Welcome to PatsFans.com

Is Extreme Leftism What America Needs?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Aug 4, 2008.

  1. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,713
    Likes Received:
    565
    Ratings:
    +1,371 / 34 / -28

    #87 Jersey

    I thought this thread should start off with a post I found in a forum.

    http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/philosopher/203799-extreme-leftism.html

    Is this really going to be good for the country if this is the next 4-8 years?

    Hard to say 4 or 8 more years of Bush is what we need ... my reason for the thread is why do we feel the need to swing from side to side so much in our politics? Other than her flaws I think this is what doomed Hillary ... she was too close to center ... Obama of course is not.

    When will more centrist views, if ever, become the norm in your opinion?
     
  2. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,878
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +47 / 16 / -3

    Yes it's what America needs, and the entire world too. Obama isn't even close to fitting that bill though. I can't really think of an issue stance where Obama isn't right down the center. The problem is that Clinton moved the Democratic party so far to the right that what people refer to as "centrist" is actually right wing.

    NADER 2008:D
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2008
  3. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,713
    Likes Received:
    565
    Ratings:
    +1,371 / 34 / -28

    #87 Jersey


    You really think Obama is near the center?

    I think he's playing that card but I have a hard time believing he's leaving his roots. He's been a grass roots lefty his entire political career.
     
  4. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,878
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +47 / 16 / -3

    I think he's playing to the right, to a group that considers themselves the center. I think his natural positions are fairly centrist. Left v. Right is one of those incredibly subjective and non-uniform paradigms. Personally I find Obama's real stances, as you would say, (the ones he advocated when he was vying for the party nomination) to be less than progressive. True leftism as it's described in that article has never really been given a chance in the U.S. and whenever it has come close America has jerked radically towards the right. Richard Nixon, if around today, would be considered a liberal Democrat for example.

    But I think the new form of "centrism" that people refer to is radical libertarianism, which I don't find particularly centrist. Some would point to Ron Paul, but he's a strange mix of ultra progressive and ultra conservative stances. If you're talking about a candidate that lies directly in between the extremes of both parties, I think Joe Leiberman fits that bill, though I find him to be very unappealing.

    If you compare and contrast Obama with Nader, or Bernie Sanders, the differences are enormous, and by that standard Obama is very centrist.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2008
  5. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,713
    Likes Received:
    565
    Ratings:
    +1,371 / 34 / -28

    #87 Jersey


    I see it much more clearly now. These candidates are playing with such a narrow group of undecideds that they almost have no choice but to be that way. Obam to his credit has surrounded himself with people that are left and right of where he is ... that I think is helping him.
     
  6. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0


    do you think that wealth should be controlled by 1% of the population?

    we need to swing from side to side because it keeps us democratic with power spread out than one entity. if one political party held the power too long bad things could happen(ie. nazi's).

    was it not said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

    the multiple parties(mainly two) help keep us to our roots and it's actually good even though both parties block each other often. all we need is the wrong person to be elected and they decide a coup d'etat.

    I do think technology has enabled the wealthy to exponentially increase their wealth and do it quicker than no other time in history. basically the wealth is getting concentrated in a small portion of the population and the rest is getting into debt and their wealth disappearing.

    I often wonder what would happen if things got really bad and 95% of the population had a revolt of sorts and just decided to max out all their credit thus destroying the entire credit system. it's almost like Tyler Durden
     
  7. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,943
    Likes Received:
    158
    Ratings:
    +450 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    Nader is closer, but not "radical". Had JFK been able to be president for 2 terms, his agenda is said to be the most radical in history. Too bad we never got to see what it was.

    When an individual or society has the accumulation of wealth as the number one goal, happiness will never be found. We often try to fill an empty space in the core of our being with money or other things in an effort for complete gratification. The problem is, gratification comes from the simple things that almost all religions call for; love, giving, generousity, unselfishness & self-discipline.

    We try everything except that which will make us happy....me too. But at least I'm aware of it.

    But I do not support violence and domestic terrorism in order to achieve this goal. We need to initiate all changes through the democratic system. What we need is dynamic leadership and that seems to be very rare in this country.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2008
  8. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,943
    Likes Received:
    158
    Ratings:
    +450 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    The answer is quite simple...NO

    Just looking at that statement tells us that is wrong. Elitism is wrong...but for some reason, some/many of us accept it as ok. As long as we have our share.
     
  9. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,878
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +47 / 16 / -3

    Nader is MUCH further left than JFK. I'm not saying JFK was a good or bad president, but he wasn't even the most left wing president of his generation.

    Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, FDR were all more progressive than JFK.
     
  10. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,943
    Likes Received:
    158
    Ratings:
    +450 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    You're not even close Wildo...You need to do more reading on what he had planned. It was much more progressive than you would ever dream. Why do you think he was killed?
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2008
  11. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,878
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +47 / 16 / -3

    So I'm arguing with a conspiracy theory. As long as I know we aren't talking about real policies here but rather some Oliver Stone-type fantasy then I'm not gonna bother. I doubt you'll get too many people to agree that JFK was anythin more than a neo-liberal. He may have been the greatest president ever, but he's not particularly left wing when you measure him against the standard of his party.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2008
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,181
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +308 / 9 / -12

    Yeah e can see how well far left policies worked for China N Korea, the USSR and Cuba.....
     
  13. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    give the romans the colesium and entertain them and they will forget everything else.
     
  14. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,943
    Likes Received:
    158
    Ratings:
    +450 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    He wanted to end the nuclear arms race, that is one that is pretty much agreed upon. I'll try to find more factual information, but remember, he came into office in a much more conservative period than Johnson & Jimmy Carter. FDR came into office in a period where Americans were begging for new programs after suffering the effects of the Great Depression. It was much easier for all 3 of these presidents to proprose more "leftist" agenda.

    JFK was setting the stage for his second term which was pretty much assured. He also knew his brother Bobby had a great chance of following in his footsteps...I think you & I can agree upon this, right?

    Don't think for a minute that both brothers didn't have an 8-12 year agenda for America...would you not agree with that as well?

    Where you may disagree is that both were killed by the status quo political powers. Otherwise you'd have to believe that both were killed by rogue assassins which actually makes very, very little sense. Why? Because in our history, only 4 presidents have been assassinated. So how can we explain BOTH John & Robert (would-be president) being killed?

    To me, to believe there was no conspiracy is far less logical than believing in one.

    BTW...there are people who know for a fact what the Kennedy brothers' agenda was. It is not speculation.
     
  15. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    i thought cuba was a dictatorship?
     
  16. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0


    what was their agenda?

    I do believe both were assassinated for their idealism against the mainstream. Ironic that MLK was assassinated and Malcolm X?

    Obviously that period of time their were powers that didn't like what was happening so they stopped it. Very sad in our history. Could have been something great even despite their immorality.
     
  17. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,850
    Likes Received:
    347
    Ratings:
    +731 / 11 / -7

    This is a difficult thread to address. Let me pick off the low-hanging fruit first:

    I think JFK showed he was certainly a nationalist. He had absolutely no problem abandoning negotiation for hard power. On the other hand, Johnson's "great society" programs were his homage to the old boss. He saw himself responsible for implementing the legacy JFK would have wanted; and THEN he started believing in it. JFK was no "ultraliberal" by any stretch, however.

    In terms of our "lurching from side to side," we lurch within a very narrow spectrum in this country. In terms of the distribution and control of wealth, well, Wildo, there's the rub.

    I do not like, trust, or believe in our current system. I have all sorts of good feelings about proposals to address said system on the comparative margins; sometimes these proposals are labeled hereabouts as "leftist."

    Unfortunately, all proposals I can in good conscience support are proposals which would slow the constant widening of the gap between rich and poor, or put more clinically, the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of the few.

    Why then don't I embrace some solution which will go further? Frankly, because the reality of extreme leftism -- as opposed to an extra dime subsidy for school lunches, which around here is considered positively Maoist -- the reality of extreme leftism, has met with less than stellar results.

    Can I embrace something like what the Canadians have done with health care? Of course. Do I want to know the details? Sure. Can I embrace European-style social welfare? I have no problem with it. But again, these are all "Capitalism lite."

    The ridiculous extremes of concentration of wealth in the U.S. are clearly a phenomenon out of control, and may well be the competitive death knell of the nation. The list of social ills that devolve from that imbalance would more than fill this forum.

    Is extreme leftism what American needs? No, certainly not. But America could do with someone well to the left of Obama. George F. Will, for example (on the subject of executive pay).

    Don't laugh. On one of the Sunday morning talk shows I heard him demand that corporate executives have their pay capped at the level of a GS-15, the highest general schedule grade (it's in the 100-200K range.)

    Or maybe he just meant they should get their salary in tax-free stock options, like they take their bonuses ;)

    But back on point: do we replace capitalism, or do we reform it? There's the rub. With all its ills, I have no choice but say that the profferred alternatives littered the 20th century with corpses. We can go 'round and 'round adding up the dead from a variety of smaller scale wars and forms of oppression... but it is hard to beat the records of the Nazis, Stalin, and Mao in terms of bad outcomes.

    PFnV
     
  18. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0


    Why would one think that the fate of capitalism isn't any different?

    Can any system last infinitely? or do they have a set life where they eventually get pushed to extremes and collapse?

    Maybe we are headed for that same fate as some see the "New World Order"

    Some say the shelf life for democracy/republic is 200 years. Time will tell especially the next two decades.
     
  19. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,878
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +47 / 16 / -3

    It's pretty pointless to use the most extreme totalitarian regimes here, that's not what this is about. You could easily dismiss the entire right wing by pointing to Pinochet, Pol Pot, Ahmadenijad etc. Both sides have had movements corrupted by powerful elites. That certainly isn't a tenant of the ideology though, quite the opposite.
     
  20. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,943
    Likes Received:
    158
    Ratings:
    +450 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    Did you know that 77% of Americans don't believe the Warren Commission report? When you have that many people doubting something ... they're almost always right.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>