The Conservative Shift
Pages
| Author | Topic: The Conservative Shift |
|---|---|
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 19:03
Profile
Homepage
The sad thing is, the propaganda machine isn't even particularly strong -- it's just that there is absolutely no resistance to it. Which is ridiculous. I can state, however, that the Daley propaganda machine in Chicago is definitely stronger (and has been for decades upon decades, from what I've read). (Of course, the current Daley would be much less controversial than Bush even without the propaganda.) -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 19:10
Profile
Homepage
Well, TM, I did mean legislative and judicial too, but I used "executive" as a general term for a position in power. I realize that arguing with you is futile because everything I say is obviously wrong. :rolleyes: -------------------- -ben4808 Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 19:15
Profile
Homepage
quote:Dude. That's a contradiction. An unquestioned propaganda machine is a successful one. (So is one which we pretend doesn't exist.) Or rather- how else could the Republicans Lite (aka "dems") be so successfully de-testicled? quote:Irony is, your sarcastic statement just so happens to be true. [ Wednesday, February 22, 2006 19:16: Message edited by: Prometheus ] -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 19:55
Profile
Homepage
quote:Talk of Jesus is allowed in public school. Expressing support for Christianity over other religions is not. Actually, expressing support for any religion is not, period. —Alorael, who would feel uncomfortable in any religious context in a public, non-religious setting. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 6670
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 20:00
Profile
Homepage
Poor Americans. The problem with only two parties is that in order to get a little good change, you have to put up with a lot of bad. Why is it that Americans group moral, economic, and foreign policy all together? On the plus side, it makes the democratic process so much easier. Two political parties, two sides of a coin. Coincidence? I think not! -------------------- The only difference between you and me is that I got caught... and I impaled someone's cat on a weathervane. - Antony St.-George (This Hour Has 22 Minutes) Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 20:08
Profile
Homepage
Well, there were political machines and robber barons in the 1800's. Just as corrupt and bad for the general people, if not worse. Edit: That's twice today Dikiyoba has forgotten about the second page. Maybe Dikiyoba should start looking at the second page first. [ Wednesday, February 22, 2006 20:09: Message edited by: Dikiyoba ] Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 21:31
Profile
Yay! It's been so long since one of these melees has occurred. :) Just to cover all the traditional bases first: Ash and Ben, both of you are wrong. With that out of the way, I would posit that the conservative noise right now is just that - noise. This is because conservatives are losers - in the economic sense. Because their values are endangered, they have more incentive than the majority to act and assert themselves. The reality is that most Americans don't care one way or another what conservative cretins think, provided that the stink doesn't affect their lives. Note that anytime any conservative policy comes close to touching anything that regular Americans actually value deeply, they get struck down. Consider the reaction to the Terri Schiavo deal-io. You may point to all the proposed gay marriage bans going into effect as evidence, but States have historically reacted similarly toward comparable circumstances (e.g. slavery, civil rights). The sea change is toward secularism. To be fair, the travesty that is the U.S. executive branch currently doesn't really qualify as truly conservative - their opportunistic actions, lack of compassion, and flagrant incompetence defy any true mores. That conservative crazies would continue to support it boggles the mind. [ Wednesday, February 22, 2006 21:32: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 21:46
Profile
Homepage
quote:Ooh! Ooh! Liver! Don't forget the liver! -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 22:40
Profile
quote:Yes, it is true that social conservatives are, as the New Republic puts it, "hapless dupes." Gestures like those are simply what the Republican leadership does to placate the base; they aren't serious about making more than a token, symbolic effort. The real damage is being done in economic policy, where they somehow think they can go all laissez-faire and still hemorrhage money through badly run government programs. Fact is, party leadership has given up pretty easily on social conservative legislation, at least compared to the way economic policy bills are routinely rammed through with fifty-one percent votes. Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 22:51
Profile
Homepage
quote:But the eagle ate it... -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 23:20
Profile
Homepage
Don't worry, I hear it grows back daily. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Thursday, February 23 2006 00:56
Profile
quote:Bah! You speak to an Irishman. Without those horrible, corrupt political machines, I'd still probably be speaking with an accent and swearing funny. Same goes for anyone whose family came here before 1940 or so, really. Political machinery and other kinds of corruption have been vital to integration of immigrants into America. Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, February 23 2006 01:19
Profile
What about the aboriginal americans? Nah, they get picked on enough throughout history. Just because it sounds pretentious, both sides of my family have ancestors who landed at Plymouth Rock on the Mayflower. Some fellow named Standish was one of them. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, February 23 2006 06:56
Profile
quote:Yep, it's a Pigouian moment for many vital areas of American interest - defense contracting, disaster recovery, healthcare, and energy. The market left to its own devices clearly won't make the best choices for society. Intelligent regulatory solutions are needed to address these issues, but unfortunately, I believe we're unlikely to see them during this Republican nadir. But hey - as long as they say they have Jesus in their hearts, want to persecute the gays, and take away women's rights, let's keep voting them in! Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, February 23 2006 07:50
Profile
Homepage
To remind us that this question was started by an Australian and that we're not all in the U.S. here, I'd like to mention the fact that Thatcher in the U.K. shifted British discourse to the right at the same time as Reagan did in the U.S. That, then, was the time to suggest that the entire world was going conservative. Thatcher had control for quite some time, and so did her successor, but now Labour has come back and won three elections in a row. Not all countries in Europe and the Americas are going in the same direction. It'd be interesting to track which ones are doing which things. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, February 23 2006 12:56
Profile
But both Blair and Clinton are widely said to have won power by leading their parties rightward, towards the center. That suggests that the center moved right. And the Canadian Conservative Party has just taken power; but the Liberal regime before them was about the most fiscally conservative government in the industrialized world, with an actually balanced budget for many years. Lately I have been impressed by the 'Nixon in China' theory of democracy. Only Nixon could go to China, the theory goes, because only he had an unassailable reputation as an anti-communist. The principle represented by this episode is that policies tend to get implemented by their natural opposition, who can seize middle ground by stealing the most reasonable planks from their opponents' platforms. I'm inclined to think this is a good thing, actually. But for the present discussion I think it indicates that the most telling sign of rightward shift -- or its absence -- would be in the behaviour of leftward parties. [ Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:58: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6096
|
written Thursday, February 23 2006 13:45
Profile
Homepage
It's also interesting that extreme right wing parties have gained more power in Europe in the recent years. I don't know, to me it seems like there was a left shift in cultural products some five years ago. In politics, I'm not sure. There was an 8-year period in Finland when the largest left-wing, largest right-wing and a few smaller parties together formed the government. The center party (which was the third largest party) was in opposition. Now, when the center party and the largest left wing party are in the government, the main right wing party is in opposition and complains about the poor state of health care/social services. However, the same party was cutting the funds of social services in the last government(s, local and national) together with Social Democrats. Posts: 77 | Registered: Sunday, July 10 2005 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 4349
|
written Sunday, February 26 2006 10:31
Profile
My views: - as some suggested, I think part of the perceived 'shift' is more in the presentation than in fact. I.e., the elected leaders are far more right wing, the media is more right wing, etc. - To the extent that there is a shift, I think in large part it's simply the fact that 'conservatism' was hijacked as a movement as one of several groups in a coalition to gain power, the magical 51%. The designers of this effort know what they are doing; many of the groups in it do not. This is why you have Christian groups in a coalition opposing helping the poor, you have fiscal conservatives in a coalition with huge deficits, you have small government conservatives in a coalition which has grown government hugely. This coalition is called the republican party, and it's working; they identified the key segments of society which felt 'slighted' by not being in the previous majorities (the reaction to the republican depression in 1932 through the Southern Strategy in 1968), and created the sense of persecution where needed, to 'mobilize the base', by pandering to these groups. So you have the Christians - over 75% of America and doing just fine, thank you - sold on things like the 'war on Christmas' to get them supporting the republican pandering to their more extremist elements, not supporting the democrats for, say, the democrats more Christian policies for the poor. What's behind it? Putting aside the duped masses who aren't behind it but are enabling it, you have groups ranging from monied interests - it's the old system of a political party selling out the public interest for business support - and ideologues. Ironically, the ideologues not only resemble the types who have come before, of harmful minority views gaining power - from the Bolsheviks to the Nazis - but they are actually in many cases direct descendants of the Trotskyites of the 30's, using the same 'ends justify the means' approach. And it's worked, if barely (the 2000 election was particularly disrespectful to democracy, in the man who was the clear choice of the voters not getting the office, through both accident and design). Following such shifts in power you have the 'infrastructure', such as Fox News, which chases power and profits by doing so. These things increase the 'movement'. Casualties include the empowerment of the people to be well-informed, as that poorly serves these interests. Indeed, as Orwell wrote in 1984, the purpose of the sort of propaganda you see there or from many on the right now is aimed at preventing the citizens from seeing the facts, framing issues in ways to prevent it; issues need two sides, but what two sides? For example, the policy in Iraq is not about the issues of internaitonal law, of aggression versus democracy - rather, the questions are, 'do you support the troops', are you 'with America or against America', etc., to use some of the more simplistic examples. The most important issues are decided often secretly - when did you last interact with your government on the programs to develop new space-based or 'tactical nuclear weapons' - and when they can't be secret, crude propaganda serves. Take the first gulf war: whatever the merits, they did not decide the issue; most of the public was against the war, but a PR campaign changed that - a campaign with the cooperation of the US government, including an effort paid for by the Kuwaiti government (in exile), who hired a US ad agency with a manager who had been President George H. W. Bush's chief of staff as VP, starring a tearful woman testifying to congress about the horrors she saw of Iraqi troops leaving babies on hospital floors to steal their incubators - stories which were later shown to be lies, told by a woman who was not there, but was - unknown to the listeners - the daughter of the Kuwait ambassador. And yet, there was no political price for the deceipt - it worked to sell a war. That's the story, and it's the responsbility of the American people to counter it, just as it always is for the society to prevent evil elements from gaining leadership. Most importantly, perhaps, is not 'defeat the right', but rather 'fix the system' from the terribly broken way we do elections now in the money - where it takes millions to get elected, forcing the government to represent donors not voters. Posts: 8 | Registered: Thursday, May 6 2004 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Sunday, February 26 2006 11:43
Profile
Homepage
Nicely put, sir. Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, February 26 2006 13:50
Profile
This story about a story of stolen incubators seemed to me to deserve checking itself; it seems to be true. Not that the Iraqi army ejected premature babies, but that the lie that they did was promulgated to whip up support for Gulf War I. I'm unimpressed by Christian Science, but the Christian Science Monitor is (somehow) a serious newspaper, and The Fifth Estate, cited as a source in the link above, is also reasonably serious. As a non-American who until recently was a US resident, I take the view that fixing American politics is a job for Americans. But for what an outsider's view might be worth, I also feel that the first thing to fix about the American political system is to put in some strong campaign finance limits, such as apply in all the other democracies I know anything about. My impression is, though, that this may be very hard to do. Limiting campaign contributions is telling people that they can't give their own money to support causes they believe in. There are two hundred years of American political momentum going against any such thing. Something they call 'Liberty', I believe. It might actually be easier to ban political ads on television; this would probably go a long way to solving the problem. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
|
written Sunday, February 26 2006 14:08
Profile
Homepage
I think that you're oversimplifying it quite a bit by blaming it all on the party system. But what you've suggested is definitely interesting. Me, I'm registered Independant because most American parties (Democrats and Republicans included)are simply self-serving, power-hungry political-action propaganda groups who seek to get votes by pleasing voters. And being independant still doesn't keep the darn republicans from calling on a weekly basis... ugh... I swear, if I have to hear the words "the Democrats are mobilizing" one more freaking time... Looking over the world news a bit after this topic was started, I'd like to amend my observations. What I'm seeing is not necessarily a shift towards conservatism, but a shift away from Anti-conservatism towards true liberalism. Which just so happens to have some elements in the "conservative" direction. The way I see it, the world is coming back to its senses and is starting to finally realize that it's okay to agree with your political opponent on a few things, as well as keeping your eyes open for better options. (Edit: Grammar correction) -------------------- This Silent Assassin thinks that it is greater to be feared than loved, because it makes the job a lot more fun. [ Sunday, February 26, 2006 14:11: Message edited by: Lenar Labs ] -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Sunday, February 26 2006 16:16
Profile
Congressional term limits are one thing that could help. As it is, the American Congress suffers from all the bad things that come along with careerism, especially the belief that manipulating voters is part of the job. If there a one or two-term max, then legislators would be mostly idealists with some other sort of income. Legislation would become a patriotic duty for the most able citizens, and not a career which one has got to fight tooth and nail to keep. Of course, there's the issue of losing the experience and expertise that comes from serving on the same commitee for over a decade. Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Sunday, February 26 2006 16:28
Profile
Homepage
Lobbying and pork could be banned, but that's not likely to happen. Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, February 26 2006 18:08
Profile
Homepage
I'm always ambivalent about term limits. Does preventing the eternal counterproductive senators justify removing from office those who could and would continue to serve the people rather than themselves? I don't know. The biggest problem with campaigns is that they're based on charisma, not policy. Banning television ads would help. Banning campaigning altogether aside from written statements to the press would help even more. Both are a little beyond feasibility. —Alorael, who remains convinced that most of the best politicians (for the country, not in terms of skill) are the people who are least likely to run. Involuntary election is an attractive concept except for the loss of freedom involved and the fact that it's hard to convince anyone to vote for someone doing his or her best to ensure that someone else is elected. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, February 26 2006 19:07
Profile
Homepage
Classical government by the people was done partly with selection by lot — random chance, not election. It worked decently well for them, much of the time. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |