Is the Left - Right Paradigm Obsolete?

[Wry Catcher]

I think the left-right paradigm has become obsolete. The lines blur as one moves to the extreme edges of political activism. If you believe they remain instructive, please offer examples of the beliefs of those on the far right and far left.

The US needs more than two viable political parties, more than two that have a chance of winning an important political office, including president. The two party system has become something that simply divides the country down the middle and creates all this intense partisanship that is doing nothing but harm to the country.

I wonder if a Congress dependent on a coalition of diverse - and many times single issue parties - would be better or worse than what we have today. I imagine, if the rules in the Senate remain as they are, and the Speaker of the H. of Rep. has absolute power, if anything could be done, since the Speaker in the H. of Rep. and each U.S. Senator has the power to roadblock legislation.

As it stands there are no rules/laws limiting the number of political parties to two, and the voters generally (at least in CA.) have alternative choices, i.e., Green Party, Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party, and American Independent Party in addition to the D's and R's.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think the left-right paradigm has become obsolete. The lines blur as one moves to the extreme edges of political activism. If you believe they remain instructive, please offer examples of the beliefs of those on the far right and far left.

The US needs more than two viable political parties, more than two that have a chance of winning an important political office, including president. The two party system has become something that simply divides the country down the middle and creates all this intense partisanship that is doing nothing but harm to the country.

Actually, two parties, with our current primary system, would be sufficient to find and select leaders and representation as long as the skewing influence of big money in the political process is removed.

The way to remove the influence of money is NOT to make donating illegal, it's to remove the incentive to try and buy influence by removing from congress the power to return the favor in the form of contracts we can ill afford and tax favoritism.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Part of the problem are the Statists and pathological liars like the Bushes and other Republicans who call themselves "Conservatives" then govern to the Left of Bill Clinton, that's what muddies the waters.

The Left camp is State run and loss if individual Liberty, the Right camp is individual freedoms

They don't blend together at all and it's not obselete

 

[AVG-JOE]

The point is that the 'package deals' offered by the left and the right, as represented by the Democrats and Republicans, don't accurately map to the views of a large chunk of disaffected voters. They split along an axis that ignores the libertarian/authoritarian distinction, with both parties leaning authoritarian. The left/right mapping places pure authoritarians alongside pure libertarians, forcing both groups into the meaningless role of 'centrists', when if fact we are polar opposites.

It boils down to an ideological battle and this is one war that cannot be fought to the death.

For America to survive, neither extreme should be permitted to lead.

I still say that the solution to the problem is to remove from congress the power to customize taxes for 'special interests' and remove their power to spend beyond what they're willing to collect in taxes, and not in some broad changing of the ideological minds of the masses.

And yet, it will be fought to the death unless the people humble themselves.

Which 'people'?

Me, myself and I, or all those stubborn fuckers on the other side of the fence?

 

[dblack]

I think the left-right paradigm has become obsolete. The lines blur as one moves to the extreme edges of political activism. If you believe they remain instructive, please offer examples of the beliefs of those on the far right and far left.

The US needs more than two viable political parties, more than two that have a chance of winning an important political office, including president. The two party system has become something that simply divides the country down the middle and creates all this intense partisanship that is doing nothing but harm to the country.

And this won't change without fundamental changes to our election scheme. A two party system is baked into winner-take-all, plurality voting.

 

[dblack]

no i wouldnt say that. I would say because of technology things have become more extreme. Maybe not extreme, but focused.

It is new, because the this is not something that we were ready for and we are ( the american public) are currently playing catch up on.

Yeah cause being the number one country on the planet in nearly every measure, unless you are measuring level of marxism and socialism, means we need to change everything about this country so we can catch up to the marxist socialists.

I know that's meant facetiously but the premises on both ends are fallacious.

There is no such thing as "the number one country on the planet in every measure", nor should there ever be. We gotta get over that national megalomania.

What is it that you are assuming for the "premises on both ends". I don't see any clearly, which is part of the problem. I see two parties with some differences, but essentially the same vague premises.

 

[Kondor3]

"...As it stands there are no rules/laws limiting the number of political parties to two, and the voters generally (at least in CA.) have alternative choices, i.e., Green Party, Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party, and American Independent Party in addition to the D's and R's."

Is it overly-difficult for a party to get on a ballot in many jurisdictions? If true, then, I think that has to be one of the key sticking points.

Another sticking point has to be money; few mavericks and startups have the kind of war-chest that the Big Guns do.

I don't know much about the history of campaign reform in our country.

Is campaign-reform on a national scale - overriding State and Local screening criteria for getting on a ballot or limits on advertising within a given market and other things - a likely remedy for our stuck-in-the-mud two-party system, or is there nothing more that remains to be done in connection with campaign reform, which might have a positive impact?

And, of course, most of the problem probably lies in our existing legislatures, likely to be in thrall to the power brokers on both sides of the aisle, for whom true reform and a wider sharing of power between parties is anathema, and obstructing meaningful change as a matter of self-preservation?

Sometimes I think that an overturning of the existing political-party system and an enabling of a multi-party environment similar to other parliamentarian systems is a pipe-dream in our country, barring a serious political reformation forced by the People themselves.

It's a puzzler, alright.

 

[lakeview]

I think the left-right paradigm has become obsolete. The lines blur as one moves to the extreme edges of political activism. If you believe they remain instructive, please offer examples of the beliefs of those on the far right and far left.

The US needs more than two viable political parties, more than two that have a chance of winning an important political office, including president. The two party system has become something that simply divides the country down the middle and creates all this intense partisanship that is doing nothing but harm to the country.

Imagine the intense partisanship we'd see if we did have at least 3 political parties of near equal strength and the President ended up being picked by the House of Representatives every 4 years.

 

[dblack]

Part of the problem are the Statists and pathological liars like the Bushes and other Republicans who call themselves "Conservatives" then govern to the Left of Bill Clinton, that's what muddies the waters.

The Left camp is State run and loss if individual Liberty, the Right camp is individual freedoms

They don't blend together at all and it's not obselete

You're kidding yourself, Frank. Look again. There are plenty of people on the Right who actively oppose individual freedom. And not everyone on the left is a 'statist'.

The way to remove the influence of money is NOT to make donating illegal, it's to remove the incentive to try and buy influence by removing from congress the power to return the favor in the form of contracts we can ill afford and tax favoritism.

This, in my view, is the key to regaining control of our government. If we can ever get widespread consensus among voters on this issue, we'll take a huge step toward cleaning up our mess. But it's not going to be easy. Once special interest government is entrenched as the norm, no one wants to give it up. We all have our carve outs and perks and, even if it would obviously be better to let it all go, no on wants to 'go first'.

 

[lakeview]

The way to remove the influence of money is NOT to make donating illegal, it's to remove the incentive to try and buy influence by removing from congress the power to return the favor in the form of contracts we can ill afford and tax favoritism.

This is why I'm in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment. Even with the House accepting payola the Senators would owe their jobs to and be accountable to their respective state governments and wouldn't be beholden to Party or outside influences anywhere near as much as now so payola driven legislation would be harder to pass into law.

 

[The Rabbi]

It would be impossible for you to dumb down anythjing because Dumb is where you start.
Laws and regulations affect businesses. I realize that's a blinding flash of the obvious for most people but clearly you havent gotten the message.
What do unions have to do with this? Do you really think unions dont contribute money etc to campaigns? Do you really think laws are not written to exempt or benefit unions? Really? Tell me you aren't that ill informed. With a straight face.

Right, so I take it that you are your own measure for who is ignorant and intelligent? Right, because that's not at all delusional.

Anyway, of course laws and regulations have effects on business... That's kind of the point.
And yes, unions also lobby government to get tax exemptions and benefits, however they are not the ones fucking us over the most. They are not the ones who lobby for a smaller capital gains tax than an income tax, or a copious amount of loopholes in the tax code; So that people like Warren Buffet pay a smaller percentage of income in tax than their secretaries. Is it any wonder many of these corporations are pulling in the highest profits of all time during the worst recession since the Great Depression... Must just be a coincidence.
All of that is generally beside the point when compared to the fact taxes are far too high and government has an uncontrollable addiction to spending money.

In addendum, if the best you've got for me is being a sarcastic prick with an overinflated sense of self worth, I am pretty sure there is no more beneficial discussion to come between the two of us and I have better things to do. Have a good night.

Ask folks in CA or Detroit how unions whether unions have screwed them over or not.

Your ignorance is astounding. I hope you do not respond to my posts and instead start reading books and journals to dispel that vast gloom of ignorance that exists in your head.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think the left-right paradigm has become obsolete. The lines blur as one moves to the extreme edges of political activism. If you believe they remain instructive, please offer examples of the beliefs of those on the far right and far left.

The US needs more than two viable political parties, more than two that have a chance of winning an important political office, including president. The two party system has become something that simply divides the country down the middle and creates all this intense partisanship that is doing nothing but harm to the country.

Imagine the intense partisanship we'd see if we did have at least 3 political parties of near equal strength and the President ended up being picked by the House of Representatives every 4 years.

Look at countries with a multi party system like Israel and then ask if we really want narrowly focused parties making crazy deals to get and keep power.

 

[lakeview]

Ask folks in CA or Detroit how unions whether unions have screwed them over or not.

Your ignorance is astounding. I hope you do not respond to my posts and instead start reading books and journals to dispel that vast gloom of ignorance that exists in your head.

I live in Detroit, I have for most of my life. Ask me about unions and how much they had to do with the city's problems.

If you dislike unions that's OK but to throw Detroit in there as an appeal to popular belief instead of making a reasoned case for your point is...well...ignorant and is a perfect example of the paradigm the OP is talking about.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ask folks in CA or Detroit how unions whether unions have screwed them over or not.

Your ignorance is astounding. I hope you do not respond to my posts and instead start reading books and journals to dispel that vast gloom of ignorance that exists in your head.

I live in Detroit, I have for most of my life. Ask me about unions and how much they had to do with the city's problems.

If you dislike unions that's OK but to throw Detroit in there as an appeal to popular belief instead of making a reasoned case for your point is...well...ignorant and is a perfect example of the paradigm the OP is talking about.

Remind me what pension obligations for the city are.

 

[lakeview]

Pensioners in Detroit get about half what pensioners in other comparably sized cities receive. Next.

 

[The Rabbi]

Pensioners in Detroit get about half what pensioners in other comparably sized cities receive. Next.

Wrong answer.
Not Just Detroit's Problem: American Cities And Counties' Unfunded Pension Liability Totals $574 Billion

 

[RKMBrown]

Define your "extreme" freedom.

Extreme means being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree.
Freedom means Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

Thus the english translation of extreme freedom is being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree of liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

I don't see a reason to proffer a change to the book definitions.

"English translation" from what language?

Now who exactly is enslaving you? Who is detaining you? Who is oppressing you?

Since none of the above is actually occurring you already have "extreme freedom" by your own definition. Therefore you have just proved that I was 100% right when I posted this statement;

Extremism at both ends of the spectrum is the direct opposite of freedom and democracy.

Lol. The translation was from libtardian to English. The enslaving, detaining, and oppression is from authoritarians like you, ya prick.

 

[lakeview]

What it is in your link that you think proves your point? You're saying that unions caused Detroit's problems. Your link only talks about one pensioner in Detroit who receives $2,000 per month for 33 years of service and you think that's extravagant compared to other cities? The link didn't address unions at all, probably because not all pensioners were union members. The link also said, in the first paragraph, that Detroit is bankrupt (it isn't, the EFM filed on behalf of the city but not everyone is buying it and it's in court right now).

You implied that unions were responsible for Detroit's current problems. Prove it. And next time you put up a link to prove your point try to verify that it actually has something to do with the point you're trying to prove before you hit Post.

 

[Plasmaball]

Yeah cause being the number one country on the planet in nearly every measure, unless you are measuring level of marxism and socialism, means we need to change everything about this country so we can catch up to the marxist socialists.

I know that's meant facetiously but the premises on both ends are fallacious.

There is no such thing as "the number one country on the planet in every measure", nor should there ever be. We gotta get over that national megalomania.

Don't worry about that were #2 no three no four ... Yeah that's what massive government buys you, guranteed obsolecence. Democrats win. The country looses.

Must be a sledge hammer.

 

[MisterBeale]

It was obsolete when Rome was founded.