Re: [RC] Re: [ RC ] Article: Fundamentalisms of the Left and Right | ViewsHound

[David R. Block]

Title: "Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned upon by liberals is 'greedy' and any person who express

I would say that those who have the "my way or the highway" attitudes from Conservatives and Lefties are the "true believers" of their respective camps. Why wouldn't one think so? David   "Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned upon by liberals is 'greedy' and any person who expresses an idea contrary to basic liberal dogma is preaching 'hate.'  How shallow these people are."—Neal Boortz   On 11/30/2011 12:25 AM, bil...@aol.com wrote: Well, I donno about a religion of Centrism. Not my idea of what RC should be all about. Speaking personally, I regard RC as akin to social science, but for a good cause, trying to make sense in a useful way of the political mess we find ourselves in, not to further the interests of the Left.   So, yes, I get on a high horse about it now and then, but  --at least my self conception--  to keep things honest, to be open to any good things from either L or R and, not much of a problem, ever, to debunk the nonsense peddled by both L and R.   I do know about "conservative religion." Have had run-ins ( not in this group ) with staunch GOPers who treat any dissent from the party line about the same way that Communists regard "deviationists," take 'em out and shoot 'em. Some days I get really pixxed about this, as a matter of fact.   Which is ironic, given my usual tendency to see allies on the Right moreso than the Left. Heck, while I am open to selected ideas from the Left, so far no Lefties return the favor or seem capable of any such thing. But when I seek co-operation from conservatives, by no means always but with some regularity, it is pretty much the same thing : "My way or the highway."   That is just not how I am or , as I understand it, any RC-ist. Basically RC is about being politically independent, whatever our preferences from one election to the next.   But about Libertarians, it is really hard to find the kind of people who I have listened to, via C-Span, give lectures at CATO, or the kinds of people who write for Reason. So far most of my experience has been with "true believers" who regard Libertarianism the way that a medieval Catholic regarded papal bulls, as from On High. The only thing to do is convert the Heathen, all of the rest of us. Sorry, but not interested.   Just my humble opinion.   Billy   -----------------------------------------------------         11/29/2011 10:05:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, david.r.bl...@verizon.net writes: I would say that there is also a "religion of leftism" and a "religion of conservatism," and, if you keep it up, a "religion of centrism." :-) I would rather that we not hold our politics in the same manner that we hold our religion. I have a better respect of God than I do Government (as should be obvious). So this making a religion out of one's politics is something that I don't think that we should be doing. Never mind the Religious Right or the anti-religious Marxist Left. David "Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned upon by liberals is 'greedy' and any person who expresses an idea contrary to basic liberal dogma is preaching 'hate.'  How shallow these people are."—Neal Boortz   On 11/29/2011 4:10 PM, bil...@aol.com wrote: fundamentalisms-of-the-left-and-right Excellent article . Just a few reservations, otherwise it deserves to be printed-out and framed and hung on the wall.   John Stewart as "leader" of a political cause is an absurdity, it is the mirror image of Glen Beck as political leader. In Stewart's case it is his really offensive brand of Atheism that is the problem : Treat all religion as demented, ridicule everyone who is not an Atheist, and be completely unself-conscious about the gross limitations of Atheism. NO THANKS.   What are you going to do about "Libertarian religion" ? There is no way to debate a Paulista, it is like debating a Jesuit. Political doctrine is front and center in close to 100 % of cases, with little room for give-and-take. Present company may be excluded as an exception, but we all have had such experience at times in the past. Many, many Paulistas are "true-believers" and there is no way to have an actual conversation, all that is possible is to listen to their spiel and discuss Paul's ideas. This is not how any of us think how  political discussion should be carried out. It is counter-productive. Libertarian insights may be one factor but this is hardly the crux of RC, which, by definition, seeks ideas from a  variety of sources.   Yet there they are, in the political mix. How do we deal with this ? So far, no good answer.   But these are lesser issues. The gist of the article is right on the money.   Billy   ---------------------------------------------------------------------       11/29/2011  drer...@radicalcentrism.org  writes:   fundamentalisms-of-the-left-and-right http://www.viewshound.com/politics-usa/2011/11/19/fundamentalisms-of-the-left-and-right Rigid, dogmatic thinking dominates both the left and right wing's philosophies. There has to be a major change in people's thinking. In an otherwise excellent book, The Myth of The Rational Voter, libertarian economist Bryan Caplan strongly objects to the use of the phrase “market fundamentalism” to describe hard-core libertarians. This term may sound harsh and even a little offensive, but I think Caplan here doth protest too much. There are many politicians and voters today who deserve this label. Liberal New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman puts it well: “It’s literally a fundamental article of faith in the G.O.P. that the private sector is always better than the government, and no amount of evidence can shake that credo.” Not convinced? Here’s just one (prominent) example of this dogmatic thinking: numerous Republican politicians have made the preposterous and false claim that government spending cannot create jobs. The phrase market fundamentalist seems like an appropriate term for these politicians and their libertarian/conservative supporters. Ron Paul is the perfect, if extreme, example of a market fundamentalist. He sees every problem in America as the fault of government; he never seems to admit there could be such a thing as a market failure. If you think I exaggerate, go back and examine his ridiculous answer to Wolf Blitzer’s question in one of the debates. Blitzer asked him about the man who voluntarily doesn’t get health care and then gets sick. Paul’s answer was: “That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks.” This dogmatic answer was the reduction ad absurdum of extreme libertarianism. Paul would not openly say what any decent human being would say: We can’t let him die, he has to be admitted to the emergency room; instead he evaded the question. The supporters of Paul who yelled “let him die” were widely criticized, but they were simply taking Paul’s doctrine to its logical, if inhumane, end. Another group that can safely be called market fundamentalists are advocates of “supply side” economics. They claim that tax cuts pay for themselves, or even more absurdly, increase revenue! This long discredited theory led to the massive deficits of the 1980s. Even conservative economists like Greg Mankiw (a top Bush economic adviser) have denounced supply side economics as economic quackery. Yet, somehow, the supply-siders are still taken seriously by many conservative publications. For example, Stephen Moore, a supply side advocate, writes op-eds for the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Bad ideas sometimes just don’t go away. However, rigid ideology is not the exclusive province of the right wing. Leftists have their own fundamentalist philosophy as well. I call it simply government fundamentalism. Every article written by a leftist I’ve ever read has a common, but ultimately absurd theme: government spending (other than the military) should always be higher than its current level. I have yet to meet a leftist who will say, “Once social spending reaches x amount of dollars or x % of GDP, we’ll be satisfied.” Government spending is higher than it ever has been in American history—but it isn’t enough. It never will be. The leftist Occupation on Wall Street movement is the perfect example of this ideological dogma. They take as a self-evident fact that the top 1% control the country and rig the rules to their benefit. The fact that the 1% pay over 28% of their income in taxes and the top 0.1% pay over 30% of their income in taxes is completely ignored, as it contradicts their party line that the rich are exploiting the other 99%. Source: Tax Policy Center. Another example of dogma over evidence. Another complaint I have with many leftists is that they rarely, if ever, acknowledge any legitimate limitations on the powers of the federal government. This is not a straw man argument. In fact, there was an example of this misguided thinking on display at a town hall held by liberal Democrat Pete Stark. He openly proclaimed that there was nothing the Federal government is forbidden from doing. This is a hope more than an expectation, but maybe some thoughtful people on both sides will realize that their ideologies are rigid, impractical, and yes, downright absurd. Perhaps a movement like John Stewart’s March for Sanity will sweep the nation and change the way many Americans think about politics. I remain pessimistic. As a song (I think it was Civil War by Guns and Roses) once said: Some people just can’t be reached. Article category: USA Article tags: Down with Dogma! -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org