Random Political News

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Random Political News

Postby DreadNaught » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:34 am

beardmcdoug wrote:the glorious day of the rope has arrived for the hollywood/pedo elite. Everyone is complicit. The women are guilty. Look at Oliver Stone's response. Dan Schneider will be next. Of course, the battle is now being fought in the their territory - on the stage, so for the majority of people that still live in the haze will probably forget about this in a couple weeks and go back to their regular programming. praying that the dominoes continue to fall, for the good of the state and the people.

</mdbstylepost>


Hollywood elites are sexual deviants? Who knew?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9023
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby DreadNaught » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:46 am

Interesting recent study by PEW research on the growing partisan divide in the US.

LINK

The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider
Sharp shifts among Democrats on aid to needy, race, immigration

The divisions between Republicans and Democrats on fundamental political values – on government, race, immigration, national security, environmental protection and other areas – reached record levels during Barack Obama’s presidency. In Donald Trump’s first year as president, these gaps have grown even larger.

And the magnitude of these differences dwarfs other divisions in society, along such lines as gender, race and ethnicity, religious observance or education.

A new study by Pew Research Center, based on surveys of more than 5,000 adults conducted over the summer, finds widening differences between Republicans and Democrats on a range of measures the Center has been asking about since 1994, as well as those with more recent trends. But in recent years, the gaps on several sets of political values in particular – including measures of attitudes about the social safety net, race and immigration – have increased dramatically.

Government aid to needy. Over the past six years, the share of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying the government should do more to help the needy, even if it means going deeper into debt, has risen 17 percentage points (from 54% to 71%), while the views of Republicans and Republican leaners have barely changed (25% then, 24% today). However, Republicans’ opinions on this issue had shifted substantially between 2007 and 2011, with the share favoring more aid to the needy falling 20 points (from 45% to 25%).

The result: While there has been a consistent party gap since 1994 on government aid to the poor, the divisions have never been this large. In 2011, about twice as many Democrats as Republicans said the government should do more for the needy (54% vs. 25%). Today, nearly three times as many Democrats as Republicans say this (71% vs. 24%).

Racial discrimination. In recent years, Democrats’ views on racial discrimination also have changed, driving an overall shift in public opinion. Currently, 41% of Americans say racial discrimination is the main reason many blacks cannot get ahead – the largest share expressing this view in surveys dating back 23 years. Still, somewhat more Americans (49%) say blacks who cannot get ahead are mostly responsible for their own condition.

When the racial discrimination question was first asked in 1994, the partisan difference was 13 points. By 2009, it was only somewhat larger (19 points). But today, the gap in opinions between Republicans and Democrats about racial discrimination and black advancement has increased to 50 points.

Immigration. Nearly two-thirds of Americans (65%) say immigrants strengthen the country “because of their hard work and talents.” Just 26% say immigrants are a burden “because they take our jobs, housing and health care.” Views of immigrants, though little changed from a year ago, are more positive than at any point in the past two decades.

As with views of racial discrimination, there has been a major shift in Democrats’ opinions about immigrants. The share of Democrats who say immigrants strengthen the country has increased from 32% in 1994 to 84% today. By contrast, Republicans are divided in attitudes about immigrants: 42% say they strengthen the country, while 44% view them as a burden. In 1994, 30% of Republicans said immigrants strengthened the country, while 64% said they were a burden.

“Peace through strength.” About six-in-ten Americans (61%) say good diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace, while 30% say peace is ensured by military strength. Opinions in both parties have changed since the 1990s; Democrats increasingly say peace is ensured by good diplomacy, while Republicans say it is military strength that ensures peace. Today, 83% of Democrats and Democratic leaners see good diplomacy as the way to ensure peace, compared with just 33% of Republicans and Republican leaners.

The partisan shifts on political values over the past 23 years have had different trajectories across different sets of issues. While there has been greater movement among Democrats than Republicans on several issues, on others Republicans have shown more change.

In views of stricter environmental laws and regulations, for example, there has been a larger long-term change among Republicans than Democrats. Republicans are far less supportive of stricter environmental laws than they were in the mid-1990s, while Democrats have become somewhat more supportive.

But the bottom line is this: Across 10 measures that Pew Research Center has tracked on the same surveys since 1994, the average partisan gap has increased from 15 percentage points to 36 points.

Two decades ago, the average partisan differences on these items were only somewhat wider than differences by religious attendance or educational attainment and about as wide as the differences between blacks and whites (14 points, on average). Today, the party divide is much wider than any of these demographic differences.

Partisan gaps have grown even on measures in which opinion in both parties has moved in the same direction, such as support for societal acceptance of homosexuality. Currently, 70% of Americans say homosexuality should be accepted – the highest percentage ever.

For the first time, a majority of Republicans (54%) favor acceptance of homosexuality; just 38% did so in 1994. Yet over this period, the increase in the share of Democrats saying homosexuality should be accepted has been much larger (from 54% to 83%). As a result, partisan differences have gotten larger.

The surveys find that while Republicans and Democrats have grown further apart, there are sizable divisions within both parties on many political values. Younger Republicans differ from older Republicans in attitudes about immigration and several other issues. Among Republicans and Republican leaners younger than 30, 62% say immigrants strengthen the country; half as many Republicans ages 65 and older say the same (31%).

In recent years, there has been a decline in the share of Democrats who say that most people can get ahead if they work hard. Only about half of Democrats (49%) express this view, down from 58% three years ago. A large majority of Republicans (77%) continue to say hard work pays off for most people.

Democrats are divided by education and race in their views of hard work and success. White Democrats and those with higher levels of education are less likely than nonwhite Democrats and those with less education to say that hard work leads to success.

Other important findings

Partisan antipathy remains extensive. The shares of Republicans and Democrats who express very unfavorable opinions of the opposing party have increased dramatically since the 1990s, but have changed little in recent years. Currently, 44% of Democrats and Democratic leaners have a very unfavorable opinion of the GOP, based on yearly averages of Pew Research Center surveys; 45% of Republicans and Republican leaners view the Democratic Party very unfavorably. In 1994, fewer than 20% in both parties viewed the opposing party very unfavorably.

Big house, small house. Our studies of political polarization and partisan antipathy both found that the disagreements between Republicans and Democrats go far beyond political values and issues. They also have markedly different preferences about where they would like to live. Most Republicans (65%) say they would rather live in a community where houses are larger and farther apart and where schools and shopping are not nearby. A majority of Democrats (61%) prefer smaller houses within walking distance of schools and shopping.

Deep differences over factors for nation’s success. About half of Americans (52%) attribute the country’s success more to “its ability to change,” while 43% say the nation’s “reliance on long-standing principles” has been more important. Most Democrats (68%) link the nation’s success more to its ability to change, while 61% of Republicans point to its reliance on principles. In addition, there are wide age differences, with young people far more likely than older adults to say America’s success is mainly linked to its ability to change.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9023
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:51 am

DN -- I read that full report, it's crazy to see how far apart we are one some things.

The report does an excellent job of showing which "side" has grown more extreme in their views....and they do it on an issue by issue level.





It just confirms for me my belief in slow moving government. Considering the alternative, I'm resigned to happiness that there continues to be a stalemate on just about every issue.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 161 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Buc2 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:40 am

Thanks, Obama.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 711 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby DreadNaught » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:50 am

Zarniwoop wrote:DN -- I read that full report, it's crazy to see how far apart we are one some things.

The report does an excellent job of showing which "side" has grown more extreme in their views....and they do it on an issue by issue level.





It just confirms for me my belief in slow moving government. Considering the alternative, I'm resigned to happiness that there continues to be a stalemate on just about every issue.


One of my takeaways from the study just confirmed what I already believed to be true. The 'left' has/is going further left at a higher/faster rate that the 'right'. But the right is still moving left on the spectrum to more centrist/moderate positions compared to past results to the same controlled questions in the survey. It's just not nearly at the same rate as the left, hence the growing partisan divide. It's not like the 'right' is going more right on issues, which is something that all moderates/centrists and even those on the left should like imo.

Positions that were considered to be moderate 10 years ago are now often considered right-wing. Immigration being #1 on that list imo. General Kelley had a good excerpt on immigration during his press briefing yesterday that alluded to the growing divide on immigration and how it relates to this study. Just over 10 years ago The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was passed in the Senate 80-19, 23 Democratic Senators supported the bill INCLUDING Obama, Hillary, and Schumer. Here we are just a decade later and it would seem unfathomable for the the same Democratic leadership to have such a position on immigration legislation.
Last edited by DreadNaught on Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9023
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Buc2 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:57 am

DreadNaught wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:DN -- I read that full report, it's crazy to see how far apart we are one some things.

The report does an excellent job of showing which "side" has grown more extreme in their views....and they do it on an issue by issue level.





It just confirms for me my belief in slow moving government. Considering the alternative, I'm resigned to happiness that there continues to be a stalemate on just about every issue.


One of my takeaways from the study just confirmed what I already believed to be true. The 'left' has/is going further left at a higher/faster rate that the 'right'. But the right is still moving left on the spectrum to more centrist/moderate positions compared to past results to the same controlled questions in the survey. It's just not nearly at the same rate as the left, hence the growing partisan divide. It's not like the 'right' is going more right on issues, which is something that all moderates/centrists and even those on the left should like imo.

Positions that were considered to be moderate 10 years ago are now often considered right-wing. Immigration being #1 on that list imo. General Kelley had a good excerpt on immigration during his press briefing yesterday that alluded to the growing divide on immigration and how it relates to this study. Just over 10 years ago The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was passed in the Senate 80-19, 23 Democratic Senators supported the bill INCLUDING Obama, Hillary, and Schumer.

Honestly, I see a lot of these changes as a product of peer pressure and one-up-manship among liberals...mostly from the white-left according to that research. The Obama presidency really brought white-guilt to the forefront of leftist thought. Perhaps that can be his legacy.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 711 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:23 pm

Here's the link to the full report, it's 10 pages long


http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/ ... ven-wider/



You guys are certainly correct in thinking where the increased divide is coming from. The left has certainly gotten a whole lot more left over the last decade. There are very few issues where the right has gotten more right. Indeed as you guys point out, the right has actually moved left on many issues
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 161 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby DreadNaught » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:26 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Here's the link to the full report, it's 10 pages long


http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/ ... ven-wider/



You guys are certainly correct in thinking where the increased divide is coming from. The left has certainly gotten a whole lot more left over the last decade. There are very few issues where the right has gotten more right. Indeed as you guys point out, the right has actually moved left on many issues


Same link as my post, I just quoted the first page to save people from a wall of text :)
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9023
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:31 pm

Lol...my bad


Woops, I mean

Buc2 wrote:Thanks, Obama.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 161 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby bucfanclw » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:49 pm

So in response to a story about growing partisan divide, you guys have decided to interpret the listed survey responses as a reason that it's the other "team's" fault?
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 2885
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:07 pm

bucfanclw wrote:So in response to a story about growing partisan divide, you guys have decided to interpret the listed survey responses as a reason that it's the other "team's" fault?



LOL


We are summarizing the contents of the article and the changing nature of our political spectrum in the frame the article used. The article talks about the two groups. That is what our follow up discussion uses.

If you think that is US vs Them...so be it.

I didn't think you were THAT soft
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 161 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby DreadNaught » Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:08 pm

bucfanclw wrote:So in response to a story about growing partisan divide, you guys have decided to interpret the listed survey responses as a reason that it's the other "team's" fault?


I personally am not assigning "fault" to any team/side, but rather just making an observation of the data in the study. Do you disagree that an explanation for the reason of the growing divide can be attributed to the fact (according to this study) that the left has moved drastically further left at a greater rate in variety of issues when compared to the 'other team'?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9023
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:35 pm

Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 481 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby DreadNaught » Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:41 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:


every...day....

Image


Maybe he was having a meeting w/ himself?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9023
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby bucfanclw » Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:07 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:So in response to a story about growing partisan divide, you guys have decided to interpret the listed survey responses as a reason that it's the other "team's" fault?


I personally am not assigning "fault" to any team/side, but rather just making an observation of the data in the study. Do you disagree that an explanation for the reason of the growing divide can be attributed to the fact (according to this study) that the left has moved drastically further left at a greater rate in variety of issues when compared to the 'other team'?

Which issues in particular?

Helping needy? Because it looks like Pubs just shifted away earlier. In the 2007 survey Dems were at 77% to help and shifted a bit right to 71%, while the "left-shifting" Republicans went from 45% supporting to 23%

Racial inequality? You've got me there. When given the choice between saying discrimination keeps blacks down vs saying it's their own fault, Democrats have moved quickly to say racism plays more of a factor.

Diplomacy? Republicans have seen about the same movement away from diplomacy as Democrats have moved away from military solutions. About 17% change in either direction.

Homosexuality? I guess you've got me there since Republicans have moved to the left on this issue, although I'm not sure I would classify "accepting homosexuality" as being a right vs left issue and more of a bigotry vs non-bigotry issue.

Religion? Slightly more movement of Democrats towards thinking belief in God is not required to maintain good morals than Republicans thinking its necessary. Damn heathens...

Which positions do you feel show how violently Democrats have shifted right while Republicans have stayed steady or shifted to the left to accommodate, because reading the report I'm seeing the blame as being pretty evenly distributed.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 2885
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby bucfanclw » Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:10 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:


every...day....

Image


Maybe he was having a meeting w/ himself?

Redditers trolled T_D to make a meme saying that the President of Puerto Rico should be fired for incompetence the top voted post this past week. They all went back and deleted their comments once they figured out who was President of PR. Funniest thing I've seen in a while.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 2885
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Brazen331 » Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:20 am

beardmcdoug wrote:the glorious day of the rope has arrived for the hollywood/pedo elite. Everyone is complicit. The women are guilty. Look at Oliver Stone's response. Dan Schneider will be next. Of course, the battle is now being fought in the their territory - on the stage, so for the majority of people that still live in the haze will probably forget about this in a couple weeks and go back to their regular programming. praying that the dominoes continue to fall, for the good of the state and the people.

</mdbstylepost>


I feel Hillary Clinton should be forced to watch Harvey Weinstein masterbate. Justice will never be served until she does.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:22 pm

Whenever we get around to legalization of marijuana, cities who deny permits should be denied any portion of the revenue.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 481 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Brazen331 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:42 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Whenever we get around to legalization of marijuana, cities who deny permits should be denied any portion of the revenue.


It's kind of like that now in Nevada. You can buy it recreationally in Las Vegas but not in Henderson. You can buy it in Reno but you need a medical card in Carson City. You would think these cities would want to get on the gravy train. They even make more money off rec users because they have to pay an additional 10 percent tax.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby NYBF » Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:39 pm

Brazen331 wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Whenever we get around to legalization of marijuana, cities who deny permits should be denied any portion of the revenue.


It's kind of like that now in Nevada. You can buy it recreationally in Las Vegas but not in Henderson. You can buy it in Reno but you need a medical card in Carson City. You would think these cities would want to get on the gravy train. They even make more money off rec users because they have to pay an additional 10 percent tax.


The most fucked up is Washington DC. The people of DC voted to legalize recreational weed. But there's some screwed up rules for DC where Congress is able to tack on riders to any laws passed. It's something entirely screwed up like this. In their infinite wisdom, they outlawed the sale of weed.

Recreational weed is legal in DC, but you cannot buy or sell it.

As a loophole, they set up flea market type events. Purveyors set up tables with their goods. You like that plain black Hanes t-shirt? $40. And you get a free bag of weed as a thank you gift.

The local DC government misses out on all the weed tax money being enjoyed in many cities across the country even though it's legal there.

I read a story recently that outlined the stupidity of the laws (as well as a rough estimate of the tax money they're missing) much better than I did. But I can't find it.
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 152 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby A Man's Part » Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:34 pm

Brazen331 wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Whenever we get around to legalization of marijuana, cities who deny permits should be denied any portion of the revenue.


It's kind of like that now in Nevada. You can buy it recreationally in Las Vegas but not in Henderson. You can buy it in Reno but you need a medical card in Carson City. You would think these cities would want to get on the gravy train. They even make more money off rec users because they have to pay an additional 10 percent tax.


aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yeah!!

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?i ... type=CMSID
User avatar
A Man's Part
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Brazen331 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:11 am

A Man's Part wrote:
Brazen331 wrote:
It's kind of like that now in Nevada. You can buy it recreationally in Las Vegas but not in Henderson. You can buy it in Reno but you need a medical card in Carson City. You would think these cities would want to get on the gravy train. They even make more money off rec users because they have to pay an additional 10 percent tax.


aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yeah!!

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?i ... type=CMSID


Nevada and especially Vegas, being a world-wide tourist hub, took marijuana legalization extemely seriously. They have to have the most rigorous marijuana manufacturing and testing standards on the planet right now. These Nevada companies are making some lights-out product.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Buc2 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:44 am

I read this commentary earlier this morning while eating my fruit and non-fat Greek yogurt at breakfast this morning. I found it quite interesting and it does seem to explain the political state of things quite nicely. It's a long read so, since not everyone has a WSJ subscription, I've copied the entire article here.

Is ‘Classical Liberalism’ Conservative?
Trump didn’t divide the right. Centuries-old philosophical divisions have re-emerged.
By Yoram Hazony
Updated Oct. 13, 2017 6:38 p.m. ET

American conservatism is having something of an identity crisis. Most conservatives supported Donald Trump last November. But many prominent conservative intellectuals—journalists, academics and think-tank personalities—have entrenched themselves in bitter opposition. Some have left the Republican Party, while others are waging guerrilla warfare against a Republican administration. Longtime friendships have been ended and resignations tendered. Talk of establishing a new political party alternates with declarations that Mr. Trump will be denied the GOP nomination in 2020.

Those in the “Never Trump” camp say the cause of the split is the president—that he’s mentally unstable, morally unspeakable, a leftist populist, a rightist authoritarian, a danger to the republic. One prominent Republican told me he is praying for Mr. Trump to have a brain aneurysm so the nightmare can end.

But the conservative unity that Never Trumpers seek won’t be coming back, even if the president leaves office prematurely. An apparently unbridgeable ideological chasm is opening between two camps that were once closely allied. Mr. Trump’s rise is the effect, not the cause, of this rift.

There are two principal causes: first, the increasingly rigid ideology conservative intellectuals have promoted since the end of the Cold War; second, a series of events—from the failed attempt to bring democracy to Iraq to the implosion of Wall Street—that have made the prevailing conservative ideology seem naive and reckless to the broader conservative public.

A good place to start thinking about this is a 1989 essay in the National Interest by Charles Krauthammer. The Cold War was coming to an end, and Mr. Krauthammer proposed it should be supplanted by what he called “Universal Dominion” (the title of the essay): America was going to create a Western “super-sovereign” that would establish peace and prosperity throughout the world. The cost would be “the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty, but of the notion of sovereignty in general.”

William Kristol and Robert Kagan presented a similar view in their 1996 essay “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy” in Foreign Affairs, which proposed an American “benevolent global hegemony” that would have “preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain.”

Then, as now, conservative commentators insisted that the world should want such an arrangement because the U.S. knows best: The American way of politics, based on individual liberties and free markets, is the right way for human beings to live everywhere. Japan and Germany, after all, were once-hostile authoritarian nations that had flourished after being conquered and acquiescing in American political principles. With the collapse of communism, dozens of countries—from Eastern Europe to East Asia to Latin America—seemed to need, and in differing degrees to be open to, American tutelage of this kind. As the bearer of universal political truth, the U.S. was said to have an obligation to ensure that every nation was coaxed, maybe even coerced, into adopting its principles.

Any foreign policy aimed at establishing American universal dominion faces considerable practical challenges, not least because many nations don’t want to live under U.S. authority. But the conservative intellectuals who have set out to promote this Hegelian world revolution must also contend with a problem of different kind: Their aim cannot be squared with the political tradition for which they are ostensibly the spokesmen.

For centuries, Anglo-American conservatism has favored individual liberty and economic freedom. But as the Oxford historian of conservatism Anthony Quinton emphasized, this tradition is empiricist and regards successful political arrangements as developing through an unceasing process of trial and error. As such, it is deeply skeptical of claims about universal political truths. The most important conservative figures—including John Fortescue, John Selden, Montesquieu, Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton —believed that different political arrangements would be fitting for different nations, each in keeping with the specific conditions it faces and traditions it inherits. What works in one country can’t easily be transplanted.

On that view, the U.S. Constitution worked so well because it preserved principles the American colonists had brought with them from England. The framework—the balance between the executive and legislative branches, the bicameral legislature, the jury trial and due process, the bill of rights—was already familiar from the English constitution. Attempts to transplant Anglo-American political institutions in places such as Mexico, Nigeria, Russia and Iraq have collapsed time and again, because the political traditions needed to maintain them did not exist. Even in France, Germany and Italy, representative government failed repeatedly into the mid-20th century (recall the collapse of France’s Fourth Republic in 1958), and has now been shunted aside by a European Union whose notorious “democracy deficit” reflects a continuing inability to adopt Anglo-American constitutional norms.

The “universal dominion” agenda is flatly contradicted by centuries of Anglo-American conservative political thought. This may be one reason that some post-Cold War conservative intellectuals have shifted to calling themselves “classical liberals.” Last year Paul Ryan insisted: “I really call myself a classical liberal more than a conservative.” Mr. Kristol tweeted in August: “Conservatives could ‘rebrand’ as liberals. Seriously. We’re for liberal democracy, liberal world order, liberal economy, liberal education.”

What is “classical liberalism,” and how does it differ from conservatism? As Quinton pointed out, the liberal tradition descends from Hobbes and Locke, who were not empiricists but rationalists: Their aim was to deduce universally valid political principles from self-evident axioms, as in mathematics.

In his “Second Treatise on Government” (1689), Locke asserts that universal reason teaches the same political truths to all human beings; that all individuals are by nature “perfectly free” and “perfectly equal”; and that obligation to political institutions arises only from the consent of the individual. From these assumptions, Locke deduces a political doctrine that he supposes must hold good in all times and places.

The term “classical liberal” came into use in 20th-century America to distinguish the supporters of old-school laissez-faire from the welfare-state liberalism of figures such as Franklin D. Roosevelt. Modern classical liberals, inheriting the rationalism of Hobbes and Locke, believe they can speak authoritatively to the political needs of every human society, everywhere. In his seminal work, “Liberalism” (1927), the great classical-liberal economist Ludwig von Mises thus advocates a “world super-state really deserving of the name,” which will arise if we “succeed in creating throughout the world . . . nothing less than unqualified, unconditional acceptance of liberalism. Liberal thinking must permeate all nations, liberal principles must pervade all political institutions.”

Friedrich Hayek, the leading classical-liberal theorist of the 20th century, likewise argued, in a 1939 essay, for replacing independent nations with a world-wide federation: “The abrogation of national sovereignties and the creation of an effective international order of law is a necessary complement and the logical consummation of the liberal program.”

Classical liberalism thus offers ground for imposing a single doctrine on all nations for their own good. It provides an ideological basis for an American universal dominion.

By contrast, Anglo-American conservatism historically has had little interest in putatively self-evident political axioms. Conservatives want to learn from experience what actually holds societies together, benefits them and destroys them. That empiricism has persuaded most Anglo-American conservative thinkers of the importance of traditional Protestant institutions such as the independent national state, biblical religion and the family.

As an English Protestant, Locke could have endorsed these institutions as well. But his rationalist theory provides little basis for understanding their role in political life. Even today liberals are plagued by this failing: The rigidly Lockean assumptions of classical-liberal writers such as Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick and Ayn Rand place the nation, the family and religion outside the scope of what is essential to know about politics and government. Students who grow up reading these brilliant writers develop an excellent grasp of how an economy works. But they are often marvelously ignorant about much else, having no clue why a flourishing state requires a cohesive nation, or how such bonds are established through family and religious ties.

The differences between the classical-liberal and conservative traditions have immense consequences for policy. Establishing democracy in Egypt or Iraq looks doable to classical liberals because they assume that human reason is everywhere the same, and that a commitment to individual liberties and free markets will arise rapidly once the benefits have been demonstrated and the impediments removed. Conservatives, on the other hand, see foreign civilizations as powerfully motivated—for bad reasons as well as good ones—to fight the dissolution of their way of life and the imposition of American values.

Integrating millions of immigrants from the Middle East also looks easy to classical liberals, because they believe virtually everyone will quickly see the advantages of American (or European) ways and accept them upon arrival. Conservatives recognize that large-scale assimilation can happen only when both sides are highly motivated to see it through. When that motivation is weak or absent, conservatives see an unassimilated migration, resulting in chronic mutual hatred and violence, as a perfectly plausible outcome.

Since classical liberals assume reason is everywhere the same, they see no great danger in “depreciating” national independence and outsourcing power to foreign bodies. American and British conservatives see such schemes as destroying the unique political foundation upon which their traditional freedoms are built.

Liberalism and conservatism had been opposed political positions since the day liberal theorizing first appeared in England in the 17th century. During the 20th-century battles against totalitarianism, necessity brought their adherents into close alliance. Classical liberals and conservatives fought together, along with communists, against Nazism. After 1945 they remained allies against communism. Over many decades of joint struggle, their differences were relegated to a back burner, creating a “fusionist” movement (as William F. Buckley’s National Review called it) in which one and all saw themselves as “conservatives.”

But since the fall of the Berlin Wall, circumstances have changed. Margaret Thatcher’s ouster from power in 1990 marked the end of serious resistance in Britain to the coming European “super-sovereign.” Within a few years the classical liberals’ agenda of universal dominion was the only game in town—ascendant not only among American Republicans and British Tories but even among center-left politicians such as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.

Only it didn’t work. China, Russia and large portions of the Muslim world resisted a “new world order” whose express purpose was to bring liberalism to their countries. The attempt to impose a classical-liberal regime in Iraq by force, followed by strong-arm tactics aimed at bringing democracy to Egypt and Libya, led to the meltdown of political order in these states as well as in Syria and Yemen. Meanwhile, the world banking crisis made a mockery of classical liberals’ claim to know how to govern a world-wide market and bring prosperity to all. The shockingly rapid disintegration of the American family once again raised the question of whether classical liberalism has the resources to answer any political question outside the economic sphere.

Brexit and Mr. Trump’s rise are the direct result of a quarter-century of classical-liberal hegemony over the parties of the right. Neither Mr. Trump nor the Brexiteers were necessarily seeking a conservative revival. But in placing a renewed nationalism at the center of their politics, they shattered classical liberalism’s grip, paving the way for a return to empiricist conservatism. Once you start trying to understand politics by learning from experience rather than by deducing your views from 17th-century rationalist dogma, you never know what you may end up discovering.

Mr. Hazony is president of the Jerusalem-based Herzl Institute. His book “The Virtue of Nationalism” will be published next year by Basic.

Appeared in the October 14, 2017, print edition.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 711 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:53 am

Thanks for sharing Buc2...that's a good read.



I don't necessary like the idea of applying the tenets of classical liberalism solely to foreign policy as the article does....classical liberalism has very little to do with foreign policy...it was entirely focused on domestic policy. Obviously it will bleed over into foreign policy as well as one would argue what is best for within is how we should treat those without too...but what motivated the classical liberal folks was their look within their own country and saving people from the tyranny of their own governments.

At one point, both of our parties had very strong ties to classical liberalism. Both would have applauded the names of Smith, Paine, Voltaire, Mill, Diderot, Spencer...and more recently Hayek and Friedman. (As an aside, if you have never read Hayek's Constitution of Liberty, I would suggest you do....you can find the pdf free online....its a great book, a lot more applicable to the modern world then say some of the earlier stuff by Paine and Voltaire in as much as it talks about a much more contemporary economy and social life)

Sadly both parties are moving away from these principles.

Conservatives, once the gate keeper of classical liberalism in economics have more and more been creating and supporting anti-competitive regulations and policies in which the government interferes in economic life. (clearly the liberals abandoned this principle long ago)

Liberals, once the gate keeper of classical liberalism in social life have more and more been moving vastly away from those beliefs to...both through regulation and now through doing their best to silence their critics and open debate in general. (clearly the conservatives long abandoned this principle long ago).


So sadly we are left with a society that no longer cherishes individual choice and liberty...whether it be in economic life or social life. Liberty requires responsibility...and neither side wants to be burdened with responsibility right now.


(and getting back to the article...as it pertains to foreign policy...our two sides aren't very different anymore...they may have nuanced differences on the fringes, but they are pretty much one in the same for all intents and purposes).
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 161 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Buc2 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:46 am

Good stuff, zarni. While I try not to get too deep into political philosophy, it seems to me that today's liberals and conservatives have both moved towards a more global approach to things but a lot of the world isn't ready for that. Like the article stated...it's as if they think the rest of the world will follow their lead. Hence all the conflict we're seeing around the globe. The world's people, by and large, are more nationalist in nature than their governments are. At least in Western countries. That's what is fueling the Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Catalan independence, and Brexits movements of today.You would think this would all benefit the libertarian party in our country, but we're not seeing that. While we've seen a subtle shift, it hasn't been to a large enough degree to make much of a change in our political landscape. Perhaps that will gain some momentum in the elections ahead, but it remains to be seen.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 711 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:02 pm

Yep, people used to copy us because they wanted to -- the French at the turn of the 19th century, etc.

Now we try to force them to.



This is why I hate all forms of globalism...particularly when we try to adopt some world view of economics, environmentalism, social liberties/justice, etc.

We are our own sovereign nation....we do what's best for us. That isn't to say we can't learn from others or shouldn't be influenced by others...but I never want any of our leaders signing any contract/treaty that holds us accountable to any other governing body.

I give the Brits a big kudos for leaving the EU. I have always hated the idea of it. I can't understand how people in European countries simply accept that foreign bureaucrats they have never elected have so much influence over their lives. As far as I'm concerned, the quicker globalism dies, the better.


As you might guess, this is the basis for most of my domestic views too....I am my own person...I won't infringe on others' liberties...they shouldn't infringe on mine...whether it be by taking my money for the "social good" or telling me what pronouns I have to use. I am solely responsible for me.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 161 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby bucfanclw » Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:51 pm

I found a story tailor-made for beard:

Applicants for Hurricane Harvey relief grants for the storm-battered city of Dickinson are asked as part of the terms of the agreement to not boycott Israel, a move the ACLU has called unconstitutional. The city began accepting applications Oct. 11 for grants to rebuild homes or businesses damaged in the storm that made landfall Aug. 25. The grant money was donated to the Dickinson Harvey Relief Fund.

"By executing this Agreement below, the Applicant verifies that the Applicant: (1) does not boycott Israel; and (2) will not boycott Israel during the term of this Agreement," the form states.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/harvey/2017/10/19/get-harvey-relief-funds-residents-dickinson-must-vow-boycott-israel?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 2885
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby MJW » Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:52 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
I give the Brits a big kudos for leaving the EU. I have always hated the idea of it. I can't understand how people in European countries simply accept that foreign bureaucrats they have never elected have so much influence over their lives. As far as I'm concerned, the quicker globalism dies, the better.


Europeans have a rich cultural tradition of being conquered; I always assumed the EU was the two-hand-touch equivalent of that feeling.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 277 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:49 am

Image


Interesting little diddy.

One thing I can extrapolate from this graph is the Tennessee Valley Authority Hydroelectric dams and the Columbia River hydroelectric dams are providing cheap electricity.

Large scale public works projects from half a century ago still paying dividends. Go figure.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 481 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:35 am

I'm paying .04 per KW hour cause I'm a negotiating bad ass....everything around here is quoted at about the .11 on the graph

:D
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 161 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests