i have mentioned previously that i am a liberal. i have also mentioned previously that i have had online discussions for some time. in that time, i have been in more than my fair share of discussions revolving around politics.
there are, it seems, many folks who don’t understand the basic nature of the various sides in a political discussion. therefore, i thought this a good opportunity to present my views of these sides, at least within the context of US politics.
i’d like to begin first with conservatives. there are really two kinds of conservatives: fiscal and social conservatives. while there’s often a high degree of overlap, the distinction here is important in terms of their sometimes different priorities.
fiscal conservatives are the classic conservatives who have as their priority the way in which the government spends their money. this is certainly an understandable priority: they do not want their money to fund programs w/ which they disagree, and i can certainly agree that as taxpayers, they have legitimate grievances such as pork-barrel projects or more often, government waste. fiscal conservatives generally are suspicious of the power of the federal government and for this reason oppose gun control, seeing it as the unconstitutional encroachment of government power over the citizenry (a stance w/ which i for one happen to agree).
in recent years, social conservatives have become the dominant voice on the conservative side of political discussions. social conservatives are those whose views are generally shaped by their religion, or at least their view of tradition. social conservatives want government programs or projects to reflect the status quo, or in some cases, revert back to some previous time. for this reason, social conservatives take hard stances on issues like gay marriage, which don’t really matter one way or the other to fiscal conservatives.
on another side of the discussion are liberals, and it’s important to understand that there really aren’t two camps of liberals, as by definition, liberals are interested in social issues. liberals want essentially one thing: for government to be socially progressive. therefore, liberals are often pro gay marriage and value other civil liberties issues—and make no mistake, liberals absolutely view gay marriage as a civil liberties issue: the parallels are many and deep.
then there is the authoritarian/libertarian axis of political discussions. authoritarians are trusting of government power and seek to expand it, whereas libertarians are deeply suspicious of it and seek to limit it.
it’s significant to note that both liberals and conservatives can fall anywhere on the authoritarian/libertarian axes. past liberal causes, such as voting rights for all citizens irrespective of gender or “race”, absolutely required the power of the government to effect. past conservative causes, such as the PATRIOT act, are unquestionably appeals to authoritarianism as well.
here’s the odd thing, though: authoritarianism is truly un-american. that isn’t a label i use lightly: i generally think that “un-american” is a largely meaningless term: it sounds scary but doesn’t really say anything, as it depends upon a highly-fluid definition of what “american” means, and that’s a word that’s bound to be defined so subjectively by each person as to lose practically all value as a label.
so here’s what i mean by it: authoritarianism is, at its base, dependent upon a degree of trust and faith in government, and that trust and faith are contrary to the entire ethos of american political thought. the founders of the US immigrated from a monarchy, wherein their rights were few and could be curtailed at the whim of a single person (the king).
it is for this reason that the declaration of independence includes phrases such as “inalienable rights”; is why the government is arranged in three branches (executive, judicial and legislative). the framers of the constitution feared giving rise to an autocrat. they put checks and balances on the power of each branch of government to limit the power of the government.
the framers of the constitution also valued religious freedom: the pilgrims left england in order to practice their religion freely. this was a key point, as they were fleeing a land where their faith was persecuted.
i mention this because for as often as we hear charges this, that or the other thing being “un-american”—which itself evokes images of joe mccarthy and the red scare—i am coming to believe that it was these very people who are being “un-american”.
so is “un-american” a label you use? is it the height of arrogance to presume to describe these very different political philosophies, or does this sound reasonably accurate? comment and let me know.
ed
silverwhisper posted on Dec 27, 2006
| views: 211
Comments
-
lioneljay said on Dec 27, 2006....
I can't stomach the sound of the phrase "un-american" as it reeks most foul of the McCarthy era.
It's quite clear that the current administration has invoked a rather authoritarian stance in its governance and in the process has alienated much of the nation.
Ed, your breakdown of the various political corners was well done. Have you explained your views on gun control here before? I'd be interested in seeing them.
-
silverwhisper said on Dec 27, 2006....
every time i try to make this comment, it screws up. that's kinda pissing me off...
LJ: i feel the same way about that phrase and i agree re: the bush administration's authoritarianism.LJ: i feel the same way about that phrase and i agree re: the bush administration's authoritarianism.
i've previously articulated my views on gun control (see link), as well as my personal and admittedly idiosyncratic vision for what i want the democratic party to be.
ed -
carmachu said on Dec 27, 2006....
Yes actually. Because there are some people that TRUELY are un-american, and would see us cast down, who are our citizens. And not talking about the usual round of Democrat/Republican nor Liberal/Conservative axis. As for the current administration....*shrug* History will tell if his authoritaive actions were right or wrong....Personally, my belief is were still in the beginning stages of the struggle with Islam.....just teh preamble, if you will. But you already knew my opinions... -
kelly said on Dec 28, 2006....
Interesting break-down. It made me realize that many people are espousing authoritarian ideals yet claiming to be "conservative."I would say that authoritarianism is "un-American" if you take personal freedoms to be one of the pillars of what this country was founded on. However, the odd thing is that you usually hear people getting called un-American who are the very ones trying to defend individual rights!Still, I avoid the term since it is so jingoistic. Most of what passes for political discussion around here amounts to no more than name-calling.I disagree with caramachu. While there may be a few US citizens who would like to see America come down (Timothy McVeigh?) I'm guessing that 99% of the people are interested either in making the country better or in making their positions in the country better. Either way I seriously doubt that most people act with the belief that they will be bringing down the country.On the other hand, there are lots of people who would sell out their own mothers for a buck, so I could be wrong about that. -
GrapeKoolaid said on Dec 28, 2006....
Boy oh boy, ed. You know I eat this kind of stuff up.
To start with, there are worse things than being labeled "un-American" by a bunch of mouth breathing flag wavers. Little do they know their flags came with a little golden, oval sticker that reads "Made in China".
The spirit of pioneerism, keeping the King of England out of your face, and other "American" values have been replaced by social conservatism, maintaining the status quo, keeping the dogs at bay, and otherwise being a good corporate citizen.
The abdication of power(and the ensuing responsibility) by the legislative branch, coupled with the executive branch seeking to expand its power, we are indeed becoming more and more autocratic. It's more than a little ironic that a country that claims to "let freedom ring" also has the highest percentage of its population incarcerated.
-
carmachu said on Dec 28, 2006....
"It's more than a little ironic that a country that claims to "let freedom ring" also has the highest percentage of its population incarcerated."Oh? And what, pray tell, do we do with folks that break the law then? I think thou protest too much there.... -
silverwhisper said on Dec 28, 2006....
carmachu: aren't the folks to whom you refer more anti-american than un-american, though?
kelly: yes, that precise apparent hypocrisy is something that i've noticed more than a few times myself. but leave it to folks like ann coulter to reduce the level of discourse. :D
grape: there's no question that under the bush administration we've become more autocratic. i often wonder if the same people who support these curtailments in civil liberties would agree if it were clinton in the white house. i somehow sincerely doubt it. that said, the # of inmates thing is a complete red herring, as carmachu rightly notes, IMV.
ed -
peedee said on Dec 28, 2006....
Hi! SW, I was at one point of time extremely intersted in politics both national and international. The nature of politics in India is extremely complex. The left, the centre and the right. In America we have the Republicans and the Democrats. In UK we have the Labour and Tory and another entity the Liberals. In all the three worlds democracies there are certain agencies working round the clock behind the curtains. The best part of the story is that these agencies patronize different individuals of different parties at the same time. The Liberal pose as the champions of civil liberties everyhere but the conservatives stand for status quo. Another surprising feature is that one finds conservatives and liberals in every party with only one purpose, to acquire a charismatic outlook for better prospects in the times to come. Charecteristically speaking, there is hardly any difference in their overall character and their ultimate goal is to please their masters and sponsors. -
silverwhisper said on Dec 28, 2006....
peedee: so true--it's just a matter of finding out which masters they really serve, no? :>
ed -
SeeingRed said on Dec 28, 2006....
Elementary,uncomplicated and quite precise. Very good Whis!
-
silverwhisper said on Dec 29, 2006....
thank you, seeingred. i'm mildly surprised that alienated hasn't commented. or indeed, any other conservative, of any stripe.
ed -
carmachu said on Dec 29, 2006....
"aren't the folks to whom you refer more anti-american than un-american, though?"
There's a difference?
-
silverwhisper said on Dec 31, 2006....
un-american presumably means "not american", whereas anti-american would presumably mean opposed to america. so yeah, there's a difference. and it's a significant one--assuming the definitions i've provided are accurate.
ed -
bewaresmoothtalkers said on May 19, 2007....
I find that when someone preaches to the choir, then the majority of respones would naturally tend to agree with the author to some degree. may i point-out that, there are many people who find it easier to sway more people to their (side) of an issue if they can make their opponents seem far worse then they actually are ! To equate any person to Joe Mccarthy would mean you need to include all people of all stripes that claim something or someone is going to destroy america, i.e.. 1.depletion of the ozone 2.globeable warming that will cause a rise in the oceans of 23 feet 3.the aids epidemic will spead into the hedrosexual community thru-out the world and will cause massive deaths, if we in america don't act! and finally how about the one that the president staged (9/11) so we could go to war !! Mccarthy in reality was no different these other examples I've given, he could not get people to take notice of what he really believed to be a threat to his country, so ! he made-up fictitious numbers for all the communist in america and falsely claimed he had proof to back up his numbers. -
silverwhisper said on May 20, 2007....
hello, beware. welcome to my blog and thank you for visiting! i'm surprised you were able to find this old entry, to be honest.
of course it's been popular in politics to demonize that which is different or opposes. the problem with such efforts is that they are invariably grounded on ad hominems and strawmen.
ed
Comment on "on the nature of politics"
Related Posts:
husbandhater
posted 5 days ago
| views: 75
|
In Huntsville Ark,the owners of the Faubus Motel in Northwest Arkansas say they replaced "Old Glory" with a confederate flag outside their business after the election of Barack Obama but not b/c the New President is Black,NO! No,owners James and Linda... read entire post
stopmediabias
posted about 23 hours ago
| views: 30
|
It's not about gay or straight...... read entire post
ALIENated
posted about 8 hours ago
| views: 16
|
So how are you liking socialism so far?
... read entire post