Prevailing Left blowing wind on ATS (Op/Ed)

a party that doesnt have a standard other then addressing issues directly is a party worth voting for. Thats what party i would vote for, the one that represents addressing issues, from both sides. theres no requirement to what political views you need to have, just that you have a drive to address issues that people are having.

Of greater concern to me than any "slant" to the left or right of the political spectrum is the insidious supplanting of the original definitions of the terms "liberal" and "conservative." There was a time when these were primarily - although not exclusively - indicative of economic and governance philosophies. I awoke one day to find that they had become inexplicably interchangeable with the social and political terminology of "left" and "right."

Liberal shouldn't mean left-wing nut anymore than conservative should mean right-wing extremist. Isn't it interesting how this divisive minutia has replaced what was once, at the very least, a civil and mutually respectful vernacular? This has happened for the same reasons we have a political process dominated by two parties, to the exclusion of all else. Am I the only one who finds it increasingly disappointing that a nation dedicated to the notion of pluralism subsists upon the perpetual maintenance of the least pluralistic plurality possible; essentially a binary government? Can it be merely coincidence that such an arrangement benefits the parties and their allies most, while benefiting the people the least? Is it simply an accident that two large national demographics are easier to manage and pit against one another than multiple smaller groups?

All I have to say is: divide and conquer - and we (on both “sides”) never fail to swallow it.

There are many other forums where the "right" shouts down and mocks the left.

In comparing forums where the wind blows one direction or the other, it seems to me that real intellectual engagement tends to come more often from the left. Many who are nominally on the right do not appear to keep up with current events or even have the curiousity to search for answers.

It's natural that on a forum devoted to the search for answers, you would have more "liberals" than conservatives.

Well most people who are politically aware seem to gravitate towards one of the "two sides", just because that's all they're exposed to.

I've gone through a lot of changes over time, from a liberal Democrat in my youth, to an anarchist in my late teens and early twenties, to a pretty doctrinaire Libertarian in my late twenties, to a moderate Republican until Bush came along. As I've gotten older I've become less interested in labels.

Right now, people on here might see me as a liberal, because I'm pretty vocal in my opposition to the Bush administration. But I doubt I'd qualify as a liberal - I'm strongly opposed to gun control legislation, I think affirmative action creates more problems than it solves, etc... I think government should get out of the business of defining marriage altogether, I don't think gays have any more right to dictate the defenition of "marriage" to religious conservatives than religious conservatives have to define it to exclude gays.

On the other hand, I think there should be basic social welfare programs in place to keep poor people from starving in the streets, and I think the current US foreign policy of "global dominance" is disastrous and will ulimately prove self destructive. We don't need to rule the planet in order to have a strong defense or a strong economy, we should start withdrawing most of our troops stationed overseas and be a lot more restrained in the use of military force around the planet. It's a huge waste of money and it just makes us everyone's favorite target.

So I don't really fit into any of the predefined political categories, even third parties like the Libertarians.

We make it all too easy for them to control us. No wonder the NWO is happening.

Originally posted by heelstone
Aren't most conspiracies at their core leftist/liberal?

A cospiracy is not left or right. It just is. It's a way to achieve a certain goal for a person or a group of persons.

A cospiracy hunter, truthseeker and thinker is a person who is not a liberal or conservative. When this person labels him/herself in the quest for truth he/she surrenders to the emotions and fails in his quest. He/she becomes an active participant in this wild carousel. A lobster in a giant bucket. Because the truth is not left or right. It just is what it is. The truth.

Originally posted by yanchek
A cospiracy is not left or right. It just is. It's a way to achieve a certain goal for a person or a group of persons.

A cospiracy hunter, truthseeker and thinker is a person who is not a liberal or conservative. When this person labels him/herself in the quest for truth he/she surrenders to the emotions and fails in his quest. He/she becomes an active participant in this wild carousel. A lobster in a giant bucket. Because the truth is not left or right. It just is what it is. The truth.

Well said again Yanchek. Someone vote him!

Some people here are so entrenched into politics its warping them.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I beg to differ. There is real debate going on between two different philosophies on topics such as the war, illegal immigration, same sex marriage, and many other topics.

Yes, there are debates, but fortunately, some of us agree with the so-called 'conservative' side of one argument while taking the so-called 'liberal' side of another. Sure, people aren't going to agree on everything, but as you know, I agree with you on some issues and adamantly disagree with you on others... That doesn't make it so easy to say on which side we come down.

Yes, there's debate going on and I'm thankful for that, but yours and mine is not a debate between a liberal and a conservative. That's the lie. Don't buy it.

Pretty good thread. Im ex Military(4 yrs) however im in the lower -middle class salary wise. Unfortunately when I was a Right supporter I was given very little in return for my vote in fact Ive been hit worse during this present president's terms then any others past. The lie and deceit are no longer bearable and to me when a stench blows from the right for so long eventually You turn to the left. IMO.

This whole idea of positing one as liberal and one as conservative reeks of a black and white, Manichaistic attempt to group people according to abstract, ill-defined labels. The fact is that noone is truly conservative or liberal. Neither is there some absolute definition on what a conservative or liberal is. For example, the Libertarians are at once said to be extremely conservative and far right, yet, at the same time, can be said to have a liberal attitude.

The effect of this black/white, conservative/liberal, for us/against us attitude disrupts the true nature of any discussion about the pros and cons of any issue. Instead of debating the merit of a position one way or another, it's reduced to a "liberal" position or "conervative" position. And, honestly, I see a lot more people trying to use "liberal" as an insult. Apparently anything or anyone that disagrees with the Bush administration is a de facto "liberal."

This phenomenon doesn't surprise me though, as it is Bush himself that said, "you're either with us or against us" (black/white, conservative/liberal). Bush himself leaves many including the original poster of this thread, but not all, of his supporters to believe that there are only neoconservative and liberal viewpoints. The fact is, the world is a diverse place and the number of opinions on even the simplist issue varies widely. Yet, for those who are simple enough to only believe in a conservative and liberal viewpoint, these millions of voices only become two.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by AceWombat04

Am I the only one who finds it increasingly disappointing that a nation dedicated to the notion of pluralism subsists upon the perpetual maintenance of the least pluralistic plurality possible; essentially a binary government? Can it be merely coincidence that such an arrangement benefits the parties and their allies most, while benefiting the people the least? Is it simply an accident that two large national demographics are easier to manage and pit against one another than multiple smaller groups?

No, you are not alone, and you bring up an excellent point. Not only does what you say work to sustain the two party system, it effectively allows them to exclude any third party from gaining more than a local foothold in politics.

And who is the biggest loser in this game? We the people are.

exactly its not nearly even close to white and black. there is no right or wrong necessarily. Theres opinions, and you have to weight out which one will work out the best (give you the most desirable outcome). But this is just human nature, to create a we and them so that we feel like be belong to something special and above everyone else. we dont want to feel like we arent any more important then the next so we make up these groups to feel special. Its very deconstructive.

so on the one hand we've got a party that will support the government well into and through the imposition of a police state, waving the flag of liberty the whole time... and on the other hand we have a bunch of reactionaries willing to hand off all the power in the nation to whatever chucklehead shows up at the caucus, so long as he has a donkey on his banner.

if you want real freedom, stop playing the games they set up for you and start living life on your own terms.

I think a lot of people here seem to have trancended political affiliation. That could prove ominous to those who would 'control ' us. VType I hear what you're saying, you fight for them and they take away your benefits, they pay you lip service and send you to war w/o armor. The ultimate insult I believe was during The Vietnam War when they shipped our brothers home with heroin in their body cavities. I propose we only vote for candidates with a net worth of less than 1/2 a million. The internet could well be the great leveller.

Wow this poster has a LOT of anger and hatred towards Democrats! Sameful.

The left and right mentality is bogus, thats all that needs to be said about that subject IMO.

OP/ED: Partisanship: Refuge Of The Scoundrel

Don't forget this one!

OP/ED: The Evolving Political Polarity

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This site is a "conspiracy theory" discussion board. As such, the apparent "slant" is a result of our highly critical approach at analysis of whatever administration is in office.
.........................
The bigger, much more important issue, is the long-standing strategy of dividing the populace into two opposing groups that blame each other for all the problems we have. You've taken deep long swigs of that dangerously poisonous "Kool Aid" as has the vast majority.

SO, that's not even true, and I don't understand how you can sit there and claim the above after you yourself responded to a member who claimed "this board is being controlled by Republicans" and you responded to him "this is going to change".... When the boards were "never controlled by Republicans"..

Since then the attack on Republicans, or anyone who supports the president has been upgraded in ATSNN as "the most important topic to discuss".

In fact there are Op/Eds, in these same forums, which do nothing but make rhetorical comments, demean and even insult, either directly or indirectly by quoting other sites, which do nothing but make personal attacks to Republicans, and anyone who disagrees with "the liberal side".

SO, by that response you also seem to be guilty of dividing the populace in ATSNN.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by mrwupy
This is an op/ed piece and really has no business on ATSNN. Whether or not its going to be a debate or not just depends on how it plays out in whatever forum it ends up in. Before its over I figure it will end up in slug fest.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by mrwupy]

There are several Op/Eds in these same forums which do nothing but demean, insult and patronize Republicans, or anyone who agrees with anything that president Bush has done....yet, you nor anyone from the left said a thing about it... how convinient...

ATSNN has changed dramatically, for the worse. I remember a time when "submissions" had to be done by reporters, who made their submissions without any bias, or if there was bias, they had to redo the submission until it was presented without any slant, but slowly this changed and now it is obvious where the bias leans in the forums, and even ATSNN.

There have been pending stories which do not get upgraded to submissions, but only after a few days later, and I believe that happens only because some of the staff members see the importance of those submissions. I hate to say this, but it appears that the bias has been passed to some of the staff members. I understand if the staff have their own opinion, but not wanting to upgrade submissions because "it does not fit with their view" is very unprofessional and rude.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by Muaddib]