it's basically the same.

The vertical axis, when you look at two axes, is normally about state control. Degree of statism is reflected only on the vertical axis, and doesn't bear on right or left. The whole thing about collectivism versus individualism is what muddies a single axis spectrum, because at some point individualism becomes about the interests of a specific group of individuals at the expense of others' liberty. When those interests become like a statist state's they start to look about the same.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I read the Wikipedia article a long time ago, and all it confirmed to me is that there is a lot of disagreement over canonical fascism as people bend themselves in knots trying not to land in the progressive/socialist part of the single-axis political spectrum.

Pinochet was, I suppose, a fascist.  Franco supposedly was too, or at least claimed to be.  That doesn't make them or fascism right-wing.  It is just another example of begging the question, and again is a symptom of the desire to disavow fascism on the left.  "Oppressive government exists on the right because Franco and Pinochet were oppressive and fascist, and everyone says fascism belongs on the right."

There is no reason people can not progress from individualism to statism.  But it is the people that move, not the spectrum.

If you are so certain fascism belongs on the right, here are some uncontroversial segments of the spectrum on the right; you tell me between which two of them fascism fits with its cult-of-personality leadership, mobilization of people and culture to serve the state, corporatism, overarching totalitarianism, etc.  Explain why it is more pro-individualism and pro-liberty and small-government than whatever you place on its left, and less pro-individualism/pro-liberty/pro-small-government than whatever you place on its right.
- neo-conservativism
- paleo-conservativism
- classical liberalism
- libertarianism
- minarchism
- anarchism

 

[Redeye]

I read the Wikipedia article a long time ago, and all it confirmed to me is that there is a lot of disagreement over canonical fascism as people bend themselves in knots trying not to land in the progressive/socialist part of the single-axis political spectrum.

Pinochet was, I suppose, a fascist.  Franco supposedly was too, or at least claimed to be.  That doesn't make them or fascism right-wing.  It is just another example of begging the question, and again is a symptom of the desire to disavow fascism on the left.  "Oppressive government exists on the right because Franco and Pinochet were oppressive and fascist, and everyone says fascism belongs on the right."

There is no reason people can not progress from individualism to statism.  But it is the people that move, not the spectrum.

If you are so certain fascism belongs on the right, here are some uncontroversial segments of the spectrum on the right; you tell me between which two of them fascism fits with its cult-of-personality leadership, mobilization of people and culture to serve the state, corporatism, overarching totalitarianism, etc.  Explain why it is more pro-individualism and pro-liberty and small-government than whatever you place on its left, and less pro-individualism/pro-liberty/pro-small-government than whatever you place on its right.
- neo-conservativism
- paleo-conservativism
- classical liberalism
- libertarianism
- minarchism
- anarchism

Did you even read what I said? It doesn't map "left" or "right" particularly. That said, problematic traits associated with facsism, xenophobic ultranationalism, for example, isn't often a trait of the left - at least, not to the extent that it is associated with the right.

In my opinion, all this pro-liberty and pro-individualism stuff is really BS - or at least, it's an abstraction, because the right is not really interested in that - it's interested in the idea that wealth can shape the state to suit its ends. The "liberty" it would bring is an illusion because the implied social mobility would sound really great, but when all the sudden things like quality education become unavailable to the population except those who can afford it, and society absorbs losses of failed businesses while successful ones prosper unimpeded by taxation, you eventually wind up with a recipe for disaster, because at some point the disenfranchised will decide that they have to find other ways to solve their problems.

The right has been peddling this idea to its base for a long time. I used to think it was great, until I realized that it's just fluff. It's no better than the ideas of the left and extreme egalitarianism - I think the optimum lies somewhere between them.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Xenophobic ultra nationalism on the left ( not an exhaustive list)-

USSR
Maoist China
North Korea
Albania (my personal favorite)
North Vietnam
Cambodia

Yep. It sure is a trait exclusively of the Right....

 

[Redeye]

Xenophobic ultra nationalism on the left ( not an exhaustive list)-

USSR
Maoist China
North Korea
Albania (my personal favorite)
North Vietnam
Cambodia

Yep. It sure is a trait exclusively of the Right....

:facepalm:

Never said it was.

However, the USSR? Really? The state that basically tried to create a supranational identity (though it can be argued that it was basically Russification in some ways). They also worked pretty hard at developing client states including bringing people from them to study in the USSR. Not quite what I had in mind. They did, however, also engage in some pretty relentless persecution of Jews for a while too though - I don't know enough about how they framed it though. Russia did have some ultranationalists heavily involved in politics. All on the hard right.

But last time I checked - while the USA is in no way extreme, I don't find too many people on the left attacking the current President because of his middle name or his ancestry. Nor do I look at organizations like National Front in France, or the English Defence League and see them on the left side of any spectrum. I don't find too many left-leaning people who want to push religion into legislation much less try to reframe religion to fit their agendas.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That said, problematic traits associated with facsism, xenophobic ultranationalism, for example, isn't often a trait of the left - at least, not to the extent that it is associated with the right.

Pardon me for having difficulty parsing the grammer in this sentence, then.

Say- was that the sound of your strawman exploding?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Pardon me for having difficulty parsing the grammer in this sentence, then.

Say- was that the sound of your strawman exploding?

S'okay. I understand he orders straw by the round bale. 

 

[Redeye]

S'okay. I understand he orders straw by the round bale. 

Can I get another extra large order of hypocrisy? Okay, that's enough. I'm done with this.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Can I get another extra large order of hypocrisy? Okay, that's enough. I'm done with this.

Sadly, your posting history says otherwise.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Can I get another extra large order of hypocrisy? Okay, that's enough. I'm done with this.

Careful. You'll make me cry.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Lest I be seen as unkind-

I don't think the defining nature of a totalitarian regime is whether the regime defines itself as right or left.  Rather, I think dictatorships will wrap themselves in whatever slogans, language, or doctrine that is calculated to best keep them in power.  It doesn't matter that there might be inherent contradictions (from a pure left/right spectrum point of view) in what the Regime says or does.  It is all about the exercise of raw power and the shutting out of opposition.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Actually - "simplistic conventional political science ..... feel free to shuffle the pieces apart in the vertical."

I am now quite convinced that Brad Sallows is actually Stephen Harper. 

 

[Redeye]

Lest I be seen as unkind-

I don't think the defining nature of a totalitarian regime is whether the regime defines itself as right or left.  Rather, I think dictatorships will wrap themselves in whatever slogans, language, or doctrine that is calculated to best keep them in power.  It doesn't matter that there might be inherent contradictions (from a pure left/right spectrum point of view) in what the Regime says or does.  It is all about the exercise of raw power and the shutting out of opposition.

Which is more or less what I was getting at.

And recceguy, I know I won't make you cry, and I couldn't care any less about your opinion of anything, really. But the fact stands: all of your commentary about "the left" is composed of strawmen, and nothing more. Granted, you're a step about Thuc posting articles so devoid of substance as to make me laugh and shake my head simultaneously.

 

[a_majoor]

I actually found it rather refreshing that you gave an answer in the "Economic Superthread" with numbers, proper historical context etc. to explain the Canadian government's support of the banks during the height of the 2008 crisis. Oddly you reject historical context, numbers etc. WRT anything else.

In theory, at least, it means redemption is possible.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Can I get another extra large order of hypocrisy? Okay, that's enough. I'm done with this.

Which is more or less what I was getting at.

And recceguy, I know I won't make you cry, and I couldn't care any less about your opinion of anything, really. But the fact stands: all of your commentary about "the left" is composed of strawmen, and nothing more. Granted, you're a step about Thuc posting articles so devoid of substance as to make me laugh and shake my head simultaneously.

Wow, that lasted a long time

Almost 24 hrs

 

[DBA]

But last time I checked - while the USA is in no way extreme, I don't find too many people on the left attacking the current President because of his middle name or his ancestry. Nor do I look at organizations like National Front in France, or the English Defence League and see them on the left side of any spectrum. I don't find too many left-leaning people who want to push religion into legislation much less try to reframe religion to fit their agendas.

Observer bias, the nuts on our side don't seem as extreme as those on the other side purely because of where we are standing. It's also a common rhetorical tactic to hype this bias to get more support from people. Lots of people get trapped in it even though they often recognize the dishonestly of it when the other side employs it.

I remember advice from military training along the lines of: "a good plan well executed beats the best plan poorly executed" which I think is very applicable to politics. A plan that matches our political preferences but is poorly executed is not superior to a well executed plan that is less of a match. This is were the Left has it's greatest failing: they are so sure of the superiority of their ideas they don't seem to bother with making sure the execution actually achieves the professed goals. As a result they go too far and make things worse. An example would be rent control: at a basic level it can provide protection to renters from sudden large increases in rent, taken too far and it results in the same thing as all price caps: increased demand and reduced supply which for housing results in increases in the homeless. It benefits those already renting (even 1%ers) while screwing over all those who will be looking for a place in the future.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Xenophobic ultranationalism isn't often a trait of the right, unless you can find some examples.

>the right is not really interested in that - it's interested in the idea that wealth can shape the state to suit its ends. The "liberty" it would bring is an illusion because the implied social mobility would sound really great, but when all the sudden things like quality education become unavailable to the population except those who can afford it, and society absorbs losses of failed businesses while successful ones prosper unimpeded by taxation, you eventually wind up with a recipe for disaster, because at some point the disenfranchised will decide that they have to find other ways to solve their problems.

That's a nice straw man you have constructed on behalf of "the right".  Socialization of losses seems chiefly to be a problem of socialist states or modern "centrist" states with a healthy dose of left-liberal policies, or really any jurisdiction in which corporatism and crony capitalism have taken sway - the point there is that the state has to be the enabler.  "The right" is not actually in favour of corporatism or crony capitalism, as compared to free competition and capitalism proper.

Totalitarianism (widespread state control and influence) is an almost unavoidable consequence of leftism, and a police state an almost unavoidable consequence of totalitarianism.  The reason is simple enough: many people won't fall in line with the schemes of the rulers voluntarily.

 

[Redeye]

I actually found it rather refreshing that you gave an answer in the "Economic Superthread" with numbers, proper historical context etc. to explain the Canadian government's support of the banks during the height of the 2008 crisis. Oddly you reject historical context, numbers etc. WRT anything else.

In theory, at least, it means redemption is possible.

Because that's the true story. In most cases, well... I'm sure you can figure it out.

 

[a_majoor]

Political manipulation of racism in the US. The highlighted portion is the heart of how "Progressives" pitch the message. In Canada, you could change some of the wording to read "aborigional" to get the flavour in the Canadian context, and I suspect that this sort of manipulation of the dialogue is just as prevalent here:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/house-dems-trained-make-race-issue/537146

House Dems trained to make race the issue
by Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer Share:

Maya Wiley is the founder and President of the Center for Social Inclusion. (photo via website)House Democrats received training this week on how to address the issue of race to defend government programs, according to training materials obtained by The Washington Examiner.

The prepared content of a Tuesday presentation to the House Democratic Caucus and staff indicates that Democrats will seek to portray apparently neutral free-market rhetoric as being charged with racial bias, conscious or unconscious.

In her distributed remarks, Maya Wiley of the Center for Social Inclusion criticized "conservative messages [that are] racially 'coded' and had images of people of color that we commonly see used" and proposed tactics for countering the Republicans' (presumably) racially-coded rhetoric.

According to Wiley's group's website, "right-wing rhetoric has dominated debates of racial justice – undermining efforts to create a more equal society, and tearing apart the social safety net in the process" for over 25 years. Wiley had been invited to run the Democrats "through their strategy and how they message and talk about stuff" pertaining to race and fiscal policy, a staffer for Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., explained.

As samples of race-coded rhetoric, Wiley reminded the Democrats of statements by Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Of Gingrich's famous comment about President Obama, her distributed remarks note, "Calling a Black man 'the food stamp president' is not a race-neutral statement, even if Newt Gingrich did not intend racism."

But the threshold for what constitutes racially charged messaging is not always so high. One of Santorum's cited comments was: "Give them more food stamps, give them more Medicaid is the administration's approach, rather than creating jobs." She also cited this comment from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., about raising taxes to fund government programs: "I've never believed that you go raise taxes on those that are paying in, taking from them, so that you just hand out and give them to someone else."

Wiley, who did not respond to the Examiner's inquiries yesterday, offered this warning to Democrats about talking to "someone [who] opposes racial justice" but could support Democratic policies: "Don't make the mistake of telling them they're in the problem. It's emotional connection, not rational connection that we need."

To that end, Wiley proposed the use of "race explicit" anecdotes to illustrate problems like the economic crisis. "Explain how each racial group is affected (recognize the unique pain of each group), but start with people who are White," she wrote in her distributed remarks. "Then raise racial disparities." For example, she offered the line: "Homeownership is the American Dream. It hurts the same to lose your home if you're White, Asian, Latino or Black."

Wiley urged Democrats to appeal to "white swing voters while building support among voters of color." She explained that Democratic outreach to white voters needs to communicate that "people of color are in pain and it's the same pain I, as a White person, would or do feel. It's [about] humanizing people of color."