Afternoon, Arlo: > [Arlo] > So your contention is that organizations like Family First, Focus on > the Family and The Heritage Foundation are "leftist" for their > sponsorship of online censorship legislation, while groups like > Amnesty International, ACLU and the EFF are "rightist" for their > support of free speech and challenges to this legislation?
m Good question. There are those who try and make the distinction Social Liberal and Conservative versus Political Liberal and Conservative Politically Conservative, for Americans, stays fairly close to the Constitution--ideally, and the more Liberal firgure there needs to be a lot more laws, because the Constitution is not enough. (I don't know about you, but I don't see any party actually reducing the amount of laws we are being smothered in.) So, that seems to leave a preponderance of political liberal function as the modus op'. That is how I was given the definition, in a lot more words for years, in school. And then there is the popular press that just mushes everything togetherin some fairyland indistinction, and it what most citizens are victimized with as their understanding. Also, not all organizations that push a social agenda need to even be considered either liberal or conservative, some are just nut-jobs. But, once their social agenda is pushed from inside a candidacy or party it IS a Liberal agenda regardless of whether it is the so called traditional social conservative (Classical Liberal) or the so called compassionate (Progressive Liberal). I say 'so called' not to denigrate but to make clear it is 'labeling' rather than rigorously characterized. I didn't make the labels. Organizations are often a mixture of impulses. ACLU spends half its time on very libertarian issues and half the time confusing about three different strains of thought, maybe more. The libertarian strain of their work is usually "politically" conservative and aims right at the constitution. EFF similarly gets an A for constitutional sensitivity--a not anti-conservative principal. FF and FoF I will admit to working hard to stay at a distance from. They smell so paternalistic that I wonder if they wear Swastika shaped crosses under their brown-shirts and carry secret plans to round up anyone different. Heritage Foundation I believe has a mixture that stays uneasily together, but Classical Liberal is a large part of what was floating in their information- space when I was researching the Coors campaign in Colorado. (I had hoped to write a book about the campaign, but they were scared of the possibility and told me to 'take a hike,' then proceeded to make all the mistakes in the campaign that would have made a great story of a dysfunctional campaign.) > Arlo > Does that make those who sponsor and support a flag burning amendment > "leftist"? And those who favor the freedom to burn flags "rightist"? > What about those who seek to pass a law defining marriage as "between > a man and a woman", in effect using government to define marriage, > are they "leftist"? And those who support the right of the individual > to marry a partner of their choosing would be "rightist"? m Single issue laws to ban or allow certain behavior are just single issues and often draw a mixed support ,again. I've seen folks of any stripe, especially veterans who like to stay cloes to their Corps, unit, etc., willing to punch out someone burning a flag. Marriage laws are a social agenda in my thinking as it's not just a trivial behavior, but a lifelong effect... It's a social argument from either side using government to push the specific side of the agenda--social liberal or social conservative. (I think both side got it wrong, think about that one.) >A > What about bans on public nudity (under "decency" laws). Would you > say those who support and sponsor public decency legislation is > "leftist", while nudists and those who argue for the freedom to > behave in public free from governmental control "rightists"? m Bans on public nudity in the US are sensible economically and for traffic safety. If most citizens walked around jiggly- assed nude the sales of fast food would instantly stop and traffic accidents would approach infinity as people laughed themselves to death. okay, pardon the humor, seriously, except for legitimate health and safety, clothing is a social issue. For those of us who are inveterate rubberband shooters, nudity would give us more interesting targets. (sorry, inner 12 yeard-old got to the keyboard.) >A > Its an interesting redefining of the labels, and I am eager to hear > the self-professed "rightists" in this forum condemn the vile > leftists who want to censor flag-burning, use government to define > marriage for others, and force people to wear clothing in public. m Actually, it is not a redefining of labels, the social has been changing and the political has been coopted and the 'education function' of the media, that some of its early pioneers were so naive as to believe in, has been coopted or eliminated in favor of the two pillars of the media: entertainment and sales. One way to look at it in MOQ terms, as a rule-of-thumb. If a law is banning or against something, barring safety, economic, or standards, it's probably a social issue. If the law enables or removes restrictions it more probably is operating at the intellectual level. many exceptions will obviously pop up... (Got to go silent for a while, I have a book proposal to get finished and sent off.) thanks for helping me on this. thanks--mel Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
