Intro to a discussion on Ideology

[alvarezadams]

Having seen "liberalism" fall by the wayside since the end of the 1960's - modtly through the coincidence of cyclical economic developements and above all because of a VERY well-funded opposition, it is clear that the traditionally framed "liberalism" is very much passé. Just as the cons have been able to repaint the very much outdated and utterly unsuccessful economic liberalism of Adam Smith and (more recently) of the neoliberals as somehow being a goal to achieve, the social and political left need to repaint their values in order to answer the emotional buttons that make up today's polity.

IOW, the left needs to repaint or reinvent their ideology.

I hope that his thread serves as a vehicle to discuss IDEOLOGY --- as opposed to quotidien political talkingpoints... the very concept that has turned against liberalism and democratic values.

I will thus set some basic "rules" to the discussion, not in any arrogant sense but in order to better direct the gist of the argument as per any corporate consultant's MO. I hope that contributors will follow the "rules" or at least justify their departure from them...

1. The OBJECTIVE is to identify a new "progressive" "ideology" or "platform", taking into consideration todays' requirements regarding framing, demagoguery, corporate indoctrination and the plethora of influences that make progressive ideals a "hard sell".
2. Initially the MO is to identify the values and objectives, to be followed by...
3. The strategy to push these ideas and values. Any ideas regarding "political expediency" et al can be discussed here, but only after the previous points have been covered to a certain extent.

I certainly don't expect any consensus or miraculous meeting of minds here. One of the left's strongest points is its diversity, something that I wouldn't dream of losing or threatening. If a partial consensus between some posters is achieved I would hope that the talking heads could take notice --- if only to repeat the process at another level instead of surrendering to the likes of the DLC.

Yes - this is an intellectual exercise and nothing more. Those interested in such please participate - those who are more "down to earth" -- please give us our due in trying to hammer out some ideas in friendly debate.

As for the rest - if you see this exercise as a ridiculous waste of effort - save it for yourself. SOME of us are interested in this kinda thang....

[alvarezadams]

1. A personal intro

I am still quite new to DU and have come after exhausting whatever more “public” message boards have to offer. I have come to the conclusion that it is useless to debate with, confront or even try to find common ground with what passes for conservatives on the public boards – those who post in an atmosphere with diversity see fit to limit themselves to ad hominem and the repetition of mantras while their progressive counterparts eventually lash out in frustration.



I imagine that conservatives often feel the same way – and thus the public board impasse.



I was initially turned off by some of the DU rules – the idea that dissent is unwelcome seemed like anathema to me, something anti-democratic. Yet as I divorced myself from boards with a wider spectrum of beliefs and values and as I study current affairs I’ve noted that those with a progressive set of ideals have a number of strikes against them in an “open environment”. DU could very well be a good starting point for overcoming these weaknesses.



At this point, perhaps a personal introduction is in order.



I am a marketer by career and an historian by vocation (because one cannot easily make a living by writing history these days and I do not want to be part of the ivory tower). I am of mixed parentage with a naturalized Spanish father (that has since returned to Spain) and an American mother, and throughout my youth I would spend one year in the US and the following in any number of countries (an airline brat). To date I’ve lived in 12 cities in 6 countries – most of these before the age of 21 (I’m now 42).



My paternal grandfather was a card-carrying Falangist in Spain, a chief of the “vertical union” of transport under Franco. My maternal grandfather was (unusually) a Mississippi liberal that ran for (and won) a seat in the Ms. Legislature, despite dying before the elections. He was a Southern Baptist – but with a mixed congregation in the 1920’s-30’s. My father was initially a socialist, my mother a dem… while the rest of my family covers everything from CNT/AIT anarchists to outright fascists. Not a commie in the bunch, however.



Somehow I turned out to be a social libertarian. That is to say – one who defends personal rights as well as society’s (and government’s) responsibility to foment the common weal. Thus the DNC is the closest thing (in the US) to a party that represents my beliefs, despite its shortcomings.



As an historian I’ve published various works in Spain on my specialty (ancient history with a Marxian slant – that is to say, contemplating socioeconomics) as well as on the “peaceful coexistence” of the three principle cultures in medieval / Renaissance Spain (Christians, Jews and Muslims). I shy away from writing on contemporary history because it is too difficult to cut through contemporary propaganda – hell, even to differentiate between fact and spin regarding the Peloponnesian War is hard enough! But I certainly study “contemporary” history from an historical perspective – in order to have SOME perspective that isn’t based on spin, emotion or propaganda.



An explanatory note on the reference to Marxian history – this does not imply a belief or subservience to any Marxist ideologies but reflects the recognition of Marx’s most important HISTORICAL contribution; that history is not merely the story of rulers but that economy and society also have a role in historical development.



My Goals on DU



I believe that the high point of American and progressive development occurred under the New Deal. I believe that the role of government is to foment the common weal, and that the individual is the most important component part of the body politic… an individual that plays a responsible part in society. I am aware of the fact that for the past century, special (corporate) interests have conspired into undermining the hard-won benefits that the “left” has obtained, and continues to do so with overwhelming economical, political and journalistic support.



Because of this nearly century-long undermining of both social and libertarian movements and ideals (especially since the 1940’s), I believe that is essential that progressives redefine themselves and, above all, reframe their positions… in order to counter a regressive menace that threatens to move us back beyond the 30 years of retrograde motion that Big Capital has already heaved upon us.



I would like to debate ideology, an alternative to the “third way” that Blair and the DLC would appease both sides of the spectrum with. An appeasement, by the way, that wholly fulfils the goals and objectives of capital while paying a minimal lip service to progressives throughout the 1st world.

[inthebrain]

2. It's economic liberalism that has fallen by the wayside

I think when looking at the New Deal we also need to see who the movers and shakers were in society. Economic liberalism was at play and met it's end because of the Espionage Act and McCarthyism. Those were not meant to be used as "protections" but to round up those that were dissentors. Mainly people that pointed to capitalists and told them that they were theives.

I think today Red Scare tactics are used to bully people down from critisizing elements of Capitalism. Then there is also the corporate control of media that trys to esablish ideas on the public forum that are to their favor. The immigration debate right now is a great example of that. It's nothing more than a win-win with amnesty vs kicking out immigrants. The third way of offering full rights to citizenship to immigrants is off the table.

THe very structure of the argument is framed by capitalists. The concept being pushed that these people steal the jobs of others. Nevermind that people these days are doing the work that three people used to do when unions were at their height.

We live in the wealthiest country in the world and there are plenty of jobs to go around. All it takes is for people to organize and refuse to do more work. The work enviornment now is a t a back breaking pace and it's not only bad for job creation but creating stress related health problems.

[alvarezadams]

5. Interesting take

" Economic liberalism was at play and met it's end because of the Espionage Act and McCarthyism"

I don't quite follow you here. Economic liberalism is a mainstay of conservatism as well as of "illustrated" liberalism, and I don't see how it was the enemy of the Red Scare. Quite the contrary in fact.

"I think today Red Scare tactics are used to bully people down from critisizing elements of Capitalism. "

Here I -AM- with you, and can point to anything from Haymarket to Sacco & Vanzetti.

"THe very structure of the argument is framed by capitalists. The concept being pushed that these people steal the jobs of others. Nevermind that people these days are doing the work that three people used to do when unions were at their height. "

An excellent point and part of the reason why I think that it is time to debate the ideological environment. Ultimately and for around 60 years there was a struggle between two opposing extremes (laissez faire and communism) and one side won through overwhelming economic superiority. From my POV, NO extreme (capitalism or communism or whatnot) is worthy of even the most cursory support - extremes are by their very nature dangerous. Yet what is the current US system if not a rabid and radical extreme - discounting even the best contributions of the "left" inasmuch as they hinder the worst excesses of the "right"?

Of course, in the US one cannot speak of socialism with any chance of success, even if it is a wholly intellectual argument. Decades of indcotrination have blurred the distance between communism, socialism, Fabian socialism and even "progressiveism". For the moiety of the population anything that remotely smells of "anticapitalist" is anathema, even if their 40-hour week and time and a half are the direct result of leftist actions. And even if today's right consipres to break the 40-hour week and time-and-a-half. Hell - I just read that most Americans' lunch "hour" is down to 18 minutes.

I think that you and I are in agreement as far as whom the enemy is and what their MO is comprised of. The question is not one of reaction but of proaction. How can we counter it? How can we re-frame the argument in a way that seduces a people that are fundamentally liberal but anecdotally conservative... as a result of $1 billion/year, every year?

[alvarezadams]

18. Definitions

"Economic liberalism was at play and met it's end because of the Espionage Act and McCarthyism." (refering to the New Deal)

Just to clarify, "economic liberalism" is usually associated with Adam Smith and is the basis for laissez faire capitalism (or at least mercantilism). For the sake of clarity, why not describe the New Deal as part of Keynesian economics as opposed to the current neoliberal economic theory which prevails amongst the right (and, unfortunately, the center)?

As for the rest of your post, :thumbsup:

[inthebrain]

30. That's the statesmens view of economic liberalism

It holds a different meaning amongst citizens in the early twentieth century. I was using it to refer to the fight for fair wages, abolition of child labor and a minimum wage.

The Espionage Act was Woodrow Wilsons deal. I don't know where you are getting FDR from that. THe Espionage Act and "Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" were all weapons used by the state to jail labor organizers.

[alvarezadams]

31. Maybe it was this?

" I don't know where you are getting FDR from that."

You'd expressly mentioned the New Deal...

[inthebrain]

42. I was responding

To what you wrote about the New Deal. I should have been more consise in mentioning WHY The New Deal was presented.

In the same manner that Civil Rights legislation was passed.

I see a huge difference between what was going on in society and what that liberalism represented. It's much different than the liberalism of people like Samual Adams, Abraham Lincoln and FDR.

[madmusic]

13. Welcome to DU, alvarezadams!

Great idea for a debate. One of the problems is that we let the Right define liberalism. They have since the 90s, and it's worked well for them. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy defines it:

"One of the major political ideologies of the modern world, liberalism is distinguished by the importance it attaches to the civil and political rights of the individuals. Liberals demand a substantial realm of personal freedom--including freedom of conscience, speech, association, occupation, and more recently, sexuality--which the state should not intrude upon, except to protect others from harm.

"Liberalism first emerged as an important movement in Europe in the sixteenth century. Today, particularly after the decline of communism, it is the dominant ideology in many parts of the world... On one view, liberalism grew out of the recognition that toleration was the only alternative to the Wars of Religion. After innumerable wars, both Protestants and Catholics accepted that the state could not assume or impose a shared devotion to a single faith, and that the only stable basis for a political regime was to separate Church and State. Liberalism has simply extended this principle from the sphere of religion to other beliefs about the meaning and purpose of life. A liberal state does not seek to resolve these conflicts, but rather provides a 'neutral' framework within which citizens can pursue their diverse conceptions of the good life. Liberalism, on this view, is the only humane response to the inevitable pluralism and diversity of modern societies.

"Legal guarantees of individual freedom of conscience have provided ample protection for a wide range of religious groups, while preventing the corruption and discrimination which often accompany state-sponsored religion...

"Dire warnings about liberalism's instability to contain the centrifugal tendencies of individual freedom can be found in every generation for the last three centuries, yet it appears that liberal societies have managed to endure while various forms of monarchy, theocracy, authoritarianism, and communism have come and gone."

Is there any need to change that definition? I don't think so. What is needed is a reminder of why liberalism became dominant. Before the Revolutionary War in the U.S., someone could get their ear cut off for blasphemy. Quakers were hung if they didn't "repent." We are all well aware of the Witch Hunts and how someone "possessed by the devil" was treated. That's not to mention the religious wars. The Enlightenment grew out of the soil of severe religious persecution, and it wasn't the religious who were persecuted. Their punishments were as equally severe.

One reason for the backlash and over-reaction to liberalism might be that the left tried too hard to legislate tolerance, and in the process lost its 'neutral' framework. There is always a backlash when one ideology has a monopoly, as is happening now with the Right. So perhaps we only need to return to our roots.

[Greyhound]

34. Welcome, and thanks for the intro.

I look forward to future discussions. :hi:

[Finder]

3. Much needed debate and discussion.

Short on time at the moment, but want to keep this thread.

[ulysses]

4. interesting, although

I don't know that the core values need to be revisited as much as the framing. Curious to see how this thread shapes up. I'll try to get back with more substance.

[alvarezadams]

6. Ultimately...

framing and values are almost interchangeable, don't you think? What did Marx do but reframe Christ's "Sermon on the Mount"?

I see what you mean, however. While reframing is an absolute necessity in this day and age of packaging and brands, don't you think that it might be a good moment to actually look at the product?

I'm leading to an economic debate that never publicly took place in the Western Left even though virtually the entire Western Left unilaterally surrendered. I mean, of course, the abandonement of Keynes and the embracing of Mt. Pellerin - a revolution every bit as important as those of 1776, 1848 and 1917. Yet almost universally ignored.

[ulysses]

9. not so much.

framing and values are almost interchangeable, don't you think?

I guess I see the idea predating the expression of it. They can be closely linked, but you can express an idea in a variety of ways.

don't you think that it might be a good moment to actually look at the product?

It's always a good moment for that, I guess. Let's just not get hung up on it. Progressive values are good, and worth fighting for.

re: the economic debate - you'll have to give me a little time to read up on this stuff. :)

[alvarezadams]

7. Anyone....

ever contemplate Mt. Pellerin and what is stands for?

It's a valid question to ask in an environement where the DLC can actually exist.

[alvarezadams]

8. As a reference I'll point to...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2670306&mesg_id=2670306

and:

The US' and the DNC's greatest economic success took place during FDR's presidency and its aftermath.

Previous to FDR the economic philosophy of the US was little different from today's "trickle down" neoliberalism: a minimum of government intervention, very low taxation, almost no regulation. The result of such economic policies was an erratic cycle of booms and busts, leading to the biggest bust of all... the Depression.

FDR applied Keynesian economic theories to take the US out of the doldrums - the recovery was well under way when WWII began and finished the job.

What did Keynesian economics bring? After WWII it was the consumer society and the buildup of a prosperous middle class. Economic cycles certainly continued but with smaller and softer shifts between peaks and valleys. For the first time in history economic growth and development were not generated solely by big capital but by a combination of consumption and the collective capital accumulated by the middle class.

It isn't coincidence that the influence of Mt. Pellerin neoliberal economists in government coincided with the first decline of the middle class since the Depression. Nixon began the move away from Keynes and at some point (I have been unable to ascertain when), even the DNC embraced neoliberal economics with nary a public debate. Every president since Nixon has, to a greater or lesser degree, contributed toward the prevalence of what I consider an atrocious economic philosophy that has only resulted in greater profits for the wealthy and corporations -- and a decline for everyone else.

Yet virtually every president ultimately falls back on Keynes when the times get rough, at least as far as the idea of "pump priming" the economy through government spending. Even Reagan had to use such "tired Keynesian policies" as priming the pump in order to get out of the funk neoliberal economic policies created - albeit through military spending as opposed to spending that would benefit citizens.

I firmly believe that the role of government is, as the DoI mentions, the "common weal". Thus a government's economic policies must be guided to wards a paramount goal - the prosperity of all its citizens. Plainly neoliberal economics does not have this goal in mind.

So I'll start what I hope will be a debate by posting my ideas for a progressive economic ideology:

1. Taxation MUST be progressive, with the weight of taxation falling heaviest on those who most benefit from society, its laws and the infrastructure that made the wealth for the wealthy. Taxation must weigh the least on the heads of those with less to spend. The tax code must be simplified and the numerous loopholes used by capital to remain under-taxed must be closed.

2. Government must spend in times of economic regression or stagnation and save in times of economic growth - in order to soften the impact of the economic cycle. Such spending should be constructive, labor-intensive and tending to wards improvements in infrastructure, etc.

3. All extremes are almost, by definition, wrong. Laissez faire capitalism is every bit as bad as communism. Thus I support a mixed system of capitalism with some socialist policies. Government intervention in the economy should tend to support capitalism where it is successful and reign in the negative tendencies of capitalism. The litmus test for success and failure must by needs be in accordance with my preamble, the "common weal".

Government intervention should be through regulation and, in extreme cases, nationalization. The latter may be appropriate in such core industries where competition is not viable and that directly affect the basic necessities of the citizens - water, energy, some aspects of transport.

With regards to labor, the entire labor movement has declined after decades of conservative attacks....

------------------

This might be enough to get the ball rolling. Ideas? Criticisms? Debate?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2670306&mesg_id=2670929

[Toots]

56. How do you counter the argument business needs the capital more than

the government in order to expand and provide more jobs to "grow the economy". And that government should only be there for defense.

[alvarezadams]

57. I counter it with the truth

At no time has there been a shortage of capital for business, creating jobs, etc. That's a red herring spewed by neoliberal economists.

I think I addressed the "government" question when I noted what the role of the government is - the commonwealth of all the people.

BTW, the right has worked for years on making the government seem to be a negative concept. It has pointed to inefficiencies, corruption and any number of other areas in order to prove this point - instead of realizing that government is not the problem, bad management is. And the inefficiency of government is probably no worse than the automatic inefficiencies programmed into private initiatives:

1. The profit margin.
2. The fact that the lion's share of profits go to a few hands and thus not into the economy, or at least not as directly as do salaries of employees.
3. Almost all government-provided services are not liable to competition and private initiatives in these areas are likely to turn to consolidation, monopolies and ultimately the same inefficiencies as government services would do... except, of course, that the government actually has checks and balances while private initiative eschews these whenever possible.

[Xipe Totec]

10. The message has to be simple,

and it has to be visceral. Otherwise, we loose the drooling class.

And that's where the votes are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1322135

I've often said, and still believe, that there are two metrics that determine whether the party in power will win or lose:

1).- What is the price of gas.

2).- What is the price of a six-pack of beer.

If the Republicans are vulnerable right now, it is because of this.

We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the Russian Intelligentsia by loosing touch with the masses with an ideology that is beyond their capacity to grasp.

PS: Welcome to DU. :hi:

Santiago!

[alvarezadams]

11. Visceral?

This could be interpreted as populism or demagoguery - which aren't necessarily bad as long as they are sincere.

Nevertheless, a workable ideology must appeal at multiple levels. It must be "pat" in the sense that it should weather intellectual, emotional and any number of other types of attacks, appealing to everything from intellect to morality to emotion.

You mention some prosaic (no insult intended) concepts as the driving interests of voters. Yet these self-same concepts might be translated into the classical "class warfare" rhetoric. Which leaves a "third way" (sorry, I couldn't resist) to express what the crux of the biscuit actually IS. Which is, of course, the battle between the haves and the have-nots, with a wink and a nod to those with a conscience.

Again - the key is to have a message that appeals to those who drink water, beer, wine, whisky and marc de champaigne. It's not that difficult - hell, Jesus did it 2000 years ago. But the key is to identify goals (where we want to go), to analyze the present (where we are) and how to get there (strategy). I fear that the first point is where many Dems differ.

[Xipe Totec]

14. You got me pegged very well

Populism? You bet.

Demagoguery? absolutely

Sincere? Three shots, three hits.

Prosaic is the precisely correct term for the basic interests of the voters at large. Who can blame them; they are barely able to keep their financial noses above water. Here, we are up against two overwhelming forces

1).- The tragedy of the commons: That which belongs to everyone is cared for by no one.

2).- The voter's paradox: The intellectual effort required to make an educated choice is out of all proportion to the power and influence of the single voter's ballot.

It is wealth that frees a person to pursue intellectual endeavors and devote the necessary brainpower to maintain wealth and status. The majority of Americans are living a life very close to that of medieval peasants; both spouses working from sunup to sundown just to earn enough to avoid financial ruin. The public education system is barely worthy of the name, and it is in the interest of the powers that be to keep it that way. What was once the nobility that wielded power through the control of land is now the executive class that wields power not with land titles, but property titles (shares of stock). With the elimination of the "Death Tax" we have now recreated the equivalent of hereditary titles.

Class warfare? Of course it is. We are in a class warfare and we are losing.

[alvarezadams]

17. lol!

I hope you realize that I wasn't pegging you! :toast:

[alvarezadams]

12. As an experiment....

...on some of the public (Yahoo) boards, I have often c&p'd the "platform" of the American Falangists without actually naming them. The number of recommendations and hoots of support were overwhelming - which makes it pretty clear what we're up against.

I had the misfortune of living a number of years under the waning aegis of real falangists - and my grandad was a bigwig in that particular grandfaloon. So when I speak of fascism I do so with a little bit of experience - having had to study "organic laws" in a classroom overlooked by Jesus and the two thieves (Francisco Franco and José Antonio Primo de Rivera). Needless to say I see corporatism from a different perspective than most of my American compatriots - and perhaps see an incipient evil that is beyond their ken.

For background check out the falangists' web - and compare with "traditional GOP values" (at least since Goldwater turned into the liberal wing of the GOP): http://www.falangist.com/beliefs.htm

[Xipe Totec]

15. Well, it's a grab bag of atavistic touchstones

And so scattered that is it hard not to find some common ground with some of the statements made by the falangists.

Who could argue that defending the constitution and the bill of rights is a bad idea, or that family farms should be protected.

But these generally accepted values are adulterated by linkage to other less accepted values in the form of false choices:

- Do you believe in the total sanctity of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and the United States Flag?

- Well, I wouldn't use a religious term such as sanctity to refer to them, and I'm not sure about the sanctity of a piece of cloth.

- So, you don't believe in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights?

- I didn't say that, that part is ok?

- Well, which is it, it's a simple question: yes or no? Or, are you some kind of liberal flip-flopper?

On so it goes, frame the debate, offer false choices, confuse, blur, denigrate....

[alvarezadams]

16. That's demagoguery for you!

Something to be avoided like the plage

[Xipe Totec]

19. Touché!

But I prefer to think of it as the political equivalent of the fog of war.



:evilgrin:

[alvarezadams]

21. Fog?

As something of an historian I am constantly surprised at how many of today's core issues are similar to those of the past. The Peloponnesian War had a political/ideological backdrop, with the Athenians promoting democratic regimes in the polis under their sway and the Spartans installing oligarchies in their areas of influence. Polis such as Corcyra lived bloody civil wars that were ultimately class struggles... and on through Tyler’s Rebellion of 1378... to our own Revolution... to those of 1848 and 1917.

This may sound particularly socialist but it is pretty clear that conservative movements have always been in favour of the haves... and that it has taken much blood, sweat and tears to gain what today's conservatives would take away from us. And since the 19th century they've done so through the "fog" that you refer to, through manipulation.

British jingoism was a tool often used by 19th century politicians to keep people's minds off their 18 hour workdays, 6 days a week, for a pittance. When Chartism reared its ugly head or whenever the Fabians started getting ornery, one could rely on the Primrose League to hold back the surge. If that failed, invade the Crimea... Sound familiar? They fought against universal suffrage to the bitter end but ended up using democracy as a tool, understanding just how easy it is to manipulate.

When 100 years later Lenin and Mussolini and Hitler manipulated on the behalf of new interest groups, they were somehow surprised.

I believe that the core of today's manipulation can be found at Mt. Pellerin - where the neolibs had their start. Their objective was straightforward enough -- they wanted a plausible ideology that would go against the incredibly successful social models that came out of Keynes, the New Deal and the European welfare state. So they put one together for THEIR taskmasters.

Ever read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"? A tissue of logical fallacies that weave discordant parts together in order to justify a false conclusion. He rails (rightly) against collectivism, exageratedly against central economic planning and wrongly combines these with liberal social ideals/programs/policies in order to justify laissez faire. Yet his followers have gone even further - applying his basic precepts in ways that Hayek would never have dreamed in order to "drown government in a bathtub". Cato, Heritage, AEI - are Austrian School/neolib hotbeds nowadays.

Fog? Ever notice how the neolibs point to the "economic growth" that their ideology provides? Yet they never notice that this growth is limited to the top 1-5% and that wherever such policies are enacted, the middle class declines and the poor become poorer and more numerous.

Over here the neolibs point to the need to make the country "competitive" in a global marketplace. Characteristically this means limiting employee protection, lowering wages, or otherwise turning the 1st world into the 3rd world in order to compete with... the third world. Equally characteristically there is one group that profits no matter what - the ones that finance the AEI's, Heritages, GOP, DLC... Yet nobody seems to call for a raising of the 3rd world to the 1st, 'cos that would cut into the profits. And all the talk about "free marketism" is really just economic colonialism with a new label - 'cos we impose protectionist import restrictions as we force subsidized goods onto the shelves of Benin and Bolivia.

The "isms" that ran against laissez faire capitalism have fallen by the wayside. One extreme won - and they're not gracious winners. What they will end up doing is to recreate the environment that made such -isms viable and new ones will take over. As Islamic fundamentalism is doing in some countries, I might add.

So my "ideological debate" is somewhat guided by the need to balance out the current extreme - not with an opposite one, but through a sensible option.

Sorry about the ramble/rant!

[alvarezadams]

22. This is a laugher

"The Road to Serfdom" in a comic book format: http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm

Isn't it strange how many of the things this fellow feared have turned out because of what he propounded?

[alvarezadams]

23. How things change

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. "
Dwight D. Eisenhower , in a letter to his brother Edgar on November 8, 1954

[Zhade]

44. Strange? No. His desired goals naturally led to these things.

I did love how the pamphlet talked about anti-Semitism...then showed a Jewish businessman in the typical black suit!

:rofl:

[Xipe Totec]

24. Here's the Voter's Paradox I mentioned

"When an individual has reason to contribute to what is basically a group activity in which the benefits of the group activity are shared by the group, certain puzzling phenomena are evident that can only be described as "diabolical". While there is no generally accepted terminology for these phenomena, various manifestations are often referred to as the "Voter's Paradox", the "Volunteer's Paradox", "Collective Action problems", the "Tragedy of the Commons", "Many-Person Prisoner's Dilemma", etc., or, in general, the "Social Dilemmas". The well known, two-person, "Prisoner's Dilemma" is just a special case of the "Social Dilemmas".

http://perspicuity.net/sd/vp-brf.html

[alvarezadams]

25. Of course -

- this can also be a problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

[Xipe Totec]

26. So, who plays the role of Devil's Advocate?

"One mechanism which management consultants recommend to avoid groupthink is to place responsibility and authority for a decision in the hands of a single person who makes the decision in private and can turn to others for advice. Others advise that a preselected individual take the role of disagreeing with any suggestion presented, thereby making other individuals more likely to present their own ideas and point out flaws in others' and reducing the stigma associated with being the first to take negative stances (see Devil's Advocate)."

Who challenges the underlying assumptions of the group, and what is the reward for doing so?

[alvarezadams]

27. Uncommon sense?

Actually, the beauty of a democratic system is that you SHOULD have some sort of opposition.

It's been sadly lacking of late.

[Xipe Totec]

28. It takes two wings to fly,

and they have to stand in opposition.

What we have a Right wing, and a flopping dorsal fin that leans to the right.

It is any wonder we keep going around in circles?

:shrug:

[alvarezadams]

20. Subthread - Values

As I think I've noted, I (and apparently many other libs) are actually social libertarians (take the test at http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/) and I'd wager that many GOPers are conservative libertarians or that at least some libertarian values resonate with them.

And please note well that I use "libertarian" in the international sense and not the freeper nutcase US sense.

Thus an "ideology" with a strong emphasis on personal liberties, rights and such is a no-brainer and very well-atuned to our constitutional background:

"Libertarianism is a political philosophy<1> advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

The libertarian left is a pretty wide-ranging concept in itself. It has roots in Locke and... Bakunin, and ranges from geolibertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism /Georgism to out-and-out anarchism. All have some good points, some bad - and it would be an interesting exercize to pick and choose between them - or to coin new values.

If well done such an ideology might appeal to a wider spectrum than any of the prevailing "ideologies" - which have lost much credibility as they have gone through their own anacyclosis. In fact the creation of an "ideology" can be proactive (identifying salient values that appeal to many) and reactive (eschewing those values that have evolved into negative policies in the past).

Proactive:

- Advocating individual rights and freedoms.
- With a government based on the consent of the governed.
- Government's role should be to promote the general welfare of all citizens...

Reactive

- Rejecting undue influence by non-elected organizations or groupings (i.e. corps, thinktanks, etc).
- Rejecting undue privilege on any basis including race, gender, wealth, etc...


Any thoughts?

[Xipe Totec]

29. Left leaning libertarian

Economic Left/Right: -7.63

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.23

Surprised?

I hope not :evilgrin:

[alvarezadams]

32. No surprise at all

I have never met a progressive that isn't also a libertarian.

[alvarezadams]

33. bump

[Xipe Totec]

35. Looks like it's just U & Me, boss,

We left the rest of the herd behind long ago.

The skill mix is just not rich enough to maintain a debate on the subject of ideology.

To tell the truth, I'm trailing behind as well.



:shrug:

[alvarezadams]

61. Baloney

There's skill enough, just not enough true desire. "Follow the shirt" reigns, democracy falls behind.

Dont' give up.

[Finder]

49. Libertarian principles are Liberal principles...for the most part.

In my opinion the big difference between liberal and conservative(philosophically) is that liberals rely on reason as a means of governing whereas conservatives rely on tradition. Many self-defined libertarians today tend to toss both reason and tradition in favor of the individual(self-interest)which is why they are seen as pseudoanarchists.

One other point is although liberal and conservative philosophy differ they both have a similar goal...the common good or as you stated general welfare of citizens. Many self-described libertarians believe it is every man for himself.

[alvarezadams]

51. Clarification

"Many self-described libertarians believe it is every man for himself."

As I've repeatedly noted, my use of the term "libertarian" is not in the US, "freeper" sense, but in the more universal sense.

[alvarezadams]

36. I tried

But it appears that I failed

[Cerridwen]

37. "Patience, Grasshopper"

It's only 3:21pm here in the west. Perhaps the afternoon crowd may care to join in the debate. Or perhaps many people have things to do on this beginning of the work week Monday, which are interfering with a well thought out debate or discussion.

In the meantime, I'll kick this up for ya as I read the posts here between taking care Monday's business.

:D

[alvarezadams]

38. Thanx

I appreciate the help.

I think, however, that my approach is probably a little to abstract for people who are more in tune with more direct political activism. While I believe that both have a place and both can and should support one another, perhaps this isn't the board for this kinda thing.

I'll keep monitoring to see if anyone pitches in...

[Cerridwen]

40. Perhaps it just needs more focused and slower moving forum.

GD: Politics can move rather swiftly for posts which require time and much thought.

I'm not familiar with this particular topic; as evidenced by the fact that I kick rather than contribute to it :D; so I'm not sure in which forum or group it would best fit.

In the meantime, this gives you another kick.

edit: spelling

[welshTerrier2]

39. from my little window ...

i have a few, somewhat disparate responses to your very fine post ...

first, sadly, you have hit on what i perceive to be one of DU's achilles heels ... if you had written the exact same post but made the title "Hillary sucks" or "F**cking Neo-Cons" you would have had far more responses ...

too much of our discourse revolves around shallow political considerations and fails to address the underlying foundations of our systems of belief ... that would make me a popular character here if anyone actually was reading this thread, eh??

as a community, we seem to be a little too much like screeching cheerleaders ... Chimpy did this - what a moron ... Cheney is such a dick ... who do you like in '08? ... SHEESH ... the engine that makes it all go is the underlying platform ... we spend way too much time on marketing, sales and advertising and not enough time on product development ... some even believe the product doesn't matter as long as we can sell it ... unbelievable ...
screeching cheerleaders!!

i'm not sure quite what the main focus of the OP was ... i guess i can live with the phrase "repaint or reinvent" ... it seems to me our core message need not be anything fancy or complex ... for that matter, it need not be new, either ...

here is a very simple, fundamental set of beliefs on which i believe the Democratic Party should run ... i have no faith whatsoever that they will accept this as their platform anytime soon ... they seem hellbent on self-destruction ...

1. restore our democracy - big money has poisoned the democratic ideals on which the country was founded ... does this mean we are "anti-business" or "anti-wealth"?? of course not ... it means that we put our greatest emphasis on protecting our democracy ... when large, powerful corporations corrupt the process or super-wealthy individuals "buy themselves a little favor or two from the government", we should do everything we can to stop them ... wealth is not inherently evil; the abuse wealth enables is ...

there's a second component to restoring our democracy ... it's comprised of several factors ... first, we must ensure the integrity of our electoral process ... we cannot allow fraudulent voting machines or corrupt Secretaries of State to poison the voting process ... second, we cannot allow the abusive gerrymandering of voting districts by either party ... third, elected representatives must meet regularly with their constituents in their districts in public, free forums ... the disconnect between voters and their representatives cannot be tolerated any longer ... fourth, we need publically financed campaigns ... and fifth, all lobbyists should be immediately executed if they spend a penny on any member of the government ...

2. government policies should be formulated to act in the best interest of the American people - not just special interests ... for generations, under both Democrats and republicans, American foreign policy has been conducted for the greedy profit motives of massive, mostly American, corporations ... the war in Iraq really is about OPEC oil ... oil companies have made hundreds of billions of dollars, i.e. all-time record profits, since the war began ... there's nothing wrong with profitable commerce; there's something tragically wrong with a foreign policy that spends America's blood and treasure for the sole benefit of commerial interests ...

3. we cannot continue to "protect free markets" while protections of our air and water are rolled back and eliminated ... and we cannot allow corporations to seek profits with no regard for American workers ... ensuring a sustainable, high quality standard of living for the American people should be among the highest priorities of government ... to allow a greedy, powerful few a "free hand" will never achieve that goal ... we need to get our priorities straight - business has every right to pursue profits but should be restricted as much as necessary to ensure the national well being ...

4. every American should enjoy as much freedom and equality as possible ... period ... we may not agree with what others do but America should stand for their right to be equal ... on this, there should be no compromise whatsoever ...

that's pretty much the basics of a progressive ideology ... i'll leave the "sales pitch" and political gamesmenship to others ...

finally, with regard to strategic thinking, i think we make a tragic political mistake when we accept the premise of a political spectrum ... what is NOT needed is a bunch of political tinkering ... all this "go after the center triangulation" is crap ... we have failed miserably in our most important task as a party ... what is that task? educating the American people ... we have an incredibly ill-informed, not stupid but ill-informed, electorate ... hear these words: we will never succeed, and the country will continue to decline, unless we educate the American people on what we believe they should know ... to believe that we can "leave them as we find them" and merely "dumb down" our campaign or "reframe" it or give in on a couple of wedge issues is catastrophic short-sightedness ... it is nothing but playing a slightly different tune on the fiddle while Rome burns ... we, both the party and the country, face a real crisis ... slick marketing slogans and clever political tactics will fail miserably ... we should be called to a much higher purpose; sadly, i'm afraid we are badly lacking ...

[alvarezadams]

41. Excellent post

I don't have time now, but I'll get into it later...

[alvarezadams]

43. Response

"first, sadly, you have hit on what i perceive to be one of DU's achilles heels ... if you had written the exact same post but made the title "Hillary sucks" or "F**cking Neo-Cons" you would have had far more responses ..."

LOL! I'd noticed, although I find that most venom comes from some DLC supporters - who seem to have the same MO as con posters on public boards, as well as a similar case of cognitive dissonance. And this ultimately is one of the reasons why I approached the ideology theme.

When confronting conservative posters (which is what debate with them almost invariably devolves into), a very singular problem arises - wishful thinking takes over whenever ideological values come into play. Defenders of Dubya or the GOP (whose traditional core values are clear enough) refuse to see that their "values" are NOT part and parcel of their representatives' policies (as opposed to rhetoric). At the same time, many Dem supporters would like to think that their representatives share their liberal/libertarian POV. Yet to be fair to many Dem supporters, they are much more apt to recognize the shortcomings of their party - something immeasurably aided by the fact that their representatives have virtually no power at present.

Happily I note that many Dems indeed reject the hypocrisy of many of their representatives - especially of the DLC variety. This is sorely lacking amongst all but the most paleoconservative or libertarian of GOPers. Yet, as I noted in one post of mine or another, it seems that one of the guiding values of Dems which is not represented in the DNC (except for RIP Wellstone? Kucinich?) is the libertarian aspect of liberalism.

" i guess i can live with the phrase "repaint or reinvent" ... it seems to me our core message need not be anything fancy or complex ... for that matter, it need not be new, either ..."

Weeeell, if we're looking at things from the POV of political strategy and with the goal of electoral victory, certainly not. Yet ... what to do in the case of victory? I think that we've come to a crossroads where the give-and-take pendulum shifts on the basis of talkingpoints has been worn thin for many of the electorate.

As for your platform points, I agree with them... as platform points. For a long time I've been active in trying to point out and attack the corporatist monster that has perverted and corrupted our system. I've tried to get boycotts moving, I've made a rather extensive study of the funding behind neolib and neocon policy-pushers, I've noted the pro-corporate bias in the press. Yet this is a reactive effort as opposed to a proactive initiative.

I've fought with some old board friends of mine over this issue. Somehow some of my friends still have faith in the DNC actually reforming its ways - and are even willing to let the DLC prevail if it means getting rid of the GOP. For me, after decades of the shallow political see-saw that never results in any real change, I'm looking at the long-term.

I was happy to see you sharing my opinion on what the role of government should be - the commonwealth of the citizens as opposed to special interests. This is indeed an ideological ideal which is obviously far removed from our political reality. From an ideological POV, however, this (IMHO) needs to be hammered out into something a bit more specific. Thus my initial ideas with regards to economics.

One of the things that angers me to no end about the DNC and the GOP is that their websites - places ideal for the politicos to enter into the specifics that go beyond soundbites - are full of shallow rhetoric and nothing else. The DNC's is worse - more than speaking about objectives, strategies and tactics, it spouts some empty wishes followed by rants against the GOP. Mr Demagogue Long from LA at least got into specifics, forchrissakes - this wishy-washy neutered garbage can only convince one born to the DNC. They can forget about the "undecided".

The whole idea of a new, repackaged or reframed ideology is to take the carpet from under the feet of the political consultants that make our politicos look like wet noodles and act like Zeligs. Identify values that people can get behind, turn them into platforms that are plausible, and turn those platforms into policies. And yes, I agree - REFORM is the first step.

At one point I have supported the idea of a new Mugwump movement based on the idea of reform. A multi-partisan movement with a programmed shelf-life of 2 years coinciding with one congressional and one presidential election - in which representative of any party could identify themselves with true reform while downplaying any and all other "talkingpoint issues". "Yes, as a GOPer, I believe in x, y, and z. But I ask you to forget about this as I will if elected. I will make it my sole objective to reform the system, removing special interests from power and recognizing that citizens and not orgs have rights. I will abstain from voting on anything other than maintenance for the 2 years I am in office and will ask that I be judged 2 years from now on if I did my best in trying to ...." you get the picture. Talking about an idealist, eh?

Thanx again for your excellent post.

[alvarezadams]

45. Bump in the night

:bounce:

[Finder]

46. Good post and you identify many problems...

in US society today.

[alvarezadams]

47. Perhaps---

--- you'd care to add your two cents' worth, or address the thread?

No complaint, btw - just a request to someone who seems to see eye-to-eye with both the original post and a responder.

While notes of appreciation -and bumps- are certainly appreciated, we need participation in the debate.

[Finder]

50. I plan to contribute/debate...n/t

[alvarezadams]

52. Thanx a mil!

And sorry for my impatience... I'm sure that your contribution will be very interesting.

[Finder]

48. Why Liberal/Progressive ideals are a "hard sell" today.

Liberal/Progressive Ideology(Part 1)


I do not think we have to repaint or reinvent an ideology since liberal/progressive ideology has proven itself for the last 500 years. Tampering with the ideology is what has caused many of the problems we see today.

For the purposes of this debate I will focus on the US--considering the founders applied the most important tenets of liberal ideology in the writing of the US Constitution. It was neither perfect nor complete but they understood that as society evolved and progressed, so would the “Great Experiment.”

Opposition to the newly formed government came from organized religion and the monarchy. Historically, all wealth was horded between this corrupt partnership. Citizens were seen as subjects/followers rather than equals and the “Great Experiment” would change this “unholy alliance.”

Modern Monarchy

Today, corporations are the new monarchies. Although corporations have been in existence for hundreds of years (11th Century) in various forms, they were usually granted permission by the state. (which was run by a monarch or church or both).

In the US, the individual states(legislature) were/are responsible for granting corporate status and up to the late 1800s, public interest was protected under Corporate Law. Most large companies did not seek to become corporations until deregulation began. Deregulation had a positive effect in economic terms in the US and worldwide. Liberals supported this because it also allowed the average small businessman to grow and compete with the larger wealthy businesses with equal protections. However, corporate interests began to trump public interests.

Reform and Redux

This is where liberals and progressives split and began tampering with their ideology and the US Constitution in ways we are still struggling with today. This was the dawn of adopting and/or labeling “subISMs” and “subISTs” in jingoistic terms to garner support for the various movements or to ridicule the opposition. Progressives joined in with populists and succeeded in reforming the political process during this time. This era is called the Progressive Era. Women’s Suffrage, education standards, etc were much needed reforms. Some of the reforms were disastrous—Prohibition for one—others are still questionable.(Income tax, direct election of Senators, etc) Classical Liberals saw the progressive/popular movement as being regressive in many ways and joined in with others in opposition to overturn many of the reforms.

[alvarezadams]

53. I respectfully disagree

"I do not think we have to repaint or reinvent an ideology since liberal/progressive ideology has proven itself for the last 500 years. Tampering with the ideology is what has caused many of the problems we see today. "

Well, if one goes back to ancient history you can turn that into nearly 2500 years. Yet there is one difference in the post-classical liberal tradition that must be addressed - liberal ideals had been a revolutionary and often coercive force until universal suffrage came about. Since then liberals have had to deal with a degree of manipulation that no previous ideology has had to face.

I've noted jingoism, I've noted the Primrose League, I've noted the $1 billion/year/every year that is spent by conservative special interests in order to paint liberal ideals as outdated, inefficient or downright negative. During the various red scares in the past the libs had been able to distance themselves from their more radical cousins - now they are the very bullseye of the cons' target.

So what can be done in the face of such overwhelming economic and even legal superiority? What can be done in the face of the electorate's apathy and/or ignorance? To continue down the same old road doesn't seem to be the answer, especially with the opposition framing the debate and with all the cards against us. Thus my idea of "repainting, reinventing" or even "repackaging" liberal values from a different perspective. ie. FRAMING.

"Modern Monarchy"

I prefer the terms "oligarchy" or plutocracy... if not cleptocracy.


"Deregulation had a positive effect in economic terms in the US and worldwide."

This is a very debateable concept and not far from the center of the economic area of the debate. From the context I assume that you're refering to the removal of protectionist barriers. Yet ultimately who benefitted from both the barriers and their removal?

"Liberals supported this because it also allowed the average small businessman to grow and compete with the larger wealthy businesses with equal protections."

Again, from the context I suppose that you're refering to the Whig party... as well as to a period when the accummulation of capital wasn't much of a competitive concern. The Civil War changed all that, creating the first great fortunes and, incidentally, opening up the "Gilded Age" that ended with Teddy's Trust Busting, the Mugwumps and the like. Otherwise, the "lib-con" political debate in the US was even less apparent than it is today - the various achievements with regards to working conditions, etc., came through coercive actions by groups outside the two-party system. In fact, IMO the first "lib-con" battle similar to today's took place coincident with the 1st red scare, around WWI.

"Classical Liberals saw the progressive/popular movement as being regressive in many ways and joined in with others in opposition to overturn many of the reforms. "

This could well be attributed to the absence of a guiding and uniting ideology, don't you think?

[Finder]

54. My clarifications...

True liberalism as a philosophy gained ground in the age of enlightenment based on the writings of Locke, Hobbs and Bacon.IMO

I disagree with you regarding the red scares...the liberals were systematically and severely damaged by both scares. We have already been repainted, repackaged and reinvented by the opposition. Ironically, many in the opposition are former liberals.(the neocons)

As far as corporate regs... Deregulation began well after the whigs were gone. New Jersey and Delaware in the 1890s were the first.

As far as an absence of ideology, I think it was the progressives trying to build the third party and appeal to the populists that diluted the ideology.

[Finder]

55. I agree with you that most achievements come from outside...

the two party system and I plan to do a post on our supposed two-party system later on this week.

[nick303]

58. Who said the philosophy of Smith was outdated or unsuccessful?

well, that stuck anyway...

[alvarezadams]

59. It's not so much that it's dated or a failure...

...it's that it's been abused.

Who urged suspicious attention to any proposed new law or regulation that comes from businessmen, because they have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public ?
Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations

Nevertheless, I stand by "mercantilism" and "free-marketism" being outdated failures. They are ex-professo arguments designed to justify behaviour that is inimical to the common wealth.

I'd be happy to debate you on the subject...

:toast:

[alvarezadams]

60. Bump in the night

Stayin' alive!

[alvarezadams]

62. Still bumpin'

still hoping that there'll be a discussion.

[alvarezadams]

63. Interesting background

Definition of "conservative": http://www.wam.umd.edu/%7Ehannahk/bulletin.pdf

In a nutshell: "being conservative was statistically correlated with a sense of societal instability, fear of death, intolerance of ambiguity, need for closure, lower cognitive complexity and a sense of threat."

[alvarezadams]

64. Oh well

I tried. So be it!

[Greyhound]

65. Maybe too late but I'll wade in.

I don't think that the problem lies in the ideologies themselves but, as you and others have stated, in the perception of those ideologies. This is doubly tricky here in amerika, as our attention span and fundamental understanding of what was and is, are far too to limited. While hardly unique, ours has become a nation of simple sheep following the loudest bell to what they hope is their next meal. Obviously this is a broad generalization and as such is inaccurate in specific instances but is, none the less, frequently useful in explaining the mysterious behavior of our sample.

Issue 1.) Eyes glazing over, being drawn toward American Idol. Can't... look... away...
How to get and keep their attention. We need a wide variety of very shiny objects to draw their initial interest, I propose give-aways that will effect them directly, health-care and social security have served us in the past and still garner a brief glance, but what about something that will really captivate them? Proposed reductions in the consumer price of gasoline and beer come to mind. Both are viewed as absolutely essential to their preferred existence, and the rapid rise in prices for both have unsettled them.

Issue 2.) Please lie to us. No really, we insist. In fact, we demand it. OK, if you insist on telling us the truth we will vote for the other guy, you've been warned!
While the re:puke:s have never had any problem complying with this demand, the Democrats insist on making repeated attempts to educate them and impose facts into their fantasy world. They do not like this, it makes them uncomfortable and causes them to worry about the future that they feel helpless to control, so stop it, fer cryin' out loud.


Got to go now...

Comments welcomed.

TBC

[alvarezadams]

66. Perception, reality, FRAMING

"I don't think that the problem lies in the ideologies themselves but, as you and others have stated, in the perception of those ideologies."

If perception fails - mainly because perception has been perverted by manipulation - it's time to reframe.

[Odin2005]

67. This is a very good point (re, telling the truth to voters)

We all know what happened to Walter Mondale when he was honest on taxes and what happened to Carter when he admitted the US was not doing to well. Sometimes we need to do white lies to get the stupid to vote for us.