 |
|||
|
|
|
 ‘Left, Right & Center’: What’s in a Political Label?Posted on Dec 24, 2010
For this special holiday edition of “Left, Right & Center,” the show’s regulars—Robert Scheer, Matt Miller, Arianna Huffington and Tony Blankley—take their talk to the meta level to discuss what it means to own their respective political labels at this particular moment. —KA KCRW: Advertisement TAGS:
|
Why Bain Questions Matter
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Newsletter 
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Beaudigger, January 2, 2011 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment
I’ll take Ralph Kramden’s bus- the truth is obvious.
Will the herd ever really understand?
Report thisBy Alan, December 30, 2010 at 1:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Hey, you flipping schmucks! Don’t get me started on
Report thisthe subject of political labels!
What’s this ongoing b.s. about “bluedogs” as being
“moderates”? They are flipping conservative dixiecrats,
don’t tell me that they are “moderates”, there is nothing
moderate about them.
Political labels? f.! all of that, let’s have some
political justice , not some more political labels!
got it, schmucks?
By markpkessinger, December 28, 2010 at 11:16 pm Link to this comment
I think one of the biggest reasons no one has really been able to make much sense of the current political landscape is the utter fallacy of trying to describe our politics using a linear, left-to-right metaphor. Even if one accepts the validity of the left vs right paradigm as a general shorthand for progressivism vs. conservativism, when one looks at the history of American political discourse, it quickly becomes clear that there is currently NO party on the left, and one party has gone off a rightward cliff. Democrats since at least the Clinton administration have occupied what was long considered the political center, not the political left.
But even if we accept the left/right classifications as being merely relative to each other, and thus say that Democrats are on the left and Republicans on the right, the model still totally fails when it comes to describing independent voters.
Independent voters, for starters, are not a cohesive voting bloc with an identifiable, coherent political philosophy. They are not a de facto third political party. Nor are they, either collectively or individually, necessarily situated in the relative political center between Democrats and Republicans on any given issue. I think a better way to think of them, instead of using the term “independent,” is to use the term “unaffiliated.” They may be unaffiliated for any of a variety of reasons, ranging running the gamut from intellectual laziness, to habit, to serious disillusionment with one or both major parties. But as individuals with political opinions on individual topics, they can sometimes be far to the left of Michael Moore, somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan, fairly aligned with the prevailing position of one or the other major parties, or sometimes, between the two parties.
This is why I believe it amounts to nothing more than reading tea leaves to suggest that the President, in order to shore up independent support, must move to the right. Whatever direction in which he moves, he will gain some independents and lose some others. But if he continues to move to the right, he risks alienating a large portion of his own party.
Report thisBy Ralph Kramden, December 27, 2010 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Tony Blankley has a weird reading on history. He mentioned that a Republican brought about emancipation of the slaves as an example of right-wing progressive legacy. I believe he is British, so maybe he doesn’t know that in those days it was the Democrats who were the reactionaries. Moreover, almost anything that has favored the masses came from the left: emancipation, the vote for women, the 8-hour day, the 40-hour week, week-ends, overtime, holiday pay, sick pay, end of child labor, universal education, social security, safety regulations, civil rights, unemployment compensation, minumum wage, food stamps for the poor and on and on. And the communists were instrumental in these struggles. It was only when the right managed to destroy the labor movement through Taft-Hartley and the McArthy witch hunts that the march towards an equitable and just society was shot down. It was always the right that allied themselves with the ruling class. The other Republican that brought a huge benefit to the country was a Roosevelt, Teddy. He gets credit for the national parks, although he was an imperialist bastard. Don’t take my word for it, read Mark Twain.. The Republicans of today hate his guts. How the rest of you stood by and allowed Blankley get away with this nonsense is beyond me.
Report thisWhy does Matt Miller keep refering to “free markets?” The only thing free about these markets is that they are free from finacial risk, free to exploit and rob.
Are we going to get an apology for the use of “Paki?”
By WriterOnTheStorm, December 27, 2010 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment
Robert, taking in Tony’s critique, how about this as an alternative:
“Journalism on the left should strive to empower the afflicted and afflict the
Report thispowerful.”
By Ralph Kramden, December 27, 2010 at 3:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Tony Blankley has a weird reading on history. He mentioned that a Republican brought about emancipation of the slaves as an example of right-wing progressive legacy. I believe he is British, so maybe he doesn’t know that in those days it was the Democrats who were the reactionaries. Moreover, almost anything that has favored the masses came from the left: emancipation, the vote for women, the 8-hour day, the 40-hour week, week-ends, overtime, holiday pay, sick pay, end of child labor, universal education, social security, safety regulations, civil rights, unemployment compensation, minumum wage, food stamps for the poor and on and on. And the communists were instrumental in these struggles. It was only when the right managed to destroy the labor movement through Taft-Hartley and the McArthy witch hunts that the march towards an equitable and just society was shot down. It was always the right that allied themselves with the ruling class. The other Republican that brought a huge benefit to the country was a Roosevelt, Teddy. He gets credit for the national parks, although he was an imperialist bastard. Don’t take my word for it, read Mark Twain. The Republicans of today hate his guts. How the rest of you stood by and allowed Blankley get away with this nonsense is beyond me.
Report thisWhy does Matt Miller keep refering to “free markets?” The only thing free about these markets is that they are free from finacial risk, free to exploit and rob.
Are we going to get an apology for the use of “Paki?” If not, is it okay to use “Chink,” “Hymie,” “Wet-back,” “Honky”?
By SteveL, December 25, 2010 at 10:44 pm Link to this comment
Robert Scheer’s opening statement hit the nail on the head. Beyond this the
Report thismiddle’s habit of splitting the difference is a plague on the left. Whatever the left
leaning part of congress proposes the middle will always water it down to being
useless. The right however has no such equivalent they stand unified in what they
want.