The answer is: they’re both equally nuts. In certain cases, although the foundations of these philosophies are based on polar opposite assumptions, the actual policies they propose are virtually indistinguishable from one another.
People like to visualize the difference between Left-Right political views by drawing a straight line. “Moderates” are in the middle, and the farther one moves left or right from the center, the more “liberal” or “conservative” these views become.
To an extent it’s a helpful tool to identify political ideas. However, when the opinions they represent approach the ends of the line, something curious happens. Rather than just continue out ad infinitum, they begin to curve back and form a circle. In certain cases, although the foundations of these philosophies are based on polar opposite assumptions, the actual policies they propose are virtually indistinguishable from one another.
Have a look at the following Extreme Right-Left world views, and see where the circle begins to form — and eventually converge.
9/11
“[N]o one wants to talk about who's really behind the 9/11 attacks … Clearly it points to elements within the government …. If it's an inside job, it has to be inside the military-industrial government complex."
** 9/11Truth.org http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070528190609938
“The CIA trained, funded and protected Bin Laden [because] the government needed a crisis to convince the people to willingly give up their liberty in exchange for safety. … Bloodthirsty globalists are using the terrorist attacks to scare the population into accepting high-tech slavery and a new world order police state.”
** Alex Jones http://www.infowars.com/tyranny.htm
Immigration
“Can you think of any positive reasons why we need one more immigrant whether legal or illegal? Name a single valued point of adding more foreigners to our country in the 21st century. … These new immigrants arrive from totally incompatible cultures. They are the seeds of cancer sewn into our social fabric that will eventually destroy our nation. … Let's shut down America's borders. Let's stop all immigration.”
**Frosty Wooldridge http://www.rense.com/general69/stopallimmigration.htm
“The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service's military-style "Operation Gatekeeper" has killed over 600 Mexican migrants. … The U.S. Border separates families, communities, and nations. It also keeps Third World workers and farmers under regimes where wage rates are drastically depressed through violent repression — this allows the United States to make huge profits off of its investments abroad. We the undersigned call for an end to … policies restricting people's free movement across the border.”
** Petition sponsored by the Maoist Internationalist Movement – California http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/cal/GKeepAdvance.txt
Crime
“Though the United States steadfastly denies it, presently there are many political prisoners in the United States, the majority of them Black/New Afrikans who were targets of the COINTELPRO "Black Nationalist Hate Groups" program. Many of these brothers and sisters have been incarcerated for decades.”
** Prison Activist Resource Center http://www.prisonactivist.org/
“Guns don't kill people, ni**ers kill people.”
** Tightrope (Neo-Nazi website) http://www.tightrope.cc/news/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=90
Homosexuality
“Only reactionaries and conservatives believe in the idea of 'natural man'. Just what is so different in human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom is their 'unnaturalness'. Civilisation is in fact our evolution away from the limitations of the natural environment and towards its ever more complex control. It is not 'natural' to travel in planes. It is not 'natural' to take medicines and perform operations. Clothing and shoes do not grow on trees. Animals do not cook their food. This evolution is made possible by the development of technology-i.e. all those tools and skills which help us to control the natural environment. … The sexist culture gives straight men privileges which, like those of any privileged class, will not be surrendered without a struggle, so that all of us who are oppressed by this culture (women and gay people), must band together to fight it. The end of the sexist culture and of the family will benefit all women, and gay people.”
Gay Liberation Front Manifesto http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/pwh/glf-london.html
[In] recent years the practice of homosexuality has become lethal in a much more direct and immediate manner. AIDS is a "gift" from the gay community.
Section q http://www.sectionq.com/index.php?page=homosexuality
Bonus citation: “Canadian scientists published a study which found some connection between left-handedness and homosexuality. … The authors point out that left-handedness has been associated with a wide range of indicators of reduced fitness, from the standpoint of natural (Darwinian) selection. Left-handed people, the authors say, have a smaller number of offspring, higher number of spontaneous abortions, lower birth weight, higher number of serious accidents, higher rates of serious disorders, and a shorter life span. Left-handedness has similarly been linked to neural tube defects, autism, stuttering, and schizophrenia. The authors conclude by discussing possible biological reasons for the link between left-handedness and homosexuality. Their preferred explanation is that both left-handedness and homosexuality result from ‘biological developmental errors.’”
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality http://www.narth.com/docs/lefthand.html
Race
“Prehistoric migrations of the Whites since the dawn of time carried with them the germs of intellect and culture which would later develop. When races are in permanent contact, there is racial intermarriage creating a mongrel race. However, the language, carvings, statues, and monuments remain to prove that members of the White race once built the civilization.”
** The Importance of Race in History: http://www.libreopinion.com/members/standarteslc/race02.html
“The black race, which is the superior primordial grandfather of all the other pale weaklings must jealously guard and preserve its regal status, must not be diluted, must remain pure, so that the majestic pride, strength, fortitude, and medicinal blood, will continue to preserve it against natural forces and against the recalcitrant and belligerent weak races.”
** Nigerianvillagesquare http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/palava-hut/39552-my-friend-wants-marry-outcast-9.html
Jews
Slogan of the Vanguard News Network: “No Jews. Just Right.”
** Vanguard News Network http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
“[T]he Jews don't like Farrakhan and so they call me 'Hitler.' Well that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man.”
** Speech by Louis Farrakhan http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/farrfact.htm
The War in Iraq
“The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.”
** Ron Paul http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/
“[Congress] had been misled by false intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction presented by the Bush administration. … The war in Iraq has imposed a tremendous cost on our troops, their families, and our budget. Four years after the start of the war, the violence continues to grow, and there is no end in sight. … As long as we stay [in Iraq] our occupation will continue to serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists. … America is ready for a leader who will end the war in Iraq and a president who will respect our Armed Forces by properly planning for the missions we ask our troops to undertake. If the Bush administration won't, as president and commander in chief, [I] will end this war.”
** Hillary Clinton http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/ and http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/195654.shtml and
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=2366
This last entry appears to be a tie. Either that, or someone is plagiarizing the other candidate’s website.
The circle is complete.
The only difference, of course, is that the “Far Right” don’t actually represent conservative values in any real sense. They are not conservative principles taken to the extreme – they are completely separate principles forged from delusional thinking. The left, on the other hand, is proudly led and represented by what you would categorize as the “Far Left”. The “Far Left” is basically more ardent adherence to “mainstream left” thought and ideology – the difference is in the degree of fervor. That is not the case with the “Far Right”. A typical Republican voter does not believe that the CIA armed, funded and is harboring Osama Bin Laden to further globalist agendas. A typical Democrat voter, however, does believe (or at the very least, could be easily convinced, and probably does not doubt) that the Bush administration had a role in carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Patrick: Excellent point. When the “Far Right” goes off the clift, they enter a completely new world. But there is no clift for the Far Left. Like the Energizer Bunny, they just keep going and going from the same base, until they meet up with the crazy Right extremists.
Usually, the “Far Right” are libertarians who are actually shifting to the left. Buchanan and Ron Paul are both great examples of this. This is why the rhetoric begins to sound familiar. Because instead of circling around, those who were at the top of the political graph, start sliding rapidly left.
The thing about the far left is that they want more control over you and I, while the far right simply wants to be left alone (for the most part).
It is absolutely ridiculous to try and even compare Ron Paul with Hillary Clinton. Ron Paul has the most consistently conservative voting record in all of Congress. He votes the Constitution, plain and simple. Does Hillary?
The Intellectual Conservative website says it is a place of “Conservative and Libertarian politics and philosophy.” Well, Dr. Ron Paul is the epitome of a true conservativism and libertarianism. How is it that he is so disrespected as to be compared to Hillary Clinton?
Regarding the “War in Iraq” section where you say “this last entry appears to be a tie. Either that, or someone is plagiarizing the other candidate’s website.”
Let’s note that Ron Paul voted against the Iraq War from the very beginning. Hillary Clinton did NOT.
I don’t see a tie there. What I see is Clinton, who is a political opportunist, changing her position with the tide of public opinion.
Ron Paul had the wisdom and foresight to vote against this mess in the first place.
If Ron Paul is comparable to Hillary Clinton, then so is George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
Patrick,
You said “The only difference, of course, is that the “Far Right” don’t actually represent conservative values in any real sense. They are not conservative principles taken to the extreme – they are completely separate principles forged from delusional thinking”
Can you cite an example or two of far right groups to support your statement? Who specifically are you referring to?
The problem as I see it is this. Most people don’t vote. Consequently, our politics is in the hands of both the far right and the far left nuts. The vast majority of people a centerists. But, they surrender their power to the extremes by not voting.
Fortunately, our political parties don’t pander to to the right or left wing. Politicians pander to themselves. The left is stuck with the democrats, the right is stuck with the republicans. These groups have no choice, but to stick with their respective parties. There’s nowhere else for them to go. Both parties know that those groups are secure. It’s in the center that elections are won or lost. They’ll give both extremes lots of red meat to feed on in the primaries. But, once a republican or democrat is elected, they’ll goven mainly from the center and certainly in their own self interest. The voters get what they deserve.
Greg IN NY
Phil,
Before I even read your article, I knew where you were going with this one. I have always viewed the continuum of political ideologies as a clock face, not a yard stick.
Anarchists and extreme libertarians sometimes think they can opt out and assert that they are completely orthogonal to the lines that run left and right. But this is a fallacy. Anarchy is a concept that exists only on paper. Nature abhors a vacuum and in practice, a power structure and a leader always emerges in any social structure – be it the playground, the prison, or the parliament.
“Can you cite an example or two of far right groups to support your statement? Who specifically are you referring to?”
I’m referring to the “Far Right” as exemplified by the quotations in this article. Read the quotes, follow the links. I’m confident you can manage it.
The problem is not that most people are centrist. “Centrist” really means “non-examining”. It means one who is too lazy to examine issues and develop principles that govern his or her political decisions. The “centrists” are the ones who are not voting, because they do not care. They’re too lazy to care. Most issues are polar – they have two basic “sides”. The “centrist” grey area between the sides is a kind of situational decision making that is impractical for government, as it has no universality and ends up being hypocritical. A great example would be our current president’s desire to cut taxes and simultaneously increase spending and triple the size of the government. You can’t have it both ways. Low taxes are not compatible with a bureaucratic welfare state. People with convictions, either left or right, are obviously going to be the ones doing most of the voting. Those with situational convictions that change with the tide of public opinion because they’ve failed to take a real position on an issue, the “centrists”, are obviously less likely to care about the outcome of elections. As far as your opinion on the parties: I would hardly say that Bill Clinton and Ronal Reagan governed from the same centrist position. Clinton was an unapologetic liberal, Reagan was an unapologetic conservative. Being a “centrist”, I suppose it all seems the same to you, but if you examine the laws both men signed into action and the agendas put forth by their administrations, you’d notice a pretty dramatic difference. The same contrast could be seen in lower leadership as well, like, say, Sen. Teddy Kennedy and former Rep. Newt Gingrich. But what am I doing asking a “centrist” to think?
Ugh! So what we need to do is follow the wisdom of the serious minded centrists like Phil and Greg instead of listening to those crazy far-righters who actually want to follow the Constitution.
Of course following the wisdom of the centrists has got us three trillion dollar budgets and self-described “conservatives” trying to “save” socialist programs like social security and patting themselves on the back because they managed to “slow the rate of growth” of some unconstitutional socialist program. Bang up job you’re doing there gentlemen. Way to conserve that Old Republic.
First of all the political spectrum is not clock faced, although like any complex phenomenon, it can not adequately be boiled down to a single dimension. (That is not to say that what the left/right spectrum measures is not important. It is and I am a bit of a defender of the traditional left right spectrum as I think it measures a dimension that is extremely important/fundamental.)
You can not go far enough right that you become left or vice versa as Phil likes to assert. The commonality is based on them being equidistant from the political center. By definition they are not happy with the status quo, and do not think the situation can be rectified by mild changes to the status quo. In that respect, the far right is less similar to the center right than the center right is to the center left. But that does not mean that right becomes left.
Also, the introduction of conspiracies conflates the issue. People who are profoundly unhappy with the status quo are more likely to buy explanations that paint the powers that be in a negative light. (Of course there is a bit of a chicken or the egg issue here. Do people who buy conspiracy theories generally drift to the far left or right, but that is immaterial to the discussion.) But the tendency to accept conspiratorial explanations is one of those other dimensions that I said are part of the complexities of the political spectrum. It is not an inherent part of either the far left or far right. The guys at Chronicles are by today’s standards “far right,” but they openly scoff at conspiracy theories.
Also, as I have made the case over and over to you, the nationalism that is advocated by the National Vanguard types is CLEARLY left-wing. It is based on a post-French Revolution concept of the nation state. They are a confusing mix of left and right. They reject egalitarianism which is rightist, but their nationalism is leftist.
So Phil, what dimension do you believe the left/right political spectrum measures? And I mean philosophically at base. Hopefully you can answer this without too much reference to modern issues and modern partisan politics as that confuses the base issue since, as I have said over and over, most of what is today’s “right” is historically left. Is what the left right spectrum measures a valid dimension? Is it important/fundamental? If so, logically explained to me how far right on a single dimension becomes far left? This should be right up the alley of a polysci PhD.
Patrick, feel free to take a crack at it as well. Since I think your statement “The only difference, of course, is that the “Far Right” doesn’t actually represent conservative values in any real sense. They are not conservative principles taken to the extreme – they are completely separate principles forged from delusional thinking.” is incorrect. I can not speak for all the “far right.” I can only speak for my own perspective which is paleoconservatism or classical conservatism, but the problem is closer to being that modern “conservative values” are historically speaking, leftist. (Not entirely, of course.) So classical conservative values seem foreign to the modern mind so corrupted by liberalism.
Just to confuse things, and I do think this can get very confusing, libertarianism as a philosophy is leftist. Libertarians (small and larger l) are a form of classical liberals. They have generally been considered part of the right in America since around the time of Hayek, and functionally that has generally been accurate. Philosophically it is a confusing mixed bag. And further evidence that a single dimension can’t accurately categorize a complex phenomenon.
Does anyone really see a difference between a man like Farakan and David Duke? Wait- I got one; Farakan is respected in his party.
Mr. Jackson:
Sir, you disappoint me with your article. The main reason is because the extreme Left actually has real power in America through Hollywood, other media, academia, the courts, Congress, and in sectors of Washington. But the extreme Right has no real influence in America period. Simply put, the hard Left and the hard Right cannot be equated and that makes the entire premise of your article disingenuous in my eyes. Mr. Mulligan was correct in his first post, I’m just advancing the argument.
Secondly, the one politician who you implied was a member of the extreme Right was Ron Paul. I am no libertarian, even as a “paleo” I don’t like some of Paul’s comments about Iraq and I will probably not be voting for him, but I must say that I can’t think of a man with more integrity in Congress than he. Although it is perfectly fair to say that he is the strictest constitutionalist in Congress, it is unfair to suggest he is an extreme ideologue of the Right. His everyday values and viewpoints are fairly normal and he should not be branded as extreme merely because he thinks the language of the Constitution ought to be taken literally and respected.
Can you please try again and name for me a single, real, right-wing extremist who has real influence in America?
Dan,
“Left-wing” and “right-wing” have no definitions, so to speak. They merely have generally understood applications, and “right-wing” can, in common usage, apply to philosophies as diverse as libertarianism, monarchism, fascism, or constitutionalism.
I guess you would argue that this makes the terms incoherent. To a certain extent, I suppose it does. As you know, “left” and “right” became political jargon during in revolutionary France, where those supporting the monarchy sat on the right of the assembly hall, and those opposing it on the left. Even then, however, these two opposing factions were coalitions of people with different views. On the far right of the room, for instance, sat the de Maistres of the world–the strong supporters of absolute monarchy. More towards the center, but nonetheless on the right, sat the followers of Necker, who favored British-like reform.
This was all in France, which was a very different place than the United States. The specific French applications of “left” and “right” do not apply here. Classical liberalism holds a philosophical role in the United States similar to that held by monarchism in France. It permeates our history. Hence, it makes perfect sense for classical liberalism to be thought of as “right-wing” in the United States.
This is not the same, however, as saying that classical liberals are conservatives. But they can be. Within the classical liberal tradition as I see it, there are the radicals and there are the conservatives. Today, radicals who remain classical liberals tend to be libertarians. They are classical liberals through and through, bascially accepting the philosphical foundations. The conservative classical liberals believe that classically liberal instutions are the most fundamentally American instutions, and are therefore worth preserving (though I don’t mean to suggest that if American institutions were fascistic such conservatives would pledge themselves to fascism). But conservative classical liberals, such as myself, have big problems with the philosophical foundations of classical liberalism. Nevertheless:
1. I have big problems with the philosophical foundations of anything.
2. Though I can’t satisfactorily explain why liberty, in and of itself, is a good thing, I nonetheless think it is.
3. Part of loving one’s country is loving one’s country’s character, and no one can deny the influence classical liberalism has had on this country’s character.
My conservatism allows me to reject some of the more grandiose and outlandish claims of classical liberalism, while still respecting that philosophy as a national tradition.
I may have gotten off track here, but let me take a shot at answering the questions you asked Phil:
1. “What dimension do you believe the left/right political spectrum measures?”
Generally speaking, “right” refers to those people who, if change is necessary, prefer making things more like they used to be–or, if that is impossible, keeping innovation modest. “Left” refers to those people who envision something different and new for the future, and seek to establish it. I would add that these terms have no justifiable application to foreign policy. And I would add that a clever person could probably find numerous exceptions to what I’ve said simply by framing policy questions differently that I would. But I base the dimension measured by “left” and “right,” as do you, on what people have historically called “left” and “right,” and I think it is as sound as any dimension one can name.
2. Is what the left/right spectrum measures a valid dimension?
I think so, though it won’t tell some people as much as they want it to.
3. Is it important/fundamental?
Important/fundamental to what?
In the end, though, I don’t think endeavoring to perfectly define “right-wing” or “left-sing” will be any more fruitful than Sissy Jupe’s effort, in Dickins’ “Hard Times,” to define “horse.” Like pornography, one knows it when one sees it. And if we disagree, then we disagree over something no more important than the application of a mere word, and we should agree to use some other word.
For those of you who are not aware of where Mr. Jackson is coming from let me post a couple of actual quotes from his writings:
“If people “like you” — who can’t figure out what victory/success in a war means — advocate one policy, we should immediately adopt the opposite. If you think we ought to surrender or withdraw from a conflict, then the correct policy is stay and fight.”
AND
“It’s the same prescription I’ve advocated when dealing with Democrat and Looney Liberal policies. If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support a position, then embrace the opposite course. ”
If this is the best he can come up with why is anybody even bothering to have a rational conversation with this guy?
Patrick,
It depends on how one defines a centerist. If you adhere to the Limbaugh, simple world for simple minds approach, there are three groups, left, center and right. In Rush’s world, it’s a simple as being white, black or brown skinned. Only people that fall into the left and right think. Centerists can’t make up their minds. You summed up Limbaughesque logic when you said:
“Centrist” really means “non-examining”. It means one who is too lazy to examine issues and develop principles that govern his or her political decisions. The “centrists” are the ones who are not voting, because they do not care. They’re too lazy to care. Most issues are polar – they have two basic “sides”
So, most issues are polar. They have two basic “sides’. Good or bad. Right or wrong. Nice or naughty. You either fall on the right side of most issues or the wrong side. If your “right”, your a conservative. You believe the same things other conservatives believe. If you don’t believe the same things other conservatives beleive, you’re a liberal. If you stray from some of the core beleifs, your probably a liberal. It’s all very simple. This your example of a thinking person. You further state:
“The “centrist” grey area between the sides is a kind of situational decision making that is impractical for government, as it has no universality and ends up being hypocritical”
So, we have an impractical representative rebublic. Granted, compromise may be impractical in your world, but I think it has served us well. Historically, I’ve seen many examples of “practical”, efficent, ideological government. I don’t want to live under one. Like it or not, politicians careers depend on “impractical decision making”. Your example of Bush’s stand on tax cuts and out of control spending is a good example of that.
More often than not, voting centerists have strong positions. Some are consrvative, some liberal. A centerist can’t be packaged into a simple philosphy, nor does a centerist feel a longing to belong to a group. A centerist understands that life is not simpe. Being a centerist requires both thinking and an independent spirit. Centerists are attacked by left and right loons. We’re not darlings of the media or talk radio because our positions can’t be packaged into sound bits or slogans. Centerists don’t have the mainstream media or talk radio to validate their thought.
For the record Patrick, I am a Republican…but I’m increasingly concerned by my party. That said, I never was a party line voter. Party line voting is for fools. That’s asking to be owned by a political party. Neither party represents me. Political parties represent the propogation of their own power.
I’d guess the Republicans can count on your support. You have no viable option other than to vote Republican. They can’t automatically count on my vote. Elections are won on two factors. Turning out the motivated base of both parties and swing voters. Swing votes are cast by indecicive, situational challenged, morally confused, intellectually muddled, uncaring citizens like me.
Greg in NY
Troy,
Those quotes are actually pretty erudite by Phil standards. Normally he is just squealing “racist” or reminding us he has a PhD.
Katzen, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I will respond when I have more time. Very briefly, I disagree with the idea that America was founded on classical liberalism. There were clearly classical liberal elements and a lot of liberal rhetoric, but the Old Republic was not primarily classically liberal. Admittedly, it was certainly more Roundhead than Cavalier.
Only 2 minutes ago I signed up for your conservative politics and philosophy blog. I then see a picture of the ONLY true conservative candidate in this whole damned presidential race and NO it isn’t Hillary. As a matter of fact Ron Paul will be the ONLY conservative republican that will be able to BEAT Hillary. I am going to locate a conservative site…this one most certainly isn’t it.
Karla: Hi. Bye.
Liberius: Sorry to disappoint you. I should have included a couple of quotes about how the Jews are responsible for the world’s problems, per your earlier writings.
Troy: It is indeed true that a good, shorthand way to assess the wisdom of a course of action is to look at those who favor/oppose it. The fact that you would object to a statement that “If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support a position, then embrace the opposite course,” speaks volumes about why I’m happy to be on the opposite side of your political beliefs.
Dan: Ron Paul a nut. Nationally, he’s a joke. The Republican Party rejects him (and this is his party of choice, since he’s running for the Republican nomination). His ideas about foreign affairs mesh perfectly with Hillary and the other Left Wing extremists. (Note: see my response to Troy). Try and get over it. He won’t be the Republican Party nominee, no mater how many times you vote for him as the winner of any given “debate”.
Oh, and even though you really, really, really believe that your political beliefs are the only true definition of “constitutional” and “conservative”, that’s not the case. I’d explain it to you again for the 100th time, but maybe you and Troy can just re-read some of my past essays and commentary instead.
Phil,
“I’d explain it to you again for the 100th time…”
Thanks but no need. I recall your belief that the Constitution provides a “framework” perfectly well. It differs hardly at all from the “living and breathing Constitution” nonsense peddled by the libs. How bout we get together some time for a game of poker where the rule book just provides a “framework?” I get to be the one who interprets it though. (Credit for the poker analogy goes to Walter Williams.)
BTW, I have never said that Ron Paul will win. I think if he gets anywhere close to the nomination, the Elite smear bund will hammer him in a way we have never witnessed before. Like they did Buchanan after New Hampshire, but worse. Honestly what will hurt him is not the War, but the fact that he really does want to cut spending. Once the media goes into overdrive with stories about all the unconstitutional programs he would cut/veto the masses, who like their Government funded booty, will decide they don’t want that much spending restraint. This is the fault of the sheep who have grown to like their wealth transfers and is testimony to the sorry state of modern “conservatism.”
But I am strongly supporting him anyway because his campaign is igniting a movement that is separate from the regular “conservative” establishment. You are correct that many in the GOP don’t like him. That is because they are not serious about the “conservatism” they profess to believe in.
“Ron Paul (is?) a nut. Nationally, he’s a joke.”
BTW, real scholarly argument there, Mr. PhD.
Dan: You ask me to explain something, then you tell me you know what I’ve said about it anyway. You allegedly embrace education, but continue disparage my Ph.D. Once again I must defer to the wisdom of Dennis Prager. “I have no power against stupidity.”
I’ll keep a watchful eye out for the Ron Paul juggernaut that is transforming American politics.
All the best, Phil
Phil,
“You ask me to explain something, then you tell me you know what I’ve said about it anyway.”
I believe I asked you to explain your view on the left/right political spectrum, not the Constitution.
BTW, to say that Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy are similar to Hillary’s views is just ignorant. Paul is a non-interventionist. Hillary is not a non-interventionists. She is an internationalist. She is a member of the CFR for crying out loud. Paul wouldn’t walk within a mile of the CFR building. The neocons are even praising her for her tough stance. Most all the Democrats are internationalists. Obama wants to invade Pakistan and few are willing to take first strike nukes “off the table” with Iran. Look at how they are falling all over each other to see who would be the quickest to send troops to Darfur.
Phil,
“It is indeed true that a good, shorthand way to assess the wisdom of a course of action is to look at those who favor/oppose it.”
Yes as a quick shorthand guide I can see some wisdom in that. However, you make it sound like a life principle which is just silly. Why should anybody read your work if this is the way you approach things? I can just look up Ms. Pelosi’s opinion on an issue – reverse it – to determine what to believe?
I noticed you didn’t mention Ms. Clinton on the oppose side of things. Would you add her to the list? On the other side could you name a politician on the favor side? George W. Bush perhaps? I am trying to get a handle on how your formula works.
Troy
As this is my first visit to IC, I must admit that I am seriously disappointed. The author of this article took serious liberties in attempting to prove their point. To be compared to Nazis under the moniker of conservative is like comparing mercury to a miracle drug.
The writer is mistakenly attempting to put every political/social theology under two descriptors, and the attempt is flawed to say the least.
I hope this article does not accurately depict the overall sediment of this site, as it will be a serious misnomer and little to no credit to the conservative ideal.
“to say that Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy are similar to Hillary’s views is just ignorant. Paul is a non-interventionist. Hillary is not a non-interventionists. She is an internationalist.”
You may want to re-read my opening paragraph: “In certain cases, although the foundations of these philosophies are based on polar opposite assumptions, the actual policies they propose are virtually indistinguishable from one another. Have a look at the following Extreme Right-Left world views, and see where the circle begins to form — and eventually converge.”
Thanks again for re-affirming my thesis.
“I can just look up Ms. Pelosi’s opinion on an issue – reverse it – to determine what to believe?”
Yep, that’s pretty much a good shorthand way to track an issue. Whatever Nancy wants to do on Iraq, minimum wage, stem cell research, tax policy, global warming, across-the-board federal spending, unions and other Left Wing special interest positions, I’ll take the opposite position sight unseen.
Phil,
Wow that is real neat formula you have. Does that always work for you? No actual thought – thinking things through just react to Ms. Pelosi that sure make life easier.
Could you answer the second part of my question I posted:
“I noticed you didn’t mention Ms. Clinton on the oppose side of things. Would you add her to the list? On the other side could you name a politician on the favor side? George W. Bush perhaps?”
Thank you,
Troy
Phil,
Paul’s and Hillary’s philosophical starting points differ, but they also reach very different conclusions. What about this is hard for you to understand? Hillary voted for the War initially. Paul did not. Hillary has soured on the War because it is not going well and the internal dynamics of her party demand it. But she is talking up the surge, saying we ought to replace Maliki, saber-rattling against Iran, etc. She is a committed internationalist who now happens to be against the Iraq War. Do you think if the War was going great she would be against it? Paul is a committed non-interventionist. He was against the War from the start. He was against it when it was perceived to be going well and was politically difficult for a Republican to oppose.
Take off your partisan blinders Phil.
Phil,
In Dan’s defense, you did write this about Ron Paul: “His ideas about foreign affairs mesh perfectly with Hillary and the other Left Wing extremists.”
Perfectly? I think not. They may be similar on Iraq, if you give a very loose definition to “similar.” They both, to one degree or another, oppose continuing the war. But compare Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton on any one of a number of other issues–Darfur, the United Nations, Israel/Palestine, and others–and you will see enormous differences in policy as well as philosophy.
I don’t agree with Paul on many things, but I don’t think it’s fair to call him a nutjob. I think he gave the best answer in any of the debates to a question about how he’d cut the size of government. While others, notably McCain, promised to get tough on pork (which wouldn’t actually cut the federal budget), Paul began his answer, “Let’s start with the departments…” I think it was refreshing, in this era of compassionate conservatism, to hear at least one Republican presidential candidate call for abolishing the Department of Education. I don’t want him to win, and he surely won’t, but I hope he succeeds in reinvigorating the small government wing of the conservative movement.
Troy:
I’ve spent the last year writing extensively on politics, religion, morality. Anything you want to know about what I believe, and why I believe it, can be found there. I don’t have the time, or desire, to give a one-on-one tutorial to someone with a limited ability to grasp even simple issues. So, once again I must invoke the Prager Doctrine, and wish you the best of luck as you struggle to understand why anyone should be wary of embracing the policies espoused by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton.
Dan:
My partisan blinders do not mask the glare from pseudo-intellectual Ubercon bilge, which is why I stopped treating anything you say with any degree of seriousness a long time ago. I’m sure others will delight in hearing again why Aristotle and genetically-related blood lines form the foundation for True Conservative thought, but it’s too close to dinner time for me to wade through this again. So polish up your Ron Paul For President button, and proudly lead the charge for whatever it is you demand that everyone else accept as the one-and-only Truth. I’m sure, like RP, the juggernaut of ideas you embrace will capture the imagination of thinking people everywhere … as long as they don’t think too seriously about the actual policies that flow from this fountain of universal knowledge
Phil, always so testy. Here is what I wrote at another blog.
“Our old friend Phillip Ellis Jackson (Did I mention he has a PhD?) once again demonstrates his poor grasp of basic political philosophy by regurgitating the old canard that once you go so far right you intersect with the left or vice versa.
Feel free to educate Dr. Jackson, but be gentle. He is a bit thinned skinned when his erudition is questioned. I think Dr. Jackson fancies himself the intellectual Alpha Male over at Intellectual Conservative so he gets pretty vicious when he his protecting his home turf.”
And here is one of the comments that followed.
“This Jackson clown has a PhD? What in? Home Ec?”
I take it your emphasis was not in Political Philosophy.
“In Dan’s defense, you did write this about Ron Paul: “’His ideas about foreign affairs mesh perfectly with Hillary and the other Left Wing extremists.’”
Katzen: other than citing RP’s exact words, and Hillary’s exact words, the only thing I said in my original essay about this was “This last entry appears to be a tie. Either that, or someone is plagiarizing the other candidate’s website.” Dan said that “Paul’s and Hillary’s philosophical starting points differ, but they also reach very different conclusions.” (Comment 26). Well, here are the quotes again:
Paul: “The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.”
Clinton: “[Congress] had been misled by false intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction presented by the Bush administration. … The war in Iraq has imposed a tremendous cost on our troops, their families, and our budget. Four years after the start of the war, the violence continues to grow, and there is no end in sight. … As long as we stay [in Iraq] our occupation will continue to serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists. … America is ready for a leader who will end the war in Iraq and a president who will respect our Armed Forces by properly planning for the missions we ask our troops to undertake. If the Bush administration won’t, as president and commander in chief, [I] will end this war.”
I don’t see the “different conclusions” that RP “reaches”, compared to Hillary’s “conclusions”. In fact, they again reinforce what I said in my original essay: “In certain cases, although the foundations of these philosophies are based on polar opposite assumptions, the actual policies they propose are virtually indistinguishable from one another. Have a look at the following Extreme Right-Left world views, and see where the circle begins to form — and eventually converge.”
The Iraq policy that RP advocates is indistinguishable from Hillary’s direct quotes on the same subject. You are correct that saying “foreign affairs” is not a direct synonym for “Iraq”, but I used this term in the comment section to address the foreign affairs issue I wrote about in my essay — Iraq. I thought it was clear in context, but I accept your point and I’ll just simply say “Iraq” again. And I will accept that RP’s inane policy prescription for Iraq is based on a more “principled” stand than Hillary’s opportunism. But like it or not, their policy prescriptions on Iraq converge — and will remain virtually identical until Hillary comes up with another politically-motivated position. So, if this presents a problem, just substitute the position of, say, Moveon.org for Hillary, and the same point remains. Though starting from a different point, their policy prescriptions are virtually indistinguishable. Read Hillary’s quote to RP, and there’s nothing in it that the RP supporter would dispute, and vice versa.
The only issue I’ve raised about RP in my essay was Iraq. And “nutjob” is the kindest way I have to describe his and Hillary’s policy prescription.
Regards, Phil
Dan: It wasn’t necessary to resurrect your obsession with my academic credentials to show the classlessness of your own political viewpoints, but I appreciate the object lesson for others to see. None of your direct quotes showed me silencing debate by invoking these dreaded credentials. This constant obsession with my Ph.D. has always been somewhat amusing to me, in a Freudian sort of way, particularly when the crime is objecting to the insistence that there is only one true Conservative belief, which you coincidentally happen to hold.
I’ve debated atheists about morality without insisting that they believe in God, just like I’ve debated Ubercons without insisting that everyone must agree with me. You confuse vigorously defending my position with a desire to silence my critics. On the contrary, as a quick search of past comments will show, I’ve repeatedly urged you to keep writing. The more you express your beliefs, as well as other like-minded True Conservatives, the more we come to know what you actually represent. You can dress the pig up any way you want, but when I ask you about the policies that arise from a race-based world view where kith and kin is more important than shared values, your reluctance to reply more than illustrates my point. Your world view is great — as long as someone doesn’t look at it too closely. Which is why a real discussion with you is impossible, and the only point in responding is to point out the obvious again that you can’t actually debate the implications of any of your policies, which is why I won’t take what you say seriously.
Phil,
Hillary Clinton, according to her website, is open to the idea of temporarily keeping a small residual force in Iraq to help train Iraqi troops. Ron Paul is not. Thus, even their specific policy prescriptions are not the same.
If simply opposing the continuation war, by the way, is indicative of either an extreme right or extreme left outlook, the majority of Americans are extremists.
That is mighty rich coming from the person who insinuated that my political opinions were not to be taken seriously because I am an MD. What has amazed me from the beginning is how a well educated person could be so … how to put this … uhm … err … concrete, dichotomous, inflexible, and lacking in nuance in their thinking.
I have never insisted you agree with me. What fun would that be to debate? What I have always hoped for but seldom gotten is cogent analysis worthy of a PhD of the political philosophy issues involved instead of the mindless regurgitation of GOP talking points. If I want GOP talking points I’ll listen to Limbaugh or Hannity.
For example, has it ever occurred to you that the reason Paul and Hillary agree on this, “The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information” is because it happens to be true? Similar to how they might both agree that the sky is blue and the grass is green.
But I guess if Nancy Pelosi insisted the sky is blue, you would be forced to disagree with her.
Folks,
Phillip is entertaining if nothing else. He goes around, debating people about God,politics, and probably everything else under the sun. He writes essays and has time to reply to most of the commentary. I’m sure Phillip is the life of any get together. One Phil at a party makes for a night of fun. I like Phillip…agree or disagree, he’s passionate. I just wish I had as much time on my hands as he does.
Greg in NY
“That is mighty rich coming from the person who insinuated that my political opinions were not to be taken seriously because I am an MD.”
Nice try Dan. What I said was you’re not to be taken seriously because you’re not a serious person. I have promised not to practice medicine if you don’t claim to understand politics, but this was at the end of a months-long exchange where I’ve repeatedly stated to you, and others who join these conversations, that the measure of a coherent idea is not a person’s education, but the expression of the idea itself. I even wrote an essay about this (Random Thoughts), where I said “As I’ve more than demonstrated (positively to some, negatively to others), you don’t need a Ph.D. to express a well-reasoned thought. Some of the wisest things I’ve been taught came from people who just reflected on how they’ve gone about living their own lives. All I ask, from a personal basis, is that you tell me why you believe what you believe (other than you believe it because you do).”
You’ve never quite grasped this fact. You claim to want an intellectual exchange, but when you’re not busy labeling someone as a “Marxist, et. al.”, you won’t answer questions about the implications of Uber Conservative thought but instead simply repeat the mantra that kith and kin, etc. are the only basis for True Conservatism.
And when you do enter the realm of political debate, we get silliness bordering on pabulum. Just look at what passes for political analysis in your last comment. “But I guess if Nancy Pelosi insisted the sky is blue, you would be forced to disagree with her.” The “sky is blue” is not a policy issue, but this seems to escape you.
Which, again, is another perfect illustration of why I take very little of what you say seriously — but I do hope you’ll keep on talking.
“I just wish I had as much time on my hands as he does.”
Greg: I appreciate your gracious reference to my business success that allowed me to retire in my early fifties, and only re-enter the business world when I choose to take on another enterprise with my partners (usually long enough to take it public, or sell it for a profit, and then get back to being the life of the party).
Once again, your insight and analysis speaks volumes about your character, and your conclusions.
“I don’t have the time, or desire, to give a one-on-one tutorial to someone with a limited ability to grasp even simple issues.”
I don’t need a “one-on-one tutorial” just answer yes or no to the following questions:
“I noticed you didn’t mention Ms. Clinton on the oppose side of things. Would you add her to the list? On the other side could you name a politician on the favor side? George W. Bush perhaps?”
Can you do that for me Phil ? I just want to know how far you take this formula of yours.
“What I said was you’re not to be taken seriously because you’re not a serious person.”
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Oh well, pardon me while I have a serious philosophical conversation with Katzen.
Katzen, I don’t think right-wing and left-wing are infinitely malleable terms. In fact, I often prefer them to conservative and liberal precisely because they are anchored at a fixed point in time, the French Revolution. They have a set reference point.
Now in common usage, I think you are right that they often/usually mean a generalized resistance to change vs. embracing “progress.” In that way they are used today without really referencing the French Revolution. In fact, you could fairly accurately use the terms to describe forces that existed before the French Revolution. Such as the English Civil War. I think most everyone could agree on which forces were left and which right.
(Actually, left and right is probably a peculiarly Western concept. I am not sure you could look at some conflict in Feudal Japan, and deem one side right and one side left. I think this is because the competing force of liberalism is peculiarly Western. Not an altogether bad thing, but it is sure biting us on the rear now.)
But when I say “historically speaking” (It is unfortunate that I have to clarify that.) some belief is either left or right wing, I am referencing the French Revolution.
Now regarding America being founded on classical liberalism, that is what the mainstream liberals claim. That is what the neocons claim. That is what most libertarians believe. That is probably what most modern mainstream conservatives believe, to the degree they have thought about it. Some paleos think it is true also. They think the whole American experiment was hopelessly corrupted by liberalism from the start.
But I don’t believe that, and neither do a lot of paleos. There were certainly classical liberal elements. Clearly we were rejecting the Monarchy. And there was a lot of classical liberal rhetoric, but the rhetoric does not match the actual society that was on the ground. The Old Republic had property restrictions on who could vote, women couldn’t vote, of course there was slavery, there was otherwise significant recognition of class (less rigid than England for sure), only the House was directly elected (The Pres and Senate was not), the people were very self-consciously Anglo-centric, they recognized the essentially Christian character of the Republic, the man on the street was very orthodox in his Christianity, there was very little of the outright hostility to the Church that you saw in France, etc. etc. etc. America was really very much a European society transplanted to these shores just without the Monarchy. This connection to our European roots was more obvious and more appreciated in the South. The South was not trying to create a “New Jerusalem” or a “shining city on a hill” a la the Puritans. They were reproducing the social order they had brought from Europe, primarily Britain.
Get my point?
Now just so Phil doesn’t blow a gasket, when I speak of restoring the Old Republic, I don’t think we should re-institute slavery, but in broad terms conservatives should recognize that rigorous egalitarianism is an enemy of the natural hierarchal social order. We should recognize that we should limit not expand the franchise. The direct election of Senators and the breakdown of the true intent of the Electoral College is a bad thing. Etc.
Dan,
I agree that left/right are not infinitely malleable. The trouble in applying these terms is when we come to issues that do not have any clear connection to the French Revolution.
What, for instance, is “right-wing,” if anything, about low taxes and spending? The way I see it, the rightishness of such policy lies in our American tradition of small, frugal government, and not in anything inherent to the policy itself.
I agree with you that the United States is not “founded” on classical liberalism. I merely said that the influence of classical liberalism on the founding is undeniable. As a paleoconservative, you probably believe that a country cannot be built on philosophy alone–and I agree completely.
But.
The history of United States is fundamentally different than that of most European countries in that the U.S. was created by a conscious and deliberate act. And it cannot be denied that those who acted were influenced by philosphy of several kinds–predominantly classical liberalism, ancient, and Christian. When I emphasize classical liberalism, I have several things in mind, including:
1. The principle that the power of the government can be limited by law.
2. The separation of powers.
3. The Declaration of Independence.
4. The Bill of Rights.
There are, as I said, basically two sorts of classical liberals (and of course I’m simplifying). On the one hand, there are the radical doctrinaire Lockeans, Rosseaueans, etc., who believe that all political questions can be answered by an appeal to abstract principles. On the other hand, there are the conservatives, who believe that classical liberalism is more than just an idea that popped into the head of Hobbes or Locke or whoever. It has deep societal and historical roots, stretching back to the Magna Carta. The difference I mean to describe is that between Paine and Burke. Paine was a radical, who believed that politics requires only pure reason. Burke, though an admirer of Adam Smith, a defender of the Glorious Revolution, and a Whig, understood that good politics requires not only reason and principles but respect for deeply-rooted traditions and institutions. Which is not to say that principles have no place in politics.
Those many restrictions you referred to reflected the basic conservatism of early American classical liberalism. Reading what Jefferson and Hamilton and Adams and others wrote, I believe that these men thought many of these restrictions would, and eventually should, fall. You and I probably agree that some of them (I’m thinking of the election of senators) changed for the worse. But you and I probably also agree that some of them (I’m thinking of the fact of slavery’s end, leaving the Civil War aside) changed for the better.
I can address the South in a future post, but suffice it to say that I think the divide between the American North and South makes the left/right distinction, not to mention the definition of “conservative,” particularly difficult for Americans.
“I noticed you didn’t mention Ms. Clinton on the oppose side of things. Would you add her to the list?”
Troy: Try reading Comment 28 slowly this time. Like I said, I don’t have time for one-on-one tutorials for people with a limited ability to grasp even simple concepts.
All the best, Phil
Phil,
What I am demonstrating is the simplicity of you thinking. I know this is embarrassing you – that is what it is meant to do because I AM MOCKING YOU!
You reduce everything to the reactive:
“If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support a position, then embrace the opposite course. ”
I did not ask for a tutorial only that you answer 2 very simple questions that I have posted twice. So here we go again:
“I noticed you didn’t mention Ms. Clinton on the oppose side of things. Would you add her to the list? On the other side could you name a politician on the favor side? George W. Bush perhaps?”
Just a simple yes or no would suffice.
Thank you,
Troy
Troy: Irony is often lost on the ironic. Typing in caps doesn’t make your grasp of issues less insipid.
I must again invoke the Dennis Prager rule about the inability to communicate with the terminally stupid. I answered your question about Mrs. Clinton in Comment 28, which you keep repeating. This leads me to believe that you are unable to comprehend even simple sentences, which always makes two-way conversation difficult. Moreover, if you can’t even understand why embracing the policies of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton is a de facto bad thing, then it’s another perfect illustration why further tutorials are pointless.
I’ll be out the next couple of days taking my kid back to College, so I’ll miss seeing your response with even bigger caps asking me to answer questions I’ve already replied to in this comment section or my other writings. Hint: if you look at the IC archives, you can see what I actually wrote about politics — that is, if you’re really looking for an answer. But perhaps I presume too much about your cognitive skills. Hang in there, and don’t let difficult ideas like “Extremist Liberals policy objectives bad” confuse you any more than they already seem to.
Best of luck on what, I’m sure, has already been a difficult life.
Regards, Phil
Troy —
My wife is a special ed teacher, and chided me for not giving you several articles to choose from, since it’s clear that your level of interest in the questions you asked is somewhat superficial, and the thought of reading too many words might be frightening to you.
So, I suggest that you start with “Should We Nominate a Pro-Choice Republican?” as a general introduction to the subject you raised, then look at chapters 1, 5, 9 and 11 of my Looney Liberal Chronicles. Then have a look at “Why Don’t We Just Bring Back Slavery?”, and for good measure you might want to have a glance at the “Answers to Life’s Questions” series I wrote.
It’s the best I can do to help you. I must admit I’m a bit stumped when someone professing to be a conservative doesn’t understand why the policies Harry, Nancy or Hillary propose are bad for us, so you’ve got to work with me a bit to study up on some fundamentals about politics.
It’s not hard to figure out what I believe, and why I believe it, from what I write. All this presupposes, of course, that you are actually looking for an answer to the questions you posed.
All the best,
Phil
That’s funny you addressed two posts in a row to me after saying you wouldn’t. :) Not that I am complaining it is hilarious to watch you get all bent out of shape.
>I’ll be out the next couple of days taking my kid back to College
That’s cool. I seem to recall though you trying to bow out of an earlier discussion this way”
““I’ve got family in town for the next few days (genetically related to me, so they pass the tribal-purity test”.”
Before posting three more times. I am pretty sure your going to find the time to fire off another post to me after I get though with this one. The family will just have to wait just like the last time won’t they Phil?
I do enjoy you Phil. You are so cute. I’m glad your reactive formula is working for you – it sure makes complicated issues seem simple doesn’t it?
But lets move on should we? You wrote:
“Moreover, if you can’t even understand why embracing the policies of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton is a de facto bad thing”
I do not embrace the policies of any of these three creatures – they are all categorically evil in my view. But unlike you I do arrive at my convictions by taking the flip side of political figures I don’t approve of. You got to think things through a little bit Phil that’s all I ask.
Getting back to my questions ~ I will take it as a yes for Hillary Clinton. Judging by the two in a row posts I can see in your embarrassment is turning to anger. So answer this simple question yes or no and I will be satisfied. OK? I am really trying to help you out here.
“On the other side could you name a politician on the favor side? George W. Bush perhaps?”
You keep asking me to read you Phil ~ I will try to take the time. Most I have seen of your writing through these posts however is not of a particular high quality. For example the one I keep embarrassing with:
“It’s the same prescription I’ve advocated when dealing with Democrat and Looney Liberal policies. If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support a position, then embrace the opposite course. ”
Kind of expose you as non-thinking total partisan sort of guy. If I wanted this sort of nonsense I could turn on Rush at least he’s funny if not a serious thinker.
Thanks Phil,
Troy
Phil
Great article.
Rather than “closing the circle”, I always thought a better description for extremists on both sides would be that they were acting asymptotically. So I can see why some of your commenters are confused, but then I read your opening & the quotes you use & find it hard to argue with you on a result basis.
BTW, to those who say that it’s simplistic to say “Whatever political policy Nancy, Harry, et al support, I’m agin it”, think of it as an example of Occam’s Razor. If it’s not an absolute certainty, it’s as close to one as you’ll get!
And obviously we’re not talking about a bill to name a Post Office after someone.
Also, I find it interesting that sometimes extremists contradict themselves. For instance on Monday, they say the right to free speech is absolute, no exceptions, never. Then on Tuesday, they say that “Hate Speech” should be banned, tho they remain extremist in defining “hate speech”. Oh well, as Whitman said, “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.”
I have an observation about extremism & charges of such, which in no way affects your main point, but which may aid in explaining the reaction of some: I am not an extremist; not me; nope, never.
I know people who are strongly social-one-way-&-economics-the-other-way who think of themselves as centrists/moderates, or independents/beyondists even tho they can be quite extreme on their respective positions. The practical application of this is the pro-life/tax the rich guy on the one hand or the pro-choice/stop the welfare state on the other, both with rather firm, unbending positions. I keep telling such people that strong+strong or extreme+extreme does not equal mid point. In fact, some of them can easily be put in the single issue category.
Nevertheless they all seem to think that they are somehow more reasonable than, & not as extreme as, a person who is consistently liberal or conservative, as the case may be, regarding social & economical issues. Again, a practical application: These reasonable folk will ask if I have voted for one party’s candidate in every election since the ‘60s. When I answer “yes”, they reply “aha”, & say that they haven’t. But this “moderation” doesn’t usually wash. For instance, I probed one guy, strong on defense, strong on ending govt. waste & confiscatory taxes in his case, & strong on social issues, except that he said that he was for a woman’s right to choose (forgetting that “choose” is a transitive verb) & that the “Rich” (not him, of course) should pay more taxes. Seems that from the ‘60s thru ’92, he’d voted for the GOP, but in ’92, ’96 & ’00, he’d voted for the Dem. Now, we were on our “holiday from history” during that period & his only daughter was, um, nubile. Ya think? But he feels that I’m the extremist ‘cause I always vote for one party. And that I’m Pavlovian!
And since he is hidebound in the case of the MSM, he never comes across the non-Republican extremist statements you quoted. He still watches only the old news on TV (he switched from CBS to NBC after Kutie Katie took over!) & he reads only the NYT. He pays no attention to the ‘Net. He never even reads the “Corrections” Notes in the NYT! He seems to wake up re elections after the parties have picked their respective candidates, at which time the candidates are basically doing Power Point Presentations, trying to stay away from the extremist positions which got them the nomination.
Of course, he does mouth the ever faithful, how-come-we-get-such-bozos-as-candidates meme.
I think I know why some enjoy mocking your PhD. As you noted in this thread (#35), you’re not using it specifically as much as you are going with a common-sense approach to what has been said. Easy for you to call these extremists on their extremist statements. I’ve noticed that no would-be serious political thinkers think it smart to dismiss Hillary’s standing as anything other than a certified “brilliant” person. They fear they would be taking a great chance that they themselves would be uncertified as brilliant persons by Those Who Count.
Now I’ve found a site where some people on the Right think like those on the Left, which tends to prove your point here, but then I don’t want to be uncertified as an Intellectual Conservative, do I now?
Phil said, “I should have included a couple of quotes about how the Jews are responsible for the world’s problems…”
Now, now, Phil. I hope your not becoming one of those Jewish conspiracy nuts. Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame.
That was an unartful dodge. Does this mean you cannot name a single person on the extreme Right with real power in America? I thought that was a fair question.
Katzen,
Thanks for the intelligent debate. There is not too much of what you wrote I disagree with. I would argue some with this.
“The history of United States is fundamentally different than that of most European countries in that the U.S. was created by a conscious and deliberate act. And it cannot be denied that those who acted were influenced by philosophy of several kinds–predominantly classical liberalism, ancient, and Christian.”
America is a colonial country and that complicates matters. So it is not a more natural country like those in Europe. But traditionalist conservatives have long viewed the idea of a “Founding” as problematic. I use the word “Founding Fathers” because people know what it means, but even that is problematic. America was not so much “founded” as it simply broke away. But there was a great deal of continuity with England and Europe. The government was created by a conscious act of the States when they ratified the Constitution, but the country is not the government. The country pre-existed the Constitution and would have existed without it.
Neocons (I’m not accusing you of being one) love the idea of a founding, because they want to emphasize that America is a “radical break” from the past. This serves their American exceptionalism and Proposition Nation agenda better. Kirk, among others tried to focus conservative back on our English/European/classical heritage.
I agree that there are a lot of issues that don’t fit the left/right paradigm very well. But what you said about the need to rely on history and tradition vs. simply on abstract reason is an essential distinction.
This distinction is why Phil’s “values are all that matter” is rank liberalism.
Liberius,
You make a good point. Every time I here a leftist or center rightist complain about the “extreme right-wing,” I think to myself, “If only.”
Ah yes, those pesky shared values always get in the way of a good “natural hierarchal social order.”
Liberius: I wasn’t sure what to make of you when I first read your comments a few essays ago. After seeing your fixation on the “Jewish problem” and watching your bogus anti-Semitic quotes be exposed by Katzen and Treebeard, I’ll leave you and Dan to your mutual admiration society.
It’s good to know that having extremist views only matter if the person is a current office holder or otherwise invested in ”power”. Kind of lets you guys off the hook for anything you say. And I thought in my “How to fix a problem” essay that you guys weren’t “practical”. Go figure.
This thread has run its course for me. My central thesis seems pretty well intact.