Honest Self Examination

[DngrRuss]

Okay- this is either gonna be fun and informative, or really dull and shut down.

As some of you may know, I am an independant. I think that Republicans are basically decent people; their leadership are greedy, Draconian overlords who have figured out that if they keep the far right nutcases appeased and in the press, they can run amok freely within the government and do what they want to the environment, the middle class, and the world at large while filling thier pockets. I think Democrats are basically good people; but thier leadership are a bunch of spineless cry-babies who, when their anger gets riled-up, go into meetings to make sure that they don't offend anyone and keep everyone smiling and happy instead of kicking ***, taking names, and leaving right-wing smoldering bodies in thier wake as they should.

What I have noticed is the "My Party or Nothing" attitude on both sides of the aisle. When one side brings up a good point, the other does ot acknowledge it. In fact they disavow it and attach rhetoric like that's just partisan politics, that doesn't prove anything, that's just typical of the right/left, my Dad's bigger then your Dad, blah, blah, blah...

So, I thought it would be fun to issue a challenge. What dumb/innacurate/just plain wrong things have the representatives of your particular political/social idology said or done that make you cringe? What can you not defend that has come from your side of the aisle?

Let's see if we can be intellectually honest and self examinng, or are we all just gonna say, "my Party's right- ALWAYS".

Now, I'm gonna go away for a couple days (working the Black Belt show in LA), so I hope I am not dissapointed when I return.

 

[andy]

ok, at the risk of offending every one.
my answer is-what you have outlined is termed as missdirection.
each party always has said whatever befits each party since the dawn of 'governmant'

what issues do both sides ignore while claiming to embrace them; and why?

ignore the bad grammer

 

[Makalakumu]

I typically would classify myself as a liberal, but as I become more politically educated, I am seeing more and more sense in libertarianism. With that being said, I'm not sure the government can force people to do a bunch of stuff without it becoming a giant fiasco...ie snafu or commonly known as cluster****. I would like to note that I use the term "stuff" in a very "liberal" sense so that it is "inclusive".

As far as this thread goes, I could ennumerate a rather large list of things that my "party" does wrong. Thus, I think the two party system in this country is probably broken.

 

[DngrRuss]

To answer the coward that gave me the neg points for this thread-

Yes, I advocate that the left needs to man-up and hammer the right. If you would read my entire statement, I said that the left are cry-babies and whiners. The left has some value and even (parish the thought) some favorable plans over the right. But they won't get anything off the ground as long as they sit back and wait for the pendulum to swing.

The right is ALREADY hammering the left. They are already kicking ***, taking names, and leaving smoldering bodies in their wake. It is one of the things about the right I actually admire. They are well organized, and operate like a well oiled machine. The right also have value and some favorable ideas over the left. But they are so bogged down in partisanism (thus my posting of this thread) that they are blind to ideas that might actually work, just cuz they didn't think of it.

As an independant (left leaning, but still an independant), I want both sides fighting it out. I want consensus met with some degree of balance, not one side crushing the other.

You, my cowardly little neg-point-issuer, jumped to a conclusion and DIDN'T EVEN SEE THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD before you threw out a red dot.

Are you one of those that thinks that your side could Never Possibly Be Wrong? Did I hurt your feelings? Am I a thorn in your side? Have I been a bad boy? Then grow some gonads and engage.

I can only assume which side of the aisle you're on based on your cute little snide comment attached to your neg response. Though, truthfully, I don't care what side you're on, I just don't respect anyone who can't man-up, grow a few short-curlys, and jump in with both feet and see what happens. You'd rather hide behind anonimity and try to be as sly as a weasel.

Okay, rant over- let's try this again:

The proposed purpose of this thread is to have people acknowledge what they don't like about their party or those who profess to have the same ideology. What do Republican leaders do that bother you as a Republican? What Democrats do that just annoy the hell out of you as a Democrat? What do Christians do that bug you as a Christian? What do athiests do... etc., etc., etc.....

Are we on the same page now you raisin-scrote-poo-flinging-little-monkey?

There- the gauntlet has been thrown down.....

 

[ginshun]

I am also an independant, albeit an reletively conservative one. I am not a member of either party, because I think they both suck.

The leadership of both parties is so far to thier respective right/left, that they are completely out of touch with the average person who is relatively close to the center.

 

[Gemini]

Given the sensitive nature of discussing politics, threads like this always turn into pissing contests. Ironic as politics and sensitivity have never mixed well. It's unfortunate because I really like the way this question was posed. Basically, can you look in the mirror and honestly critique/laugh at yourself. So many people cannot. Oh well, it was a nice try dngrRuss. I applaud the attempt.

I'm a registered Republican and remain so until I die (or NY Gov. George Pataki runs for president. Whichever comes first). To me, it's a great question asked at the wrong time. To be quite honest, I'm so sick of the petty bickering lately on the up/down votes, I can only make this sweeping generalization and say both sides need to get their perverbial heads out of their a**es and focus on things that matter. That's not to say the issue itself isn't important, but the way it's being conducted is equally embarrasing for both sides.

Regards,

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Actually, I think its a great idea for a thread. The person who dinged you probably didn't care much for the rather broad paintbrush used to describe the political leadership of the country (and no, it wasn't me that dinged you), but other than that, its really an interesting idea.

I call myself a Democrat...but I best identify as a liberal. My problems with liberals and Dems in general are as follows:

Fringe feminism. Note I say "fringe." These are the feminists that Rush Limbaugh loves to bash. Sadly, he characterizes all feminists as if they were these. I'd say most of the women here on MT fit my definition of feminists, and none of them fit any "far left" stereotype.

Anti-gun hysteria. I love guns. I own ten. I think. Sometimes I lose count.

Reactionary technophobia. Again, an extrene fringe mentality that fears advances in genetics and other scientific and technological advancements. They yearn for a pastoral world untainted by industry or anything artificial. Some call them "granola nazis." They are, if anything, highly conservative. All this said, they can at times be the voice of reason, as can fringe feminists.

I have a real problem with liberals who preach egalitarianism, perhaps are even socially active in advocating for the poor...but who drive very nice Volvos, wear very nice clothes, sip very expensive lattes, and have never had a freakin' blister on their hands or known a hungry day in their lives. But then too I know some conservatives who preach hard work in order to be successfull who fit the same description.

I don't have much use for the anti-military crowd that often gathers on the left. But then, I don't have much use for those on the right who assume all Dems and all liberals are either anti-military or...if miliitary...borderline traitors. Being a (former) military man on the left is interesting. You get crap from both directions.

I might come up with some more stuff...but I haven't had enough coffee, and Starbucks siren song is calling me.


Regards,


Steve

 

[andy]

(I didn't ding you either,if i understand the term)

I also think it's a great thought for a thread.
I was mostly a conservative republican but have since realised I am more a libertarian. However I still lean to the con repub side. That being said--

1. I hate the fact the republicans act as if they favor guns in the hands of citizenry, yet have done nothing to relax the 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws.

2. I remember a few months back Al gore gave a speech suggesting 'we' need a new energy source for our transportation--fair statemant. the next day listening to rush limbaugh-hannity and all my other conserve favorites I was truly disappointed to hear them crush Al's logical suggestion. What's worse Presidant Bush said the same thing a few weeks later and the republicans were praising him for his farsightedness.
In short I hate blind partisanship. At best it is illogical.
3. another thing that disgusts me about my one time party is conserve repubs are suppose to stand for limited governamt; I doubt I have to say anything more about that one.

 

[Marginal]

As I see it, both parties need eachother to keep the other in check. That's kinda why the US has a two party system. If one gets too powerful, then there's a problem.

 

[shesulsa]

My doctor told me to do a self-examination once a month ... but I don't think that's what you were talking about.

I certainly lean more towards the left, however, I am superbly incensed how the Dems insisted on restrictions on herbal supplements. I do have conservative leanings, however, I must say the Rep tactics are maddening - and the only thing more maddening is how lazy they are about response.

(In Forest Gump voice) And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[Flatlander]

Mod note:

Please, keep this discussion polite and respectful. Also, please forward any rep point complaints to the Member Support forum, as they detract from the discussion at hand.

Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-

 

[Gemini]

I don't have much use for the anti-military crowd that often gathers on the left.

So I guess you heard Jane is at it again, then. :uhohh:

Sorry. Didn't mean to digress. Carry on. :asian:

 

[Marginal]

I certainly lean more towards the left, however, I am superbly incensed how the Dems insisted on restrictions on herbal supplements.

I don't know... Those herbal suppliments were pretty much completely unregulated, no quality control standards etc. Not only were poeple offing themselves with energy boosting drugs (and herbs are just another method of packaging drugs/chemicals which a lot of peoplt still don't seem to understand) they were also unknoingly inflicting brain damage upon themselves with lead poisioning, badly made melatonin pills etc.

I'd hope Republicans were responsible enough to want some accountability standards in place as well.

 

[sgtmac_46]

To answer the coward that gave me the neg points for this thread-

Yes, I advocate that the left needs to man-up and hammer the right. If you would read my entire statement, I said that the left are cry-babies and whiners. The left has some value and even (parish the thought) some favorable plans over the right. But they won't get anything off the ground as long as they sit back and wait for the pendulum to swing.

What you said was very telling. The only complaint you have about the left at ALL is that....they aren't extreme ENOUGH. That just tells me you identify with the leftist position and are upset with Democrats because they aren't pursuing a radical enough position. How does that make you an independent? Doesn't that just make you an extremist. The whole "i'm an independent" thing has been way overdone. It's become such a cliche by people who want to hide their agenda.

The right is ALREADY hammering the left. They are already kicking ***, taking names, and leaving smoldering bodies in their wake. It is one of the things about the right I actually admire. They are well organized, and operate like a well oiled machine. The right also have value and some favorable ideas over the left. But they are so bogged down in partisanism (thus my posting of this thread) that they are blind to ideas that might actually work, just cuz they didn't think of it.

That has only been during the early 1990's. Prior to that, and the Reagan Revolution that inspired it, Republican's were a permanent minority opposition party. What happened was conservatives started attacking Democrats on the issues. They developed thing tanks where the issues were studied, and researched, and debated.

Their positions were explored in depth and a plan was developed on how best combat the Democrats dominance of politics in the US. What they found was that Democrats had been so spoiled by decades of dominance in US politics, that they just assumed the average American would simply respond to the same old class warfare, racial warfare rhetoric that they had been able to rely on for decades.

They assumed their positions didn't have to have any substance, they just had to sound good when replayed as soundbites in the previously supportive and biased media. What happened, however, was that Republicans began taking apart their one-liners with clear analysis, and well thought out arguments.

Further, cable news and alternative news sources meant that the formerly democratically dominated big three (CBS, NBC, and ABC....along with PBS) weren't able to control the dialogue anymore. There are many leftists who will try and prove that news is controlled now, and that is why Republicans are winning the debate. They claim that if the US had "unbiased" news programming (See state controlled like CBC or BBC) then the Democrats could get "equal airtime" and win the debate. What they won't tell you is because broadcasters on state run stations support leftwing positions....why? Simple economics. Leftists in government are the ones willing to spend more money on....Public broadcasting and staterun stations, duh. The side willing to fork out the most cash support, wins in Public and state run broadcasting. Why do you think the BBC and CBC are so biased toward the social left?

In reality, it is the diverse nature of news program, not a dominance, that have allowed Republicans and conservatives to compete in the realm of ideas. Allowing the market to decide which programs are more informative and honest allows the wheat to be seperated from the chaff.

As an independant (left leaning, but still an independant), I want both sides fighting it out. I want consensus met with some degree of balance, not one side crushing the other.

As a left leaning "independant" i'm sure you want to see the left become more aggressive, but lets not pretend it's in the name of "balance". If the left were crushing the right, we wouldn't hear you talking about "balance" at all. So lets drop this chirade. The very fact that we are discussing a left/right duality shows the lack of independent thought present in this discussion. A true independent talks about issues, not party alliances. Many leftists have bad ideas, as do many on the right. That's why we need to discuss the issues independently, not as to which wing they fall in to.

You, my cowardly little neg-point-issuer, jumped to a conclusion and DIDN'T EVEN SEE THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD before you threw out a red dot.

Are you one of those that thinks that your side could Never Possibly Be Wrong? Did I hurt your feelings? Am I a thorn in your side? Have I been a bad boy? Then grow some gonads and engage.

While agree about the cowardice of anonymous point-posters, I have to say that you might want to examine your position a little more closely. The only way in which you claim the left is wrong, is that they aren't being aggressive enough in pursuing their agenda. You call that balanced? It's ok to be biased, but don't pretend to be unbiased in the process.

The proposed purpose of this thread is to have people acknowledge what they don't like about their party or those who profess to have the same ideology. What do Republican leaders do that bother you as a Republican? What Democrats do that just annoy the hell out of you as a Democrat? What do Christians do that bug you as a Christian? What do athiests do... etc., etc., etc.....

Ok, but you go first. The only thing you said about the democrats is, that they aren't leftist enough.

 

[Makalakumu]

That has only been during the early 1990's. Prior to that, and the Reagan Revolution that inspired it, Republican's were a permanent minority opposition party. What happened was conservatives started attacking Democrats on the issues. They developed thing tanks where the issues were studied, and researched, and debated.

Their positions were explored in depth and a plan was developed on how best combat the Democrats dominance of politics in the US. What they found was that Democrats had been so spoiled by decades of dominance in US politics, that they just assumed the average American would simply respond to the same old class warfare, racial warfare rhetoric that they had been able to rely on for decades.

They assumed their positions didn't have to have any substance, they just had to sound good when replayed as soundbites in the previously supportive and biased media. What happened, however, was that Republicans began taking apart their one-liners with clear analysis, and well thought out arguments.

Further, cable news and alternative news sources meant that the formerly democratically dominated big three (CBS, NBC, and ABC....along with PBS) weren't able to control the dialogue anymore. There are many leftists who will try and prove that news is controlled now, and that is why Republicans are winning the debate. They claim that if the US had "unbiased" news programming (See state controlled like CBC or BBC) then the Democrats could get "equal airtime" and win the debate. What they won't tell you is because broadcasters on state run stations support leftwing positions....why? Simple economics. Leftists in government are the ones willing to spend more money on....Public broadcasting and staterun stations, duh. The side willing to fork out the most cash support, wins in Public and state run broadcasting. Why do you think the BBC and CBC are so biased toward the social left?

In reality, it is the diverse nature of news program, not a dominance, that have allowed Republicans and conservatives to compete in the realm of ideas. Allowing the market to decide which programs are more informative and honest allows the wheat to be seperated from the chaff.

Now that is one hell of a thesis to attempt to prove...

I think a simpler explanation is that many of the issues that democrats care about became "too complicated".

On the other hand, the same thing can be said about the left...which is why the government is still giving no strings attached handouts.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Now that is one hell of a thesis to attempt to prove...

I think a simpler explanation is that many of the issues that democrats care about became "too complicated".

On the other hand, the same thing can be said about the left...which is why the government is still giving no strings attached handouts.

I'm sure you'd prefer that explaination.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm sure you'd prefer that explaination.

Occum's Razor.

I had to edit this, because I had an interesting thought/question.

Is it possible to be an independent without EVER voting for one of the two major parties?

I would say, yes, if one believed in voting for third parties.

Idependent doesn't have to mean middle of the road. IMHO, a good definition of the word is someone who is not committed to any political parties and is willing to keep an open mind.

 

[Jaymeister]

I'm sure I'll get FRIED for this, but I'd like to give you guys an outsiders opinion.

Since I'm european, I'd probably be considered as a liberal to most Americans. But I respect every opinion posted in this thread (especially the controversial ones... You people really have stones/or what ever girls have to equal that... ????) Anyways, enough about anatomy (is that the right word?).

It seems to me that American politics are/is (sorry, but English isn't my first language) full of hate... Democrats and Republicans are almost at war with each other. Instead of trying to find disagreements, we should as MAists, be able to find a common ground and focusing on the things they/we can agree about. Especially now that America (and all of the world) needs to stand together, You guys are parted like never before. Again... This is just an outside opinion, and I expect to get dinged severiously (spelling?) for this.

"Btw. I never learned English, I just memorized a series of words and have no idea of what I'm saying" - Carsten Bang... Danish Standup comedian

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm sure I'll get FRIED for this, but I'd like to give you guys an outsiders opinion.

Since I'm european, I'd probably be considered as a liberal to most Americans. But I respect every opinion posted in this thread (especially the controversial ones... You people really have stones/or what ever girls have to equal that... ????) Anyways, enough about anatomy (is that the right word?).

It seems to me that American politics are/is (sorry, but English isn't my first language) full of hate... Democrats and Republicans are almost at war with each other. Instead of trying to find disagreements, we should as MAists, be able to find a common ground and focusing on the things they/we can agree about. Especially now that America (and all of the world) needs to stand together, You guys are parted like never before. Again... This is just an outside opinion, and I expect to get dinged severiously (spelling?) for this.

"Btw. I never learned English, I just memorized a series of words and have no idea of what I'm saying" - Carsten Bang... Danish Standup comedian

Unity is important, but it might bear keeping in mind that the history of US politics, almost from the beginning, is rife with division. It might be the very nature of the individualistic ideology of America itself, but throughout our history, political feuds and infighting, and national division, have been part of our birthright. Heck, our nation wasn't founded as a nation at all, but a confederation of 13 seperate nations, united under one banner. One of the first vicious divisions was about whether or not the US should have a strong or very very weak centralized government.

In fact, if you think politics are bad today, try looking up Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.

Many issues have divided this nation in the past. What divides us today is nothing compared to the issues that Abraham Lincoln faced, the issue that literally divided this nation in to warring factions.

The divisions in politics today are not new, and they are not insurmountable. We have endured this long, with a little luck we can endure a couple more hundred years.

Occum's Razor.

Neither option requires a more complicated opinion, so Occum's Razor doesn't really apply. There is no easy explaination for the evolution of politics in America since it's not a simple subject to begin with.

I had to edit this, because I had an interesting thought/question.

Is it possible to be an independent without EVER voting for one of the two major parties?
I would say, yes, if one believed in voting for third parties.

I guess if voted for 3rd parties.

Idependent doesn't have to mean middle of the road. IMHO, a good definition of the word is someone who is not committed to any political parties and is willing to keep an open mind.

Yes, but a dead give away to non-independent thinking is referring to all ideas based on where they fall in the left/right duality spectrum. Truly independent thinking would not fall easily in to party lines.

An independent thinker would probably hold opinions that come in conflict with each of the parties at sometime or another. I actually think there is a great deal of independent thought in here. I've seen some ideas on your part, upnorthkyosa, as well as on the part of DngRuss, that show a trend toward independent thinking. However, it's clear that the majority of your ideas as well as Russ's fall within what would be considered leftwing.

I just believe it's important to point out that the whole talking about independent thought, and then reverting back to the left/right duality, is a bit contradictory and in some ways a bit disingenuous.

I also believe there is no person who is ever truly independent (unless they just simply take a stand).
I believe that what we refer to as Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, Republican/Democrat, etc., is nothing but terms given to an age old duality of thinking inherent in human beings. We can see these ideals exemplified throughout history. They no doubt reflect on a seperation of Thinking/Feeling duality present in human different human personalities.

Those who's primary way of making decisions are based on thinking, tend to make those decisions with far less empathy, and tend to be pragmatic and goal oriented. Feelers, on the other hands, tend to make their decisions with a great deal of empathy, and therefore take in to considerations the feelings of others. This isn't to say that Thinkers are smarter than Feelers, as the two are not a measure of intelligence but merely the level of empathy or pragmatism in the decision making process.

Feelers take the classic leftist stance that uses empathy as the primary decision making faculty. Thinkers tend to make decisions based on pragmatics, they tend to be rather cold and much more judgemental and unyielding in their decision making process. This isn't to say that all Feelers are leftists, but merely that the ideology is driven by the empathy modality. A large number of proponents of conservatism are empathetic people (this consists mostly of the religious right.)

This also isn't to say that all thinkers are conservatives. Merely that the ideology is driven by that mindset. A large number leftist leadership is driven by the thinking modality, however, and are merely using the empathetic ticket as a means to power.

Again, this long winded dissertation on my theory of the root of political ideologies isn't meant as a thesis, but merely to explain the fact that I believe conflict on these type of political issues is inevitable, as they are rooted in HOW we think, not merely ideology.

For example, Northkyosa strikes me as a highly empathetic person. Someone who is driven to understand others and take in to account their feelings and needs in their decision making process. I, however, am highly driven by pragmatics. Means and ends are my primary avenue of decision making. I'm driven to find the most efficient way to accomplish a given task. That would put us at odds when there is a conflict between means and ends. That conflict is nearly unreconcilable as our decisions in a given situation aren't usually driven by errors in knowledge (as many of us assume) but a difference in how we assimilate and utilize information through decision making(thinking/feeling).

This becomes a more interesting topic when we consider the fact that the majority of women (but not all) use the empathetic/feeling/people oriented decision making pattern, while the majority men (but not all) utilize the thinking/pragmatic/goal oriented decision.

This explains why the majority of women (but not all) lean to the left on politics (they view the left as more empathetic) while the majority of men (but not all) lean toward the right (they view the right as, typically, more goal oriented and pragmatic).

Again, which one is right? That's like asking which way is up, it depends on where you're standing.

 

[Makalakumu]

The above post was thought provoking. I started a new thread...
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25854