Are things more black-and-white than they used to be?

[otherlander]

Maybe black-and-white isn't exactly the right phrase for it. But isn't the primary distinction between 'left' and 'right'an economic policy? Whether to try to run the country via capitalism, or adopt more socialist elements? But now, it refers to way more things than that. Civil liberties, environmentalism, war, human rights, etc. How is it that someone's stance on an economic policy translates into opinions on all these things? Individual thought seems discouraged; the main options seem to be between two blocks of thoughts.

I wasn't alive at the time, but I can't help but think how different this is from the Johnson presidency. Progressives who wanted civil rights for all Americans gladly chose him over Goldwater, but the anti-war movement, which was progressive, vehemently opposed the violent escalation of the Vietnam war by Johnson. Maybe 'polarized' is a better term than black-and-white, but what seems strange to me is that so many Americans who believed in a more right-of-center economic policy would be lead by these beliefs to accept spying, rendition, and countless other things which seem to me should not divide left-right, but be opposed by the American concepts that are the base for both left and right.

[mike_c]

1. I still think it usually comes down to economic fundamentals....

Take the environment, for example. Even the most rabid neocon probably doesn't long for the destruction of the environment per se, but rather loathes any control over corporations or individuals profit making at the expense of the environment. It's the money, and the underlying unbridled capitalism that drives corporate ethics, not the environment itself that matters to them.

Civil liberties? Well, the right NEEDS compliant consumers and unencumbered markets, so they support the notion of a security state-- newspeak for "police state," a term tainted by long association with the LEFTIST Soviet Union-- to prevent disruption of buying and selling. They also want to control access to resources and the distribution of wealth, again requiring a strongarm approach.

Wars? Two words: foreign policy. U.S. foreign policy is selfishly evil. There is simply no way to varnish it's ugliness, and the driving engine of the world's dispair is more often than not the profit margin of U.S. corporations. Historically, the U.S. has been brutal in its suppression of reformist foreign governments and independence movements-- especially if they threaten U.S. business interests.

It goes on and on. The right WORSHIPS unbridled capitalism, often substituting terms like "liberty" and "individualism" because they essentially mean "nobody can tell me to limit my potential for making a profit at someone else's expense."

[otherlander]

2. That does make sense, but then look at someone like Eisenhower.

He was a Republican, and that was evident in his decision-making, but even if I don't agree with all of his decisions, he did have integrity. I guess he might have been the last Republican president who that could be said for.

[stellanoir]

3. The ruse of intractable dualism

is based on the "divide and conquer" approach and is totally insufferable and not at all reflective of our illustrious diversity.

In short, in this once land of the lively discussion there are simply far more than two points of view.

I wrote a diatribe last Sunday about the ways in which I was a conservative. Primarily illustrating how I feel our Constitution and environment should be preserved. Of course I'm really a bleeding heart liberal but still there are ways in which I feel staunchly conservative

I prefer the rainbow and always will. I just wish our country could as well.