Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Republicans have moved so far to the right from what they used to be that they are pretty much a right wing party now.
The Democrats haven't changed much and Obama is very moderate but the Republicans won't recognize that because of how far right they have moved.
We create so much confusion for ourselves when we try to force real phenomena into our abstract mappings. Left/right doesn't fit what's going on. The Republicans haven't moved 'right' (I challenge anyone to even explain, coherently, what that even means). And the Democrats have changed - Obama is anything but 'moderate'. But, as police-state corporatist, he's clearly no progressive dreamboat.
The anti-authoritarian backlash currently driving the libertarian wing of the Republican party is particularly problematic for those who want to see everything in terms of left and right. They're dismissed as liberal hippies by old guard conservatives, and as 'hard-right' conservatives by the liberal establishment. Neither is accurate, of course, but some people simply won't let go of the one-dimensional left/right spectrum.
In many ways, it seems the primary political axis in US politics is turning ninety degrees, toward a new mapping that prompts alliances between progressives and libertarians in opposing the Pelosi/Boehner (authoritarian) wing of the Republicrat establishment. I read that Juiian Assange has stated that the only hope for reforming US policy is the libertarian wing of the GOP. That ought to tell us something weird is going on with our political alignments.
Republicans have moved so far to the right from what they used to be that they are pretty much a right wing party now.
The Democrats haven't changed much and Obama is very moderate but the Republicans won't recognize that because of how far right they have moved.
We create so much confusion for ourselves when we try to force real phenomena into our abstract mappings. Left/right doesn't fit what's going on. The Republicans haven't moved 'right' (I challenge anyone to even explain, coherently, what that even means). And the Democrats have changed - Obama is anything but 'moderate'. But, as police-state corporatist, he's clearly no progressive dreamboat.
The anti-authoritarian backlash currently driving the libertarian wing of the Republican party is particularly problematic for those who want to see everything in terms of left and right. They're dismissed as liberal hippies by old guard conservatives, and as 'hard-right' conservatives by the liberal establishment. Neither is accurate, of course, but some people simply won't let go of the one-dimensional left/right spectrum.
In many ways, it seems the primary political axis in US politics is turning ninety degrees, toward a new mapping that prompts alliances between progressives and libertarians in opposing the Pelosi/Boehner (authoritarian) wing of the Republicrat establishment. I read that Juiian Assange has stated that the only hope for reforming US policy is the libertarian wing of the GOP. That ought to tell us something weird is going on with our political alignments.
I don't disagree with you. Good points. Left/Right is pretty much what is used to describe the parties and ideologies right now. Is it overly simplified-yes. But it is pretty commonly used. It is used quite heavily on this board as well. So stating right/left, Conservative/Liberal-Progressive is widely understood exactly what the person means.
We create so much confusion for ourselves when we try to force real phenomena into our abstract mappings. Left/right doesn't fit what's going on. The Republicans haven't moved 'right' (I challenge anyone to even explain, coherently, what that even means). And the Democrats have changed - Obama is anything but 'moderate'. But, as police-state corporatist, he's clearly no progressive dreamboat.
The anti-authoritarian backlash currently driving the libertarian wing of the Republican party is particularly problematic for those who want to see everything in terms of left and right. They're dismissed as liberal hippies by old guard conservatives, and as 'hard-right' conservatives by the liberal establishment. Neither is accurate, of course, but some people simply won't let go of the one-dimensional left/right spectrum.
In many ways, it seems the primary political axis in US politics is turning ninety degrees, toward a new mapping that prompts alliances between progressives and libertarians in opposing the Pelosi/Boehner (authoritarian) wing of the Republicrat establishment. I read that Juiian Assange has stated that the only hope for reforming US policy is the libertarian wing of the GOP. That ought to tell us something weird is going on with our political alignments.
I don't disagree with you. Good points. Left/Right is pretty much what is used to describe the parties and ideologies right now. Is it overly simplified-yes. But it is pretty commonly used. It is used quite heavily on this board as well. So stating right/left, Conservative/Liberal-Progressive is widely understood exactly what the person means.
It is? So, so where to people like Ron Paul or Glenn Greenwald fit in that dynamic?
Have you looked at the posts the Conservatives here make and say about the Liberals? Just based on that alone, they are the intolerant ones.
Most (not all) are completely intolerant of anybody who has different beliefs than they do.
They make condescending and degrading comments about Liberals on a regular basis and have no trouble with name calling, labeling, or grouping them all under some umbrella they created to describe Liberals.
And then they run around thanking and patting each other on the back about it like they are clever or something.
I'm sure they rep the crap out of each other for it too.
Birds of a feather as the saying goes.
So it always blows my mind to see people say that Liberals are more intolerant of Conservatives here than vice versa.
I'm not saying there are no Liberals that use insults, belittle, or label but if you didn't see it from the Conservative side and how much more frequent it is there, you'd have to be blind.
Obama is not very Liberal. He's pretty much a moderate Democrat.
That's welcome news if true, though it seems the 'jury is still out' on that one. Nationalism and the neo-con ethic are still pretty ingrained in the party hierarchy. We'll have to see how it pans out I guess.
That's welcome news if true, though it seems the 'jury is still out' on that one. Nationalism and the neo-con ethic are still pretty ingrained in the party hierarchy. We'll have to see how it pans out I guess.
I'm surprised at you.
Where bfgrn is simply a partisan demagogue, posting to either support his shameful party, or slander the hated opposition, I generally view you as rational.
Of course "neo-con" and "nationalist" are contradictory terms. For you to claim the Republicans have "Nationalism and the neo-con ethic are still pretty ingrained" is moronic gobbldiegook. You may as well take the rdean approach and declare them "icky doo doo heads"
Neoconservatism, born of far left Irv Kristol is an international movement, seeking empirical goals and the prominence of multinational concerns - quite the opposite of a nationalist agenda.
That's welcome news if true, though it seems the 'jury is still out' on that one. Nationalism and the neo-con ethic are still pretty ingrained in the party hierarchy. We'll have to see how it pans out I guess.
I'm surprised at you.
Where bfgrn is simply a partisan demagogue, posting to either support his shameful party, or slander the hated opposition, I generally view you as rational.
Of course "neo-con" and "nationalist" are contradictory terms. For you to claim the Republicans have "Nationalism and the neo-con ethic are still pretty ingrained" is moronic gobbldiegook. You may as well take the rdean approach and declare them "icky doo doo heads"
Neoconservatism, born of far left Irv Kristol is an international movement, seeking empirical goals and the prominence of multinational concerns - quite the opposite of a nationalist agenda.
PNAC members are a wing of the neo-cons that promote colonialism. Some folks view nationalism as a putting up walls others view nationalism as expanding influence over other nations still other view nationalism as a marxist would. It think it would be easy to argue that we don't all use the same definitions for any terms.
PNAC members are a wing of the neo-cons that promote colonialism.
Some folks view nationalism as a putting up walls others view nationalism as expanding influence over other nations still other view nationalism as a marxist would. It think it would be easy to argue that we don't all use the same definitions for any terms.
PNAC members are a wing of the neo-cons that promote colonialism.
Bullshit.
PNAC promotes multinationalism, with large corporations acting outside the purvey of governments. It's a "rape and pillage" mentality, that without question drove the East India Company - but has no desire to build up the host nation.
Some folks view nationalism as a putting up walls others view nationalism as expanding influence over other nations still other view nationalism as a marxist would. It think it would be easy to argue that we don't all use the same definitions for any terms.
Nationalism:
{ loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups }
The polar opposite of what Neocons espouse and support. Neoconservatism is supranational by definition.
Welcome to the Project for the New American CenturyThe Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.
Neoconservative - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
It think it would be easy to argue that we don't all use the same definitions for any terms.
PNAC members are a wing of the neo-cons that promote colonialism.
Bullshit.
PNAC promotes multinationalism, with large corporations acting outside the purvey of governments. It's a "rape and pillage" mentality, that without question drove the East India Company - but has no desire to build up the host nation.
Nationalism:
{ loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups }
The polar opposite of what Neocons espouse and support. Neoconservatism is supranational by definition.
Bull shit.
Welcome to the Project for the New American CenturyThe Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.
neoconservative:
Neoconservative - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
Given modern methods of brainwashing and social control, I think it is a distinct possibility.Do you honestly believe that no future generation will again yearn for liberty, for the chance to be the masters of their own lives?Some people find illusions to be comforting.
Given modern methods of brainwashing and social control, I think it is a distinct possibility.
.
Was it that subtle?I see not a shred of colonialism in any of that. Perhaps that is another word that we define differently.
Translation. Promotes a "foreign policy" for "America's role in the world" as "leader" through the wielding of it's "military strength" that, by the way, currently dominates over every country on the planet.The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.
Was it that subtle?I see not a shred of colonialism in any of that. Perhaps that is another word that we define differently.
Translation. Promotes a "foreign policy" for "America's role in the world" as "leader" through the wielding of it's "military strength" that, by the way, currently dominates over every country on the planet.The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.
Colonialism - the policy and practice of a power in extending control over weaker people or areas. The USA currently maintains > 150 military bases around the world, all in the "defense" of the homeland. At home however, the Mexicans just walk over the border at will.
Was it that subtle?I see not a shred of colonialism in any of that. Perhaps that is another word that we define differently.
Translation. Promotes a "foreign policy" for "America's role in the world" as "leader" through the wielding of it's "military strength" that, by the way, currently dominates over every country on the planet.The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.
Colonialism - the policy and practice of a power in extending control over weaker people or areas. The USA currently maintains > 150 military bases around the world, all in the "defense" of the homeland. At home however, the Mexicans just walk over the border at will.
Again, nonsense.
The PNAC advocates a leadership role, and the use of military power to assert American goals, but is specific in stating that nations will be sovereign and influenced, not occupied, by America.
PNAC is all about making the world safe for corporate profiteering.
