Rights and lefts a new thread

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
I just came across two articles from "Front Page" magazine exploring what it is that makes up a "left" wing political position. In this article he actually takes the time to delve into what a "right" wing political perspective. I have been asking for this in particular through several threads. Since the Ann Coulter thread is on page 20 I thought this topid deserved its own thread. Especially after all the (word deleted to achieve an acceptable rating) I took about Nazi and Facism being types of socialism.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22626

So what are Rightists?
The prime focus in this paper has been on defining and explaining what Leftism is. It would nonetheless be remiss not to give also at least a skeletal outline of what Rightism is so I will now do that. If Leftism and Rightism are NOT mirror-images, as this paper asserts, some such account does appear necessary in order to complete the picture. I have, however, written one book and many previous papers for those who wish to study conservatism at greater length

Military Dictators?
In the late 20th century, it was a common rhetorical ploy of the more "revolutionary" Left in the "Western" world simply to ignore democracy as an alternative to Communism. Instead they would excuse the brutalities of Communism by pointing to the brutalities of the then numerous military dictatorships of Southern Europe and Latin America and pretend that such regimes were the only alternative to Communism. These regimes were led by generals who might in various ways be seen as conservative (though Peron was clearly Leftist) so do they tell us anything about conservatism?
Historically, most of the world has been ruled by military men and their successors (Sargon II of Assyria, Alexander of Macedon, Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, Charlemagne, Frederick II of Prussia etc.) so it seems unlikely but perhaps the main point to note here is that the Hispanic dictatorships of the 20th century were very often created as a response to a perceived threat of a Communist takeover. This is particularly clear in the case of Spain, Chile and Argentina. They were an attempt to fight fire with fire. In Argentina of the 60s and 70s, for instance, Leftist "urban guerillas" were very active — blowing up anyone they disapproved of. The nice, mild, moderate Anglo-Saxon response to such depredations would have been to endure the deaths and disruptions concerned and use police methods to trace the perpetrators and bring them to trial. Much of the world is more fiery than that, however, and the Argentine generals certainly were. They became impatient with the slow-grinding wheels of democracy and its apparent impotence in the face of the Leftist revolutionaries. They therefore seized power and instituted a reign of terror against the Leftist revolutionaries that was as bloody, arbitrary and indiscriminate as what the Leftists had inflicted. In a word, they used military methods to deal with the Leftist attackers. So the nature of these regimes was only incidentally conservative.

It might be noted, however, that, centuries earlier, the parliamentary leaders of England — led by Fairfax, Cromwell etc. — did something similar to the Hispanic generals of the 20th century. Faced by an attempt on the part of the Stuart tyrant to abrogate their traditional rights, powers and liberties, they resorted to military means to overthrow the threat. There is no reason to argue that democracy cannot or must not use military means to defend itself or that Leftists or anyone else must be granted exclusive rights to the use of force and violence.

and some more from the article.

A Conservative Revolution
And the parliamentarians who were responsible for beheading King Charles I in 1649 were perfectly articulate about why. They felt that Charles had attempted to destroy the ancient English governmental system or "constitution" and that he had tried to take away important rights and individual liberties that the English had always enjoyed — liberty from the arbitrary power of Kings, a right to representation in important decisions and a system of counterbalanced and competing powers rather than an all-powerful central government. It is to them that we can look for the first systematic statements of conservative ideals — ideals that persevere to this day. And they were both conservatives (wishing to conserve traditional rights and arrangements) and revolutionaries!

The biggest mistake that has been made by psychologists (e.g. Altemeyer 1981 & 1988) and others, however, is to identify conservative motivation with opposition to change. Obviously, from Cromwell to Reagan and Thatcher, change has never bothered "conservatives" one bit — but preservation of their rights and liberties from governments that would take those rights and liberties away always has. THAT is what has always made a "conservative" — and it still does.


http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24245
 
Last edited:
Historically, the core of conservatism has always been a suspicion of government power and intervention and conservatives therefore accept only the minimum amount of government that seems needed for a civil society to function. So it is no wonder that there is no authoritarian version of conservative ideology. If it were authoritarian it could not be conservative.
 
Historically, the core of conservatism has always been a suspicion of government power and intervention and conservatives therefore accept only the minimum amount of government that seems needed for a civil society to function. So it is no wonder that there is no authoritarian version of conservative ideology. If it were authoritarian it could not be conservative.

This looks like a lead up to why Republicans, and especially the neo-cons, should not be considered conservatives.
 
I'm not really concerned with the whole neo-con thing. My interest is the use of the term facist or nazi when people attack conservatives, especially Ann coulter, Rush and the others. And also, when people say religion has killed more people. Other than that, you know, whatever.
 
I'm not really concerned with the whole neo-con thing. My interest is the use of the term facist or nazi when people attack conservatives, especially Ann coulter, Rush and the others. And also, when people say religion has killed more people. Other than that, you know, whatever.

i dont call her a fascist. I just call her a wingnut. :p
 
At least that is, well if not more accurate, at least not as innacurate as calling her a facist, or a nazi. You could write Henry Rollins and explain that to him.
 
as for those two threads, I dont agree with em but as they are long it would be a long looooooooooooooooooooong post to explain why :p
 
I get it. That's why I like to link. People can read them or not, but at least they are out there to see.
 
I get it. That's why I like to link. People can read them or not, but at least they are out there to see.

Indeed. I have doubts about the authenticity of your links though. As someone else pointed out you do seem to post ones who agree with you, and you agree with them. Interesting though it is, that isn't how one should go about proving a thesis. (I have a major in history and am thinking of going for my Masters in history.) One thing we learned is that sometimes, presenting and acknowldging a contradictory viewpoint can actually help strengthen your argument and not weaken it. It is no surprise some here question you and your 'sources' and links, really.
 
At least that is, well if not more accurate, at least not as innacurate as calling her a facist, or a nazi. You could write Henry Rollins and explain that to him.

I'd be able to, too. lol. There is a difference between your fascism ideology and your typical capitalist religious conservative ideology. He sounds like a nutbar too.
 
My links are my links, they can get their own. I present what I have found they can do their own homework to show me why Hitler wasn't a lefty. My sources tend to be Ph.d's, this one and Thomas Sowell As well as hayek and Mises. Sowell started out as a Marxist economist, you can read some of his early books on Marx. Jonah goldberg is a columnist and a pundit. His liberal facism book is interesting. The link above about the leftists is where I found the interesting history on Rightists. It also explains why the left wants to put Hiltler on the "right" instead of the left where he belongs.
 
My links are my links, they can get their own. I present what I have found they can do their own homework to show me why Hitler wasn't a lefty. My sources tend to be Ph.d's, this one and Thomas Sowell As well as hayek and Mises. Sowell started out as a Marxist economist, you can read some of his early books on Marx. Jonah goldberg is a columnist and a pundit. His liberal facism book is interesting. The link above about the leftists is where I found the interesting history on Rightists. It also explains why the left wants to put Hiltler on the "right" instead of the left where he belongs.

I just spent some time reading up on Sowell. All I can say is Wow. I disagree with most of his beliefs especially the one about pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I myself was one of the ones helpedby such programs such as the one that allows studentw who did not complete highschool (such as myself) to still get a chance to go to university though they have to be 21 or older. I now have my degree and can now go for my masters if I so wish. And according to this guy if you applied his thoughts to martial arts people like me wouldnt be able to advance in rank and try for a Black Belt in martial arts because i was born with a balsnce problem. Fact is if there were no programs like that, if people had to survive on their own bootstraps many of em wouldnt make it.

But yeah you provide your own sources (if one can call them that) and if you want others can get their own. if you say so.
 
Bill if you've had replies you don't like on other threads it's because your arguments are so simplistic they make having a reasoned discussion very difficult. To even try arguing with you we have to also state things simply and world affairs and politics are far from simple.

Your statements that the Nazis and the Communists are all socialists and that all socialists are bad, violent and unhappy simply aren't acceptable as proof of anything. Another statement that socialism killed millions is likewise empty. You've even posted up a thread about socialism in Europe failing when the story is about something happening in Italy which shows you have no understanding of Europe or Italy for that matter. There's too many statements you have made such as 'all socialists hate religion' 'conservatives aren't violent' that require refuting and that gets in the way of even hoping for a decent discussion.

I think you should be honest here and say that your motives for these posts isn't to explore the nuances of political thought but merely to emphasis that your beliefs are the correct ones to have. the inference is that we are wrong and you are right.

For these and many others I'm bowing out of discussing politics with you yet again, especially if you are going to tell me things like the Anglo Saxon approach to terrorism being gentle.
 
I will say it directly, I believe that the left is wrong. At their best they drag a society down and at their worst they are dangerous. I am also a conservative, so I believe in democracy, limited government, individual rights, especially those in the Bill of rights of the constitution of the U.S. I believe in the freedom of religion, the press and the right of every individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. I believe that the left does not hold these to the same respect that I and other conservatives do. You need only look to the murder on Saturday and the reaction of the left wing politicians and media to see how they view the world. Are all people who are left of center violent. Of course not. Do I think they are wrong. Absolutely. I will put my energy to electing people who agree with me the same as you and people of your beliefs will try to get your guys elected. I will fight to protect your rights the same as I will fight to protect my own.

I like to post sites that match my opinion, in the way I feel comfortable expressing it. If people here do not like my just linking to other sites, read something else. We each have our own way of expressing ourselves and I am more than happy with the way others here express themseleves. I don't believe in stopping anyone from posting whatever they like as long as it matches the forum rules, because this site is the property of the people who created it. I believe in the right of people to control their own property as well.
 
I am also a conservative, so I believe in democracy, limited government, individual rights, especially those in the Bill of rights of the constitution of the U.S. I believe in the freedom of religion, the press and the right of every individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. I believe that the left does not hold these to the same respect that I and other conservatives do.

So what about the right wing response to the "Ground Zero Mosque"? Was that more respectful of freedom of religion than the "left"?

images
 
I will say it directly, I believe that the left is wrong. At their best they drag a society down and at their worst they are dangerous. I am also a conservative, so I believe in democracy, limited government, individual rights, especially those in the Bill of rights of the constitution of the U.S. I believe in the freedom of religion, the press and the right of every individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. I believe that the left does not hold these to the same respect that I and other conservatives do. You need only look to the murder on Saturday and the reaction of the left wing politicians and media to see how they view the world. Are all people who are left of center violent. Of course not. Do I think they are wrong. Absolutely. I will put my energy to electing people who agree with me the same as you and people of your beliefs will try to get your guys elected. I will fight to protect your rights the same as I will fight to protect my own.

I like to post sites that match my opinion, in the way I feel comfortable expressing it. If people here do not like my just linking to other sites, read something else. We each have our own way of expressing ourselves and I am more than happy with the way others here express themseleves. I don't believe in stopping anyone from posting whatever they like as long as it matches the forum rules, because this site is the property of the people who created it. I believe in the right of people to control their own property as well.



It's Bob's property actually. :)
 
I will say it directly, I believe that the left is wrong. At their best they drag a society down and at their worst they are dangerous.
...
Are all people who are left of center violent. Of course not. Do I think they are wrong. Absolutely.


And this, from both sides, is the crux of the problem. When one starts to believe that the other side is wrong. Not a view I don't share, not coming from a differnt angle. Just plain wrong. They're wrong, they don't count. I have no need to listen to what they say. That is a dangerous path to go down. You lose civility in the political discourse. It's easier to put down your opponent because he doesn't count. After all, he's wrong, so why bother. Never mind he may have a better approach, or that combining solutions may result in a better one.

All you end up with is 2 polarized sides that don't talk to each other, whose goal is to wrest power from the other, and the welfare of the country be damned.
 
Tez you keep stealing all the good words and paragraphs from my head :D

So I'll just say ditto.

I don't consider myself a violent upstart and I lean left. If I label what I am, Libertarian is the closest I can come up with. Minarchist as well (not entirely, just a minimal amount) :)
 
Back
Top