It's so confusing....

[AnneSally]

I found the British Joe Bloggs' overview to be little more than a mess. I'd say, first off, to let all that introspection and pseudo-philosophy go.

LOL, nah, just an outside observation.

 

[Albion]

How so? America is supposed to be a Capitalist nation and yet you've used the tax payer to bail out your capitalist financial system....weird in the extreme.....I just don't get that, and that came from a Republican government?

Panic. But keep in mind that politicians are not necessarily purists when it comes to political "isms." They run for office as Conservatives or Liberals, perhaps, but when in office, they often compromise those ideals. Conversely, it is often said that the genuine political theoreticians can't get elected. Historically, this kind of bail-out is not very American, but it's an election year, the voters are about to vote, the stock market and retirement funds are on the line, everyone is afraid and mad, sooooooooo

The government acted as it did.

But note....many political theorists were opposed. A number of conservative Republican members of Congress, the nominee of the Libertarian Party, for example, and the various small Socialist factions and spokesmen. Of course, these opposed the move for different reasons. The Conservatives and Libertarians opposed it as an unwise intrusion into the private sector, and the Socialists opposed it as a give-away to the "fat cat" Plutocrats whom they identify with Capitalism!

 

[Albion]

LOL, nah, just an outside observation.

Well, I could have been more specific, I guess. It suffered, as you know, from the fatal problem of being an outsider's view. Everyone is always well advised to tread lighly when attempting anything like this. I'm sure I'd make some serious blunders if I were to attempt to explain British politics in a couple of paragraphs. But IMO it also suffered from trying to mix in too many theories at once, many of which are more philosophical and/or sociological than political.

 

[AnneSally]

Panic. But keep in mind that politicians are not necessarily purists when it comes to political "isms." They run for office as Conservatives or Liberals, perhaps, but when in office, they often compromise those ideals.

Do they ever! But it's like America itself went against everything it stands for. The beacon of capitalist principles, the nation that went all around the world to stamp out communism but turned around and implemented a socialist method of bailing out its failed capitalism. BIZARRE!

Conversely, it is often said that the genuine political theoreticians can't get elected. Historically, this kind of bail-out is not very American, but it's an election year, the voters are about to vote, the stock market and retirement funds are on the line, everyone is afraid and mad, sooooooooo

The government acted as it did.

Un-American in other words, very strange.....

But note....many political theorists were opposed. A number of conservative Republican members of Congress, the nominee of the Libertarian Party, for example, and the various small Socialist factions and spokesmen. Of course, these opposed the move for different reasons. The Conservatives and Libertarians opposed it as an unwise intrusion into the private sector, and the Socialists opposed it as a give-away to the "fat cat" Plutocrats whom they identify with Capitalism!

LOL, that's prolly true! I would have opposed it merely based in that fact that it just aint American!

 

[AnneSally]

Well, I could have been more specific, I guess. It suffered, as you know, from the fatal problem of being an outsider's view. Everyone is always well advised to tread lighly when attempting anything like this. I'm sure I'd make some serious blunders if I were to attempt to explain British politics in a couple of paragraphs. But IMO it also suffered from trying to mix in too many theories at once, many of which are more philosophical and/or sociological than political.

Fair enough. But then politics is itself mixed up with philosophical moralistic musings. At least when I read many posts I get that impression. Especially when advocating ones own political side there tends to be a lot of self-righteous "me the good one, they the evil ones."

 

[Albion]

Yeah, see, that's why I find America's version of "conservative" difficult to understand, it's not what I regard as "conservative" in the true sense.

Right. From our beginning as a nation, we rejected class. President Washington didn't want to be called anything like a king or look like it. This has faded in recent decades, but we still talk about rising from a log cabin to the White House and we admire the down-to-earth political figure like Truman or perhaps even Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer. Still, the wealthy and highly-placed tend to have better opportunities, don't they? The Roosevelts and Bushes come to mind.

We abhorred anything that bespoke inherited position, etc. BUT society will always stratify itself, and we made our achievers unofficial nobility. Still, the principle that made this possible was free enterprise. Since that had been the hallmark, in Europe and Britain, of Liberalism, we early on made American Conservatism a blend of Historic Conservatism and Classical Liberalism. However, they do have certain things in common, if nevertheless for different reasons--individualism, free markets, limited government, etc.

 

[Albion]

Fair enough. But then politics is itself mixed up with philosophical moralistic musings. At least when I read many posts I get that impression. Especially when advocating ones own political side there tends to be a lot of self-righteous "me the good one, they the evil ones."

It's true, but IMO the bloggers attempted too much, some of it not directly related to how political isms differ from each other. I did agree that the straight line imagery is outdated but by the time these folks got through with all the variables they thought should be added, they wound up, IMO, with something more like a kaleidoscope than a graph.

 

[AnneSally]

Right. From our beginning as a nation, we rejected class.

But only in theory. You had slaves, and only rich white men of anglo origins owned property, land, and had the political influence. That whole "classless society" is a myth and something to romanticise about, in reality, it was far from that.

President Washington didn't want to be called anything like a king or look like it.

But the office of President does look like a kingship. It's the highest office of power in that land. So what if it's not called "king" it still carries all the trappings of kingship, if only for a limited time. But even politically at that time, the King of England worked with parliament, he didn't have absolute rule like the monarchies of old.

This has faded in recent decades, but we still talk about rising from a log cabin to the White House and we admire the down-to-earth political figure like Truman or perhaps even Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer. Usually, the wealty and highly-placed tend to have better opportunities, don't they? The Roosevelts and Bushes come to mind.

Most often, yes. But the founding fathers were already highly placed, weren't they? Even according to British society, except for Thomas Paine. So what I don't get is that they railed against class and yet came from highly educated classes of privilege themselves, I guess it's another of those quirky American ideals I don't get because it doesn't translate to reality but seems a romantic notion.

We abhorred anything that bespoke inherited position, etc. BUT society will always stratify itself, and we made our achievers unofficial nobility.

Exactly! And the position of President seems almost deified.

Still, the principle that made this possible was free enterprise.

Only if you had money and weren't black. LOL.

 

[AnneSally]

It's true, but IMO the bloggers attempted too much, some of it not directly related to how political isms differ from each other. I did agree that the straight line imagery is outdated but by the time these folks got through with all the variables they thought should be added, they wound up, IMO, with something more like a kaleidoscope than a graph.

That's a great insight! Yes, something more like a kaleidoscope sounds more appropriate....lol.....

 

[Rhamiel]

AnneSally

But only in theory. You had slaves, and only rich white men of anglo origins owned property, land, and had the political influence. That whole "classless society" is a myth and something to romanticise about, in reality, it was far from that.

we rejected Nobility, not class, also look how immagrants, jews, and blacks were treated even after we got rid of slavery.

But the office of President does look like a kingship. It's the highest office of power in that land. So what if it's not called "king" it still carries all the trappings of kingship, if only for a limited time. But even politically at that time, the King of England worked with parliament, he didn't have absolute rule like the monarchies of old.

well the president has more power on foreign relations and in matters of war then he does in domestic matters, and over the years the power of the presidancy has waxed and waned, more waxing though

 

[AnneSally]

AnneSally
we rejected Nobility, not class

Indeed, I think that's a more accurate distinction. And so was Albion's point that the achievers were made into unofficial nobility.

But furthermore, British nobility had a direct link to class. The upper classes were the nobility, they are one and the same. So if someone was from the upper classes but rejected nobility, well, that's just a contradiction....

 

[Secundulus]

But only in theory. You had slaves, and only rich white men of anglo origins owned property, land, and had the political influence. That whole "classless society" is a myth and something to romanticise about, in reality, it was far from that.

That is false. There were some very rich Black land and slave owners. Our history likes to forget that though.

The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000. That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978.

more at http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
​

 

[Albion]

But only in theory. You had slaves, and only rich white men of anglo origins owned property, land, and had the political influence. That whole "classless society" is a myth and something to romanticise about, in reality, it was far from that.

I disagree. At least, I'd say that this oversimplifies. Of course, you had slaves too, and the fact was that they were not considered to be Englishmen with any rights at all. But among subjects of the crown, and later as citizens of the Republic, we abhorred titles, inherited political positions, strictly stratified social groups based upon heritage, etc. I can certainly stand behind this with evidence. At the same time, I have already allowed that while we said that men are equal in the eyes of the law--a concept that the King and Parliament would not agree to and which hastened the Revolution--they are naturally unequal. They do have different abilities, meaning that social classes did develop. However, it can fairly be said that these were different from the meritless and very rigid situation of European classes.

But the office of President does look like a kingship. It's the highest office of power in that land. So what if it's not called "king" it still carries all the trappings of kingship, if only for a limited time.

Not at all. At least not in comparison to the English king we had known. He achieved his position by inheritance. We elect our president. His power was little restrained in law. Of course there was Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, etc. but our Constitution went much further and had specific limitations. Very specific and very limiting. And as you noted, the office was held for a specified period of time, unlike the position of king. The President cannot initiate legislation. He cannot declare war. He cannot levy taxes on his own. And much more.

Most often, yes. But the founding fathers were already highly placed, weren't they? Even according to British society, except for Thomas Paine. So what I don't get is that they railed against class and yet came from highly educated classes of privilege themselves, I guess it's another of those quirky American ideals I don't get because it doesn't translate to reality but seems a romantic notion.

To me, being a citizen farmer, even of a large farm is quite a different matter from an aristocrat who receives automatic revenues, a place in Parliament, endless benefits written right into law that make him superior to other men, etc.

And the position of President seems almost deified.

Deified? LOL I sense that we've passed beyond polite conversation and trying to explain things, and entered into something else.

 

[Secundulus]

AnneSally
we rejected Nobility, not class, also look how immagrants, jews, and blacks were treated even after we got rid of slavery.

At least in the Southern States, they were not treated nearly as bad as the modern mythology would like us to believe. The Secretary of War of the Confederate States of America was a Jew. Judah P. Benjamin

 

[AnneSally]

That is false. There were some very rich Black land and slave owners. Our history likes to forget that though.[/color][/color]

The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000. That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978.

more at http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
​

OK, but did those black slave owners have the vote? Were they allowed to hold political office?

 

[Rhamiel]

oh yes, America is a meitocracy
but it is easier for people in the higher classes to "merit" then it is for people to work their way up from nothing.

 

[Albion]

Indeed, I think that's a more accurate distinction. And so was Albion's point that the achievers were made into unofficial nobility.

It was a turn of phrase that I thought you wouldn't misunderstand, AnneSally. But even if we did produce "nobility" in some sense, they were--and you have to admit that I made this point--men who could rise from obscurity and achieve status because of their efforts and talents, unlike the useless aristocrats who merely took their places automatically.

 

[Albion]

OK, but did those black slave owners have the vote? Were they allowed to hold political office?

Yes.

 

[Rhamiel]

the black slave owners were only in Louisiana, Louisiana had a lot of french, creole and spanish peoples. It is also mostly Catholic (not sayiny that being Catholic made it so blacks could own slaves, just to show that it was differant from most of the American South)

 

[Simon_Templar]

It for the most part does break down along left wing and right wing lines. The reason that most Europeans have difficulty understanding this is because most europeans have been raised in a socialist climate, and a slightly more collectivist social climate. By collectivist there I don't mean in the economic communist sense, although that is probably partially true as well. I mean that Europeans are more community centric than Americans who are generally more individual centric.

This is basically an issue of acclimatization. If you are sitting in a hot tub... even a warm swimming pool will feel cold, but if you jump into the pool after stepping in from the cold outside air, it will feel warm.

Europe as a whole is much further left than America, and pretty much always has been.

So leftists in the US in simple terms of policy, might appear centrist in Europe, but for the most part they hold the same beliefs and same principles as leftists in Europe, its just they have to move things by degrees here.

For example, in the US you simply couldn't come out and propose nationalization of major corporations, or banks etc, because it would be too radical of a change at this point (though in effect the recent bail out was a major step in that direction). This doesn't mean that many of the liberals here wouldn't very much like that, and wouldn't believe in it.. it just means that they can't do it openly, yet.
They have to move step by step.

Another issue is the fact that for the most part the scale of right and left wing has been deliberatly skewed by liberal academic revision of history.

For example, Socialism is classic, defining leftism.. Facism according to most is classic right wing.
Yet the reality is that all of the classic fascists ideologues and leaders were committed socialists.
If you ran down a list of the social views, intentions, and policies of the major defining fascists, you would find that almost ALL their major points of belief were what we would commonly consider to be defining points of left wing belief. Yet fascists today are almost always considered to be extreme right wing.

Really the only major differences between fascism and communism in ideological terms are that fascism is nationalist while communism is globalist, and fascism sees economics as of secondary importance while communism sees economics as primary.

The terms right wing and left wing are themselves somewhat loaded because they originate in French politics leading up to the French revolution. The right wingers were essentially those who supported the monarchy and the traditional social order, while the left wingers were the revolutionaries who supported over throwing the current social order and building a new state.

So, one could argue that right wing should historically be defined as monarchist, but usually it is defined as conservative. So in a monarchy it would be monarchist, but in a republic it would be republican etc.

However, Right wing has pretty much always been associated with more individualism, and left wing has almost always been associated with totalitarianism.

Really virtually every difference between right and left wing can in some way be traced back to this divide that right wing tends towards individualism, while left wing tends towards totalitarianism.

So getting back to the point.. in belief, american liberals are for the most part leftist (especially in terms of those who lead the movement) while some are probably centrist. But in policy, from European eyes they would appear centrist. For most, their goals are leftist, but they know they have to move there step by step.