Another Theory on Current Politics

brianlux

Another thought occured to me regarding the current popularity of outspoken politicians on the far right.

In his book, Confessions of an Ecowarrior, Dave Foreman said, “A major accomplishment of Earth First! … has been to expand the environmental spectrum to where the Sierra Club and other groups are perceived as moderates.”

Could this be kind the role Palin, Bachmann and Perry play in today's politics on the right?

Again, I am not trying to stir up trouble here. I mean this as a legitimate question seeking some thoughtful answers (and probably a few good-- I hope-- jokes.)

catefrances

you know what blux, you could be right about that. present to the people an opinion so outlandish and theyll believe another one thats on the same side but not so out there. it may be as bad but the public wont percieve it as such cause the original outlandish opinion is so wild.

Cosmo

brianlux wrote:

Another thought occured to me regarding the current popularity of outspoken politicians on the far right.

In his book, Confessions of an Ecowarrior, Dave Foreman said, “A major accomplishment of Earth First! … has been to expand the environmental spectrum to where the Sierra Club and other groups are perceived as moderates.”

Could this be kind the role Palin, Bachmann and Perry play in today's politics on the right?

Again, I am not trying to stir up trouble here. I mean this as a legitimate question seeking some thoughtful answers (and probably a few good-- I hope-- jokes.)

...
No. I think Sarah Palin, for example, is a viable Republican candidate because a large portion of conservatives in America believe she is moderate. They do not see her on the far end of the spectrum... because that is where they are.

brianlux

Cosmo wrote:

...
No. I think Sarah Palin, for example, is a viable Republican candidate because a large portion of conservatives in America believe she is moderate. They do not see her on the far end of the spectrum... because that is where they are.

Interesting observation, Cosmo. Again, I don't mean to be putting anybody down, but I wonder how it is that candidates who do not believe, for example, in evolution or climate change can be considered moderate. If someone running for president said they believed the world to be flat, not round or that our sun revolves around the earth and not the other way around most people would have a hard time considering them moderate. I really don't see the difference. It's all denial of widely accepted ideas.

Cosmo

brianlux wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
No. I think Sarah Palin, for example, is a viable Republican candidate because a large portion of conservatives in America believe she is moderate. They do not see her on the far end of the spectrum... because that is where they are.

Interesting observation, Cosmo. Again, I don't mean to be putting anybody down, but I wonder how it is that candidates who do not believe, for example, in evolution or climate change can be considered moderate. If someone running for president said they believed the world to be flat, not round or that our sun revolves around the earth and not the other way around most people would have a hard time considering them moderate. I really don't see the difference. It's all denial of widely accepted ideas.

...
My feeling is this... those candidates are considered moderate because that voter base believes the same thing. That Creation is some sore of science, public prayer should not be an option and that marriage should stay the way (they believe) God had intended.
Many moderate conservatives do not want to return to the 'Ozzie And Harriet' days because they know that was a false image. In reality, Ozzie was slapping the shit out of Harriet behind closed bedroom doors and it was an accepted part of American life... as long as it wasn't on T.V.

mikepegg44

brianlux wrote:

Another thought occured to me regarding the current popularity of outspoken politicians on the far right.

In his book, Confessions of an Ecowarrior, Dave Foreman said, “A major accomplishment of Earth First! … has been to expand the environmental spectrum to where the Sierra Club and other groups are perceived as moderates.”

Could this be kind the role Palin, Bachmann and Perry play in today's politics on the right?

Again, I am not trying to stir up trouble here. I mean this as a legitimate question seeking some thoughtful answers (and probably a few good-- I hope-- jokes.)

What does being on the far right mean to you? I think that is the bigger question.

Popularity of candidates usually has little to do with all of their beliefs or policies...people generally vote on 1 or 2 things...in that sense someone can be moderate on a lot of things, but for those folks who believe the same on those 1 or 2 things that stuff can be overlooked. Like inlet said in another thread...Paul and most libertarians are considered farther right than these people...so i guess it is all relative to what you think far right is. Being socially conservative doesn't mean you are far right, you could still be for large government (and ironically probably are)...so if all you do is vote on social issues, an economically moderate republican with conservative theories on abortion and gay marriage may be appealing to some.
Maybe what we need to do is create another political spectrum...separate economic policies from social policies...what really needs to happen is a complete overhaul of the current grouping structure...it only exists to further the two party system and their monopoly on political competition.
But no, I don't think it is a conscious effort to make people a little further left of them seem more acceptable...it is a way to differentiate themselves and make themselves electable and nothing more. They think who do we know that gets out to vote...elderly, moral majority...those bases need to be played to...It is pure political calculation based on current political climate.

i mean, now that I think about it a little more he may be on to something....I mean no one, not even her, can believe all the things that come out of Bachmann's mouth...

brianlux

mikepegg44 wrote:

What does being on the far right mean to you? I think that is the bigger question.

Popularity of candidates usually has little to do with all of their beliefs or policies...people generally vote on 1 or 2 things...in that sense someone can be moderate on a lot of things, but for those folks who believe the same on those 1 or 2 things that stuff can be overlooked. Like inlet said in another thread...Paul and most libertarians are considered farther right than these people...so i guess it is all relative to what you think far right is. Being socially conservative doesn't mean you are far right, you could still be for large government (and ironically probably are)...so if all you do is vote on social issues, an economically moderate republican with conservative theories on abortion and gay marriage may be appealing to some.
Maybe what we need to do is create another political spectrum...separate economic policies from social policies...what really needs to happen is a complete overhaul of the current grouping structure...it only exists to further the two party system and their monopoly on political competition.
But no, I don't think it is a conscious effort to make people a little further left of them seem more acceptable...it is a way to differentiate themselves and make themselves electable and nothing more. They think who do we know that gets out to vote...elderly, moral majority...those bases need to be played to...It is pure political calculation based on current political climate.

i mean, now that I think about it a little more he may be on to something....I mean no one, not even her, can believe all the things that come out of Bachmann's mouth...

Well said, mikepegg44. Some political restructuring seems like a good idea to me too. But I'm also hopelessly idealistic. I don't think we should carry out the business of governing based on left or right but rather just doing what makes sense. I am labeled "left" because I believe we should protect the environment, provide care for those less fortunate than ourselves, rebuild our economy on a sustainable and local basis, etc. I don't see that as being left or right but just making sense and hopefully some compassion. I say, more common sense, more looking out for one another, and fewer labels.

mikepegg44

brianlux wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

What does being on the far right mean to you? I think that is the bigger question.

Popularity of candidates usually has little to do with all of their beliefs or policies...people generally vote on 1 or 2 things...in that sense someone can be moderate on a lot of things, but for those folks who believe the same on those 1 or 2 things that stuff can be overlooked. Like inlet said in another thread...Paul and most libertarians are considered farther right than these people...so i guess it is all relative to what you think far right is. Being socially conservative doesn't mean you are far right, you could still be for large government (and ironically probably are)...so if all you do is vote on social issues, an economically moderate republican with conservative theories on abortion and gay marriage may be appealing to some.
Maybe what we need to do is create another political spectrum...separate economic policies from social policies...what really needs to happen is a complete overhaul of the current grouping structure...it only exists to further the two party system and their monopoly on political competition.
But no, I don't think it is a conscious effort to make people a little further left of them seem more acceptable...it is a way to differentiate themselves and make themselves electable and nothing more. They think who do we know that gets out to vote...elderly, moral majority...those bases need to be played to...It is pure political calculation based on current political climate.

i mean, now that I think about it a little more he may be on to something....I mean no one, not even her, can believe all the things that come out of Bachmann's mouth...

Well said, mikepegg44. Some political restructuring seems like a good idea to me too. But I'm also hopelessly idealistic. I don't think we should carry out the business of governing based on left or right but rather just doing what makes sense. I am labeled "left" because I believe we should protect the environment, provide care for those less fortunate than ourselves, rebuild our economy on a sustainable and local basis, etc. I don't see that as being left or right but just making sense and hopefully some compassion. I say, more common sense, more looking out for one another, and fewer labels.

yeah, less labels would be nice...less broad strokes and more candidate position based differences would be nice. But that would mean people would have to pay attention.
Common sense doesn't mean the same things to everyone, but a start would certainly be eliminating parties from existence.
Rebuilding our economy is going to be very difficult...the start would be trying to eliminate the "gimmie gimmie gimmie I need I need I need" culture and replace it with responsibly helping people who are in need get back to self sustenance...before the dot com boom, this was a fear that as our manufacturing left what would happen...well it has brought us back to the pack and IMO it is time to start acting more like an emerging country rather than a super power and making our country a more attractive place for business...to me it seems that would be at the expense of other countries who have had their economies boom because of our trade imbalances...But ultimately i have no idea what will happen or what the solution to the economy is...there are a lot of people much more educated on the subject than I am working on it and seemingly getting nowhere...

brianlux

mikepegg44 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

What does being on the far right mean to you? I think that is the bigger question.

Popularity of candidates usually has little to do with all of their beliefs or policies...people generally vote on 1 or 2 things...in that sense someone can be moderate on a lot of things, but for those folks who believe the same on those 1 or 2 things that stuff can be overlooked. Like inlet said in another thread...Paul and most libertarians are considered farther right than these people...so i guess it is all relative to what you think far right is. Being socially conservative doesn't mean you are far right, you could still be for large government (and ironically probably are)...so if all you do is vote on social issues, an economically moderate republican with conservative theories on abortion and gay marriage may be appealing to some.
Maybe what we need to do is create another political spectrum...separate economic policies from social policies...what really needs to happen is a complete overhaul of the current grouping structure...it only exists to further the two party system and their monopoly on political competition.
But no, I don't think it is a conscious effort to make people a little further left of them seem more acceptable...it is a way to differentiate themselves and make themselves electable and nothing more. They think who do we know that gets out to vote...elderly, moral majority...those bases need to be played to...It is pure political calculation based on current political climate.

i mean, now that I think about it a little more he may be on to something....I mean no one, not even her, can believe all the things that come out of Bachmann's mouth...

Well said, mikepegg44. Some political restructuring seems like a good idea to me too. But I'm also hopelessly idealistic. I don't think we should carry out the business of governing based on left or right but rather just doing what makes sense. I am labeled "left" because I believe we should protect the environment, provide care for those less fortunate than ourselves, rebuild our economy on a sustainable and local basis, etc. I don't see that as being left or right but just making sense and hopefully some compassion. I say, more common sense, more looking out for one another, and fewer labels.

yeah, less labels would be nice...less broad strokes and more candidate position based differences would be nice. But that would mean people would have to pay attention.
Common sense doesn't mean the same things to everyone, but a start would certainly be eliminating parties from existence.
Rebuilding our economy is going to be very difficult...the start would be trying to eliminate the "gimmie gimmie gimmie I need I need I need" culture and replace it with responsibly helping people who are in need get back to self sustenance...before the dot com boom, this was a fear that as our manufacturing left what would happen...well it has brought us back to the pack and IMO it is time to start acting more like an emerging country rather than a super power and making our country a more attractive place for business...to me it seems that would be at the expense of other countries who have had their economies boom because of our trade imbalances...But ultimately i have no idea what will happen or what the solution to the economy is...there are a lot of people much more educated on the subject than I am working on it and seemingly getting nowhere...

Again, good points mikepegg44. Remember when we used to actually MAKE things here-- I mean beside USA Fenders and Gibsons, etc.--

We really blew it sending all of our manufacturing over seas. I think a good start to rebuilding our economy would be to start making things again-- good things though, not disposable crap. Good DURABLE items that are useful.

mikepegg44

brianlux wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Well said, mikepegg44. Some political restructuring seems like a good idea to me too. But I'm also hopelessly idealistic. I don't think we should carry out the business of governing based on left or right but rather just doing what makes sense. I am labeled "left" because I believe we should protect the environment, provide care for those less fortunate than ourselves, rebuild our economy on a sustainable and local basis, etc. I don't see that as being left or right but just making sense and hopefully some compassion. I say, more common sense, more looking out for one another, and fewer labels.

yeah, less labels would be nice...less broad strokes and more candidate position based differences would be nice. But that would mean people would have to pay attention.
Common sense doesn't mean the same things to everyone, but a start would certainly be eliminating parties from existence.
Rebuilding our economy is going to be very difficult...the start would be trying to eliminate the "gimmie gimmie gimmie I need I need I need" culture and replace it with responsibly helping people who are in need get back to self sustenance...before the dot com boom, this was a fear that as our manufacturing left what would happen...well it has brought us back to the pack and IMO it is time to start acting more like an emerging country rather than a super power and making our country a more attractive place for business...to me it seems that would be at the expense of other countries who have had their economies boom because of our trade imbalances...But ultimately i have no idea what will happen or what the solution to the economy is...there are a lot of people much more educated on the subject than I am working on it and seemingly getting nowhere...

Again, good points mikepegg44. Remember when we used to actually MAKE things here-- I mean beside USA Fenders and Gibsons, etc.--

We really blew it sending all of our manufacturing over seas. I think a good start to rebuilding our economy would be to start making things again-- good things though, not disposable crap. Good DURABLE items that are useful.

yeah...manufacturing jobs are very important to a stable economy. By increasing exports and decreasing imports we would be able to actually bring new wealth into the country as opposed to just trading it around and losing it to other countries via trade imbalances.
Although i disagree about the quality. Sure it would be nice to have things that don't fall apart...but I think if the world wants cheap crap we should give it to them. Right now we have a situation where China says to the US, "here ... you throw this away for us"...people need cheap junk...we might as well make our own...