The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

[Coito ergo sum]

OK, hmm, definition,

One who holds a left-wing viewpoint; someone who seeks radical social and economic change in the direction of greater equality.

from wiki...best one I could find that is closest to what I personally think is a leftist. Radical social and economic change in the direction of greater equality pretty much spells it out. IE...NOT the democratic party of the US or the corporate media who obviously DO NOT want any kind of radical social and economic change in the direction of greater equality. Hope that helps you out a bit...trying here, though I don't think the concept is that hard to grasp.

Relative to the first part of that definition "one who holds a left wing viewpoint," could you give some examples of "left wing viewpoints?"

I would thing communist and socialist are left wing viewpoints, but what else?

Maybe this would be helpful: so that we do not mislabel something "left" that is not left, can you approximate the least "left" position that would still be left wing? Like a viewpoint that is still left but as close to being "middle" as you could get without being in the middle?

I knew you would have a hard time with the "One who holds a left-wing viewpoint", almost took that out. Ignore it...go with the second part of the definition. If you do not want to mislabel something as "leftist" the best thing to do would be to disregard the term. For an example, if you're talking about the democratic party or their affiliates simply use the party name. Not sure why you or anyone feels the need to use terms that have been rendered meaningless.

Well, I don't think that your definition is unreasonable, however, the term is in common parlance broader than that.

Many liberals describe themselves as being on the left side of the political spectrum, despite not advocating "radical" change. If one must be a radical to be left, then, of course, 98% of Democrats and liberals in the US are not Left. Likewise probably 90% of Brits aren't "Left" either, because I daresay most Limeys really don't want "radical" change. I'm sure they are fans of "equality" - but, it's the "radical" bit that they probably aren't overwhelmingly supportive of.

So - I gotcha, and I can certainly proceed in discussions with you on that basis.

As for why I use the term - when I use the term "left" I'm typically trying to denote the entire left hand side of the specrtum from "left leaning moderates" to extreme communists. I never use "left" to SOLELY refer to Democrats. So, your suggestion to just use the party name, while well taken, is not a universal solution. Understand that when I, and a lot of other people say "the left", we don't mean "The Left" as in classic Trotskyite Socialists and radical revolutionaries exclusively - it's more of global reference to the left side of the aisle.

[Warren Dew]

... New York Times ...

NONE of what you mention is even remotely "left"....

Could you please clearly define what you mean by "left?"

... New York Times ...

So which is it ... do you consider The New York Times left or not?

[sandinista]

... New York Times ...

NONE of what you mention is even remotely "left"....

Could you please clearly define what you mean by "left?"

... New York Times ...

So which is it ... do you consider The New York Times left or not?

If you didn't clip quotes you could probably tell I was joking. :sighsm:

[GreyICE]

Sources such as?

Liberal left newspapers such as the New York Times and the Boston Globe, along with liberals on discussion sites, blogs, and in person.

I admit to not seeing a whole ton of uniformity of opinion in a universe where Richard Dawkins, Rachel Maddow, Eric Alterman, and Arianna Huffington are left wing.

Dawkins is not leftist - not that he's rightist either. I don't know who Alterman is.

So where's the leftists? Salon, MoJo, the Atlantic, the New Yorker? You don't even know who Eric Alterman is?

Don't tell me what the left thinks, you have no bleeding idea.

[camoguard]

I generally see left and right as relevant to today. A person on the left today wants more social change in favor of equalizing opportunity, empowering the lower classes so that they can continue contributing, and raising the inclusiveness so that different persuasions of people can be treated with a common level of dignity. I view a person on the right as wanting more individual self governance, as having more interest in letting those fortunate enough to have resources use those resources however they'd like without higher tax rates or other involuntary redistribution, and they want different persuasions of people to learn to fit into the modern majority culture.

[Trolldor]

Those on the right are very much capable of promoting socialised healthcare, regulation, social equality etc.
but they do so for different reasons.

And the left are very much capable of reducing those, but again for different reasons.

Reactionary, progressive. One dependant upon the circumstances the other considers them irrelevant.

[Warren Dew]

I generally see left and right as relevant to today. A person on the left today wants more social change in favor of equalizing opportunity, empowering the lower classes so that they can continue contributing, and raising the inclusiveness so that different persuasions of people can be treated with a common level of dignity.

I think the left is less about equalizing opportunity, and more about equalizing results, even if it involves making opportunity less equal.

[eXcommunicate]

I generally see left and right as relevant to today. A person on the left today wants more social change in favor of equalizing opportunity, empowering the lower classes so that they can continue contributing, and raising the inclusiveness so that different persuasions of people can be treated with a common level of dignity.

I think the left is less about equalizing opportunity, and more about equalizing results, even if it involves making opportunity less equal.

Bollocks. What has the Right done in the past 30 years for social mobility? Jack shit. In fact mobility has actually gone down over the past 30 years of Reaganomics and continuing dismantling of our hard-won social programs. Republicans have the gall to ask us to help them deliver more of what they've been delivering the past 30 years. And since the electorate has the memory of a mollusk, they'll get their chance.

[Tero]

I was reading this thread earlier on iPod. Somewhere up there was a discussion of Obama and healthcare.

There are no compromizes in American politics. Occasionally the president yes, like Clinton. But the two parties do not compromise. There is no need to be surprised a healthcare bill was pushed thru. The Republicans would have left 30 million without insurance if it was up to them. The bill can only be paid by the currently insured or taxes. Neither of which they support.

It just swings back and forth, with the two party system. A few bridges and sewers get fixed when we feel like spending. That is all.

[Coito ergo sum]

I generally see left and right as relevant to today. A person on the left today wants more social change in favor of equalizing opportunity, empowering the lower classes so that they can continue contributing, and raising the inclusiveness so that different persuasions of people can be treated with a common level of dignity.

I think the left is less about equalizing opportunity, and more about equalizing results, even if it involves making opportunity less equal.

Bollocks. What has the Right done in the past 30 years for social mobility? Jack shit. In fact mobility has actually gone down over the past 30 years of Reaganomics and continuing dismantling of our hard-won social programs. Republicans have the gall to ask us to help them deliver more of what they've been delivering the past 30 years. And since the electorate has the memory of a mollusk, they'll get their chance.

The US hasn't had a Reaganomic economic policy for 30 years. Republicans, much less Reagan republicans, have not had control of economic policy for the last 30 years.

Reaganomics is:

1. Reduce government spending,
2. Reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
3. Reduce government regulation,
4. Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Has there been a reduction in government spending over the last 30 years? No.
Has income and capital gains tax rates been lowered consistently? No. Sometimes they have been, and when they were, it's helped the economy for a period of time.
Have government regulations been reduced? No. This is a huge myth about the Bush years - as if regulations were reduced under Bush....regulations were expanded under Bush, and they were expanded under Clinton too Around the year 1999 a big regulation was eliminated though, which led directly to many of the problems we suffered nearly 10 years later: Glass-Steagal.
The fourth one has certainly been done - we've been generally keeping inflation under control since Reagan's day, and that's generally a good thing. Now, however, "quantitative easing" is coming on-line, which will increase inflation even faster than it already is.

As for "what has 'the right' done for social mobility?" Well, I think the right, generally speaking, would suggest that it's not up to the government to pick economic winners and losers. The right would generally suggest reducing the burdens on those wishing to be upwardly mobile and thereby make it easier to be such. Like, the right would generally oppose raising the marginal tax rates, because that represents a punishment of upward economic mobility. If you work hard and make more money, we'll not only tax you more, but we'll tax you exponentially more. That puts a damper on upward mobility.

As for the "continuing dismantling of our hard-won social programs" - you'll have to specify which ones were here 30 years ago, and are now gone. Are you referring to "ending welfare as we know it" under Clinton? Well, we still have welfare. Other social programs we have are medicare and medicaid, food stamps, welfare, unemployment compensation, workers compensation, etc. Under Bush II, we got one of the largest social program ever in the prescription drug bill. In a 2006 USA Today article, it was noted that "A sweeping expansion of social programs since 2000 has sparked a record increase in the number of Americans receiving federal government benefits such as college aid, food stamps and health care. A USA TODAY analysis of 25 major government programs found that enrollment increased an average of 17% in the programs from 2000 to 2005. The nation's population grew 5% during that time. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... ents_x.htm

To suggest that social programs have been and are continuing to be "dismantled" is not in accord with reality.

And, you say, "Republicans have the gall to ask us to help them deliver more of what they've been delivering the past 30 years." Did you forget that the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress for most of the last 30 years? And, we had 8 years of Clinton and 2 years of Obama as President, meaning that 'publicans have controlled the Presidency for 2/3 of the time.

House of Representatives: Democrats controlled 1949 to 1993 - 44 years in a row! Repubs got the next 12, Dems the next 6.
Senate -- Over the last 32 years the Senate is split 50-50, with the Repubs having held control for 16 and the Dems for 16. So, you can't possibly suggest that the Republicans have had free reign over those those years. In the prior years, from 1945 to 1979, the Democrats had control of the Senate for all but 4 years.
Presidency - Since 1980 it's been about 2/3 repub to 1/3 Dem as President. Since 1945 - through the end of Obama's current term - it'll be 36 years of Republican control of the Presidency, and 31 years of Democratic control. Hardly a Republican domination.

The ones with the loss of memory are Democrats who think they've been "out of power" all this time, and events have transpired that they were powerless to do anything about. Democrats are, in reality, just as responsible as Republicans for the current mess, and to pretend they aren't is to raise partisanship above reality. Both of the major parties got us here, and so far as I can see, neither of them is willing to do what needs to be done to fix this shit.

[camoguard]

I generally see left and right as relevant to today. A person on the left today wants more social change in favor of equalizing opportunity, empowering the lower classes so that they can continue contributing, and raising the inclusiveness so that different persuasions of people can be treated with a common level of dignity.

I think the left is less about equalizing opportunity, and more about equalizing results, even if it involves making opportunity less equal.

This is a perspective difference in my opinion because the left as I see the left aren't trying to dethrone the rich but they are trying to establish a higher minimum starting point for the poor which includes the never-enfranchized and the folks who made bad decisions. In my mind it's a similar perspective difference between looking at the results of one individual's efforts as an end or looking at the results as an input to the opportunities of the next person.

Candidly, what I like about the right is it's focus on a minimized government which I interpret as streamlining opportunities and it's outspoken interest in privacy. What I like about the left is the social inclusiveness. I like policies that stick up for minorities, gays, polygamous folks, atheists, nonbelievers, and other people who just aren't down with the popular culture.

What I don't like is everything else. When is the last time the government deliberately looked at what parts of the government could be cut away? How about reducing the numbers of representatives per state? How about considering a new way to vote that would allow for people to sensibly show support for third party values without "throwing away their vote" from their major party of choice? How about revising and publishing metrics of performance for politicians so that even the politician himself can see when he's doing a bad job since a politician is there to do a job for the whole constituency and in part, the country?

I don't care about the gun issue as in either way I remain satisfied. I don't think anyone here is in favor of the religious section of the right. I don't like the fact that the government strikes me as inefficient because there are services that would be optimal if they were centralized but that requires an efficient leadership.

[eXcommunicate]

Your characterization of Reaganomics is hilarious.

1. Reduce government spending,

Reagan himself increased gov't spending.

2. Reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,

Which Reagan did.

3. Reduce government regulation,

S&L, repealing Glass-Steagal

4. Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Inflation has been pretty darn steady over the past 30 years, never fluctuating more than 2 or 3 points from standard deviation, mostly thanks to the Fed and Chinaman.

How about reducing the numbers of representatives per state?

I think this would reduce the already meager responsiveness our representatives have to their constituents.

[Coito ergo sum]

Your characterization of Reaganomics is hilarious.

1. Reduce government spending,

Reagan himself increased gov't spending.

Reagan advocated reductions in government spending. That's one of the "pillars" of the economic policy called Reaganomics. You said we had Reaganomics for the last 30 years. We haven't because we absolutely have NOT reduced government spending. Period. Your assertion was wrong.

Even if spending didn't go down under Reagan, that would only make my point stronger. We haven't had Reaganomics.

2. Reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,

Which Reagan did.

Then they went back up. So, we didn't have Reaganomics for 30 years.

3. Reduce government regulation,

S&L, repealing Glass-Steagal[/quote]

Government regulations overall has not been reduced, but instead has been dramatically expanded.

The Repeal of Glass-Steagall occurred under Clinton. I mentioned Glass-Steagall in my post above. You missed that part, apparently.

4. Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Inflation has been pretty darn steady over the past 30 years, never fluctuating more than 2 or 3 points from standard deviation, mostly thanks to the Fed and Chinaman.

That's what I said.

However, I'm not arguing the relative merits of Reaganomics or its various principles. The fact remains, as I demonstrated, it's ludicrous to say that the US has been living under Reaganomics for the last 30 years when it most certainly has not.

[Warren Dew]

Candidly, what I like about the right is it's focus on a minimized government which I interpret as streamlining opportunities and it's outspoken interest in privacy. What I like about the left is the social inclusiveness. I like policies that stick up for minorities, gays, polygamous folks, atheists, nonbelievers, and other people who just aren't down with the popular culture.

That's what I've liked about the right since Reagan; prior to that, Nixon for example wasn't exactly into privacy rights.

As for the left, I liked the social inclusiveness of the left in the 1970s - Carter had his heart in the right place, even if he was a nincompoop on many policy matters. However, the left of today has become just as bigoted as 1960s southern Democrat right. It's just that today's left is bigoted against different groups - against poor rural "redneck" whites instead of against poor urban blacks, for example. And frankly, while there's lip service about gays, the actual policies of the left when they have power are just as bad for gays and atheists, and quite possibly worse for polygamists, than those of the right.

I don't think anyone here is in favor of the religious section of the right.

This is a case in point. I certainly disagree with the religiously related views of the religious right. However, that doesn't mean that the members of the religious right aren't people. Truly socially inclusive views would include having tolerance and understanding for the religious right as well as all other groups. That doesn't mean we have to do what they say, any more than having tolerance and understanding for blacks means we have to do what Rev. Wright says, but it does mean not dismissing them out of hand.

[Robert_S]

Candidly, what I like about the right is it's focus on a minimized government which I interpret as streamlining opportunities and it's outspoken interest in privacy. What I like about the left is the social inclusiveness. I like policies that stick up for minorities, gays, polygamous folks, atheists, nonbelievers, and other people who just aren't down with the popular culture.

That's what I've liked about the right since Reagan; prior to that, Nixon for example wasn't exactly into privacy rights.

As for the left, I liked the social inclusiveness of the left in the 1970s - Carter had his heart in the right place, even if he was a nincompoop on many policy matters. However, the left of today has become just as bigoted as 1960s southern Democrat right. It's just that today's left is bigoted against different groups - against poor rural "redneck" whites instead of against poor urban blacks, for example. And frankly, while there's lip service about gays, the actual policies of the left when they have power are just as bad for gays and atheists, and quite possibly worse for polygamists, than those of the right.

I don't think anyone here is in favor of the religious section of the right.

This is a case in point. I certainly disagree with the religiously related views of the religious right. However, that doesn't mean that the members of the religious right aren't people. Truly socially inclusive views would include having tolerance and understanding for the religious right as well as all other groups. That doesn't mean we have to do what they say, any more than having tolerance and understanding for blacks means we have to do what Rev. Wright says, but it does mean not dismissing them out of hand.

I remember those firehoses and dogs set against the rednecks as they attempted to eat at the same lunch counter as the single black moms. That was a sad chapter in the left's history.

In fact, much of the left is very sympathetic to the poor white rurals, but towards the middle class pseudo-redneck drive-an-oversized-pickup-with-a-rebel-flag-through-the-suburbs douchebags... not so much.

I think a generalized dismissive attitude toward the religious right is a good thing for the left, we just need to get over our anxiety about including the Islamic right in our disdain.