Politics Newb =D

[CezeN]

I've decided - that I finally need to get interested in politics. As in, understanding how the economy works(though my upcoming Economics class should teach me it), and understanding exactly what each party represents, and the main things or ideas they advocate.

Sure, I could turn on the TV and watch CNN or CSPAN or something similar, but I would probably only get the basic gist of it, at most.
Yes, I could just ask my parents, buttt that would initiate a long rant about politics, which I would therefore have no choice, but to hear all of it. Could last a while. :/

So, I come here as a novice, with open ears to any political idealogy.
Basically, if you want, come here and explain to me why the party you represent/agree with is right or better than others, because I'm currently open to any influence.

[mr_thebrain]

uh oh. the box of worms has been opened.

[human.]

I thought it was a can of worms?

[locke]

listen to marketplace everyday.

www.marketplace.org

[Wind Swept]

I thought it was a can of worms?

Whatever you do, DO NOT open Pandora's Can. She was just in there, and let me tell you: All that 'crap' your mom told you about in high school, about how girls don't sweat and they poop flowers? <— Could not be further from the truth.

[P3+J3^u!]

It would be helpful to know how much you already know. Have you taken Government/US History classes? Do you know that Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal, and have any idea what philosophies these are generally tied to?

Are you familiar with Libertarianism and Populism? I was looking for a 2-D graph I was shown in high school that demonstrates those concepts and their relationships to liberalism and conservatism and found this page. I haven't read it, just glanced over it, but it seems to give a more-than-adequate introduction to a lot of the concepts of the political scale. I've personally never heard of using a ternary diagram before, but looking at it I suppose it makes sense. It doesn't go into as much detail describing exactly what each direction on each axis means, but hopefully you'll be able to get the gist.

As for economics...well, I've taken economics and still don't really understand that much more about our economy than I did before taking it. Mostly, we're a free-market capitalist society, but FDR's Great Depression-era movements began our march towards governmental intervention and regulation (in a relatively socialist manner; it's inaccurate to say that any government intervention/regulation of an economy is socialistic, because socialism is all about how the government regulates the economy...but it does require substantial governmental control of the economy).

mmm....I'm gonna go buy groceries, shampoo, shaving cream, etc. now. And eat dinner, and clean my bathroom. I may or may not expound upon what I've already posted later.

Hope this helps, at least a little.

[ender1]

I'm currently open to any influence.

I know of many cults that would be happy to have you.

[Olhado_]

Asking where to get the best news is a loaded question because it all really depends on who you ask. There are people who think CNN is the best source of news, there are others who think it is FOX and still others who think it is Rush or O'Riliey, or Hannity. There are also people who may only get their news from the Huffington Post or New York Times.

I know there are people, especially here who is going to come back with snide remarks about some of these; but the truth is it really is a matter of your opinion. I bet you will probably hear the same basic story on all the news sites it is just the opinion of the issues that will be different.

It does not mean one is right or one is wrong, they are just different opinions, no matter what anyone tries to tell you.

However, if you are interested I tend to get my news from the following:
- Public Broadcasting, mostly www.npr.org
- CNBC
- New American, from www.thenewamerican.com

The last one I would not really recommend to anyone just starting out since there are a bunch of underlining philosophies you have to understand about that organization first.

[CezeN]

^^^^Okay thanks. I'll check into that first link, sometime.

It would be helpful to know how much you already know. Have you taken Government/US History classes? Do you know that Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal, and have any idea what philosophies these are generally tied to?

Are you familiar with Libertarianism and Populism? I was looking for a 2-D graph I was shown in high school that demonstrates those concepts and their relationships to liberalism and conservatism and found this page. I haven't read it, just glanced over it, but it seems to give a more-than-adequate introduction to a lot of the concepts of the political scale. I've personally never heard of using a ternary diagram before, but looking at it I suppose it makes sense. It doesn't go into as much detail describing exactly what each direction on each axis means, but hopefully you'll be able to get the gist.

As for economics...well, I've taken economics and still don't really understand that much more about our economy than I did before taking it. Mostly, we're a free-market capitalist society, but FDR's Great Depression-era movements began our march towards governmental intervention and regulation (in a relatively socialist manner; it's inaccurate to say that any government intervention/regulation of an economy is socialistic, because socialism is all about how the government regulates the economy...but it does require substantial governmental control of the economy).

mmm....I'm gonna go buy groceries, shampoo, shaving cream, etc. now. And eat dinner, and clean my bathroom. I may or may not expound upon what I've already posted later.

Hope this helps, at least a little.

Just took a US History class last school year, though, due to Hurricane Ike and the AP Test, the later years of our history had to be hurredly(don't know if that's a real word) taught. As in, we watched a movie about the 80s and 90s. Wasn't enough for me to actually absorb the information.
And, since I was never really interested in politics, I don't really remember the important stuff about political parties, near these later years. Of course, I'm gonna take an easy guess, and say current main parties are....Republicans and Democrats.

Nope. Not familiar with those terms

That's good to know. I looked up "Capitalist"(which went to capitalism) on Wikipedia, for further knowledge. I know Wikipedia is infamous for being unreliable, but from what I've heard people say, on this forum and others, it's pretty accurate.

Yep it helped.

[locke]

*gets out poking stick*

also:

The press (with the exception of Fox News) is neither liberal nor conservative. Individual reporters may trend liberal in their own beliefs, but the prime characteristic of mainstream US news organs is that they are corporate toads who are invested in the status quo, perpetually in search of Money rather than Truth. To a one they are owned by giant multinational corporations with diverse businesses who are, above all, protecting their own interests. They don't want to rock the boat and are the first to reassure us that whatever our leaders are doing to f*** us is perfectly normal and patriotic.

The only reason there are ever cries of "liberal media" is for when news reports put Republicans and conservatives in a critical light. "Liberal Media!" is cried and the reports can then be called biased and thus the critical points dismissed. That way, said Republicans don't have to bother answering the charges or even acknowledge them, since the liberal bias tag means they can just be ignored.

It's a total freaking shame that this terrible "liberal media" doesn't actually stand its ground when this happens, but then doing so would disrupt the status quo.

The "liberal media" myth is the gift that keeps on giving for lazy-minded right-wingers. Honestly one of the most effective and ingenious weapons in their war against consensual reality.

Here's a hint to conservatives whining about liberal media: It doesn't matter how liberal individual reporters are when editors and publishers (you know, the people who make decisions about which stories to cover and how to cover those stories) are fatcats deeply invested in the current system who go to all the same f****** cocktail parties as the politicians and corporate crooks they are ostensibly policing.

The goal of good journalism is not objectivity; it's truth. Journalists are supposedly to report what they know, to the best of their honest ability, to be true. Objectivity is simply the method by which truth is ascertained. However, these days objectivity has become a goal in itself, and a strange idea of balance meaning that one presents all sides of an issue as equally justifiable regardless of the facts. That's how creationism (oops, I mean intelligent design) is able to survive in the mainstream media. Journalists have been forced to treat it as scientifically equivalent to evolutionary theory even though anyone with two eyes and a shred of sense knows it isn't.

Even beyond that, there is no real left represented anywhere in the mainstream media. I mean they'll provide some lukewarm left-leaning mentality on some social issues, but noone's asking fundamental questions challenging the status quo. Most of the questions will come from the same set of preconceptions, often tweaked and influenced by right wing radio, pundits, and think tanks. (the proverbial right wing echo chamber that builds up until the MSM is compelled to cover their wackjob ramblings as legitimate) The recent coverage of the healthcare debate has been a fine, appalling example. Doesn't matter who they brought on, Dem or Repub, the questions all amount to 'How will we pay for this?', 'Can we handle a big, new, bloated social program in the middle of a recession?'

They'll even go into the fact that we spend more than any modern country out there on healthcare, often twice as much. But at no point does the f****** lightbulb go up over anyone's head and think 'Hey, we're just about the only modern nation without nationalized healthcare and we pay twice as much as everyone else...think there might be something to that?' They'll raise the fact that employers can no longer afford the skyrocketing premiums and not connect the f****** dots that under a nationalized system, that burden wouldn't exist. Or the fact that all that money spent on employee healthcare just might make for some better compensated employees (maybe) or vastly more profitable businesses (definitely) if the expense wasn't there.

None of the right questions are being asked and none of them are being answered. Disregard the 43 f****** million Americans without health coverage, you're lucky if they come up in a footnote. The so-called left-wing media is all but playing cover for the right on this issue. I don't know how anyone with two f****** brain cells to rub together could think we have a lefty media on this one. They're all f****** status quo, establishment hacks.

And even when they do hit on something left leaning, they still bring in right wing commentary no matter how marginal or non-credible the position in their misguided pursuit of impartiality. When you give global warming deniers or creationists equal time in the debate, you're not being impartial, you're simply misrepresenting reality. The results are false equivalencies that confuse the public by creating the impression of a debate amongst experts when there really isn't one.

The media isn't left wing, they're f****** shills. Lazy f****** afraid to call bullshit lest they don't get anymore access or interviews. Uncritical facilitators for whatever disingenuous drivel the various pundits want to spew that weak. And that's when they're actually f****** covering REAL news. 90% of the s*** is celebrity trash and which random, irrelevant pretty white girl got abducted/murdered this week.

I want to beat the living s*** out of anyone, ANYONE who so much as whispers 'liberal media' near me.

[P3+J3^u!]

Just took a US History class last school year, though, due to Hurricane Ike and the AP Test, the later years of our history had to be hurredly(don't know if that's a real word) taught. As in, we watched a movie about the 80s and 90s. Wasn't enough for me to actually absorb the information.
And, since I was never really interested in politics, I don't really remember the important stuff about political parties, near these later years. Of course, I'm gonna take an easy guess, and say current main parties are....Republicans and Democrats.

Nope. Not familiar with those terms

That's good to know. I looked up "Capitalist"(which went to capitalism) on Wikipedia, for further knowledge. I know Wikipedia is infamous for being unreliable, but from what I've heard people say, on this forum and others, it's pretty accurate.

Yep it helped.

DISCLAIMER: The information in this post is only the beliefs of one snot-nosed, know-nothing college student, slightly inebriated. Most of my information and comprehension comes from high school history, government, and economics classes, with supplements from college courses on contemporary ethical philosophy, current American literature and propaganda, and histories of medicine, psychology, social movements and societal beliefs as it evolved in American in the last two centuries. Obviously, I have political beliefs of my own, and as a human am physically incapable of fully disjoining them from the perspective of American politics/economics I provide you. Other people will disagree with my definitions of what certain political movements believe or endorse. And what I present is only the broadest possible definition of those movements, because each movement is made up of people, with differing opinions and beliefs, and invariably each member of that movement believes something slightly differently...and associates that belief with the movement. Also, this post is very long, quite redundant in places, and poorly written.

I'm a computer science major, so sue me.

Ok, so, here's my explanation as I understand it (mostly):

Republicans are usually conservative in most of their beliefs: they support free-market capitalism (laissez-faire economics) and believe the government is not about controlling, regulating, spreading, or in any way supervising the wealth, and that it should stay out (laissez-faire is usually translated as "Hands-off") of the economic realm. Of course, this maintains the status quo, which was built on a history of rich white men being able to retain their power by using their economic advantage to build more wealth, through investments, property ownership, etc.

This type of economy (capitalism; from the root "capital," in which money--capital--is used to invest, promote new businesses and growth, and the money used to fund that growth originally entitled the investor to ownership of the company, and therefore gives him rights to a representative part of the profits of the company, as well as the right to sell his part of the company for it's value; if he owns the whole company, he has the right to sell the company for whatever it's worth, i.e. Mark Zuckerberg kept getting approached to sell Facebook)...uh, back to my original sentance: This type of economy readily acknowledges a wide distribution of wealth, and embraces the concept of monetary inequality on the presupposition that allowing people to perform to the greatest extent of their ability economically produces the greatest good, even if some people suffer by comparison due to lesser genetic ability.

Obviously, it is an incredibly Darwinist system: those ideas and investors who make the right, wise decisions and back the right products (those that people desire, that provide the most happiness to the greatest number of people and therefore sell most successfully) are rewarded with great wealth. Those who choose losers, so to speak, are punished for their imprudence with economic loss. These statements pertain mostly to investors, business owners, and economic leaders; in short, the upper classes. However, capitalism also allows for significant social mobility at the same time it defines and reinforces social stratification of wealth. Those who cannot afford to invest may not be able to make wealth quickly by wise investments, but if they are competent and hardworking they can prove themselves to their employers. These most effective employees--the brightest, most efficient, most capable, who demonstrate leadership ability during their work or whatever are recognized within a rich man's organization; for their abilities, they are asked to assume more responsibilities and a greater role, and to make this extra work worth their while they are offered more pay. With this increased pay, they can now afford to do more than just feed and house themselves and their children; they can buy luxury items (typical modern American usage of surplus funds) or they can save the money until they can afford to buy stocks in a business, or begin their own. In this way, capitalism functions as a Darwinistic system: the stupid rich invest idiotically, or rely on investment advisers who may prove untrustworthy, or don't invest at all and watch as inflation negates their wealth during their lifetime, and thus are often relegated to a lower standing in society, and the able poor are ideally recognized for their superior ability and enabled to rise.

Naturally, there are stumbling blocks: ability is rarely recognized so easily (in order for superior talent to be recognized, the manager of the worker must be competent and observant enough to see it) and often the dumb rich luck onto a trustworthy adviser who is able to maintain their wealth for them. This slows the Darwinism of capitalism.

However, when it works, this system utilizes every member of society to the greatest ability possible in a non-ideal world, and therefore maximizes the production and advancement capacity of that society. Therefore, the society as a whole is advanced most efficiently. Capitalists argue that being in the most efficiently advancing society, even at the lowest level, is better than the alternatives. I'll get to socialism later, in the unlikely even anyone is still reading then (or even now).

So....uh....back to conservatives. Like I was saying, most conservatives in America are free-market capitalists, which means their economically liberal...or permissive, but liberal is a better word. Now, American Republicans (the conservatives) understand all of what I just explained about capitalism to very differing degrees. Many, probably the majority, don't actually understand capitalism, at least not to the extent that they understand why it works and can competently defend their position to a socialist (or proponent of whatever other economic system). This is because most get their beliefs from their parents and their communities. They understand that capitalism works because American is (or used to be, and is gradually becoming less so) a capitalist society and we have the strongest economy in the world. A few of the more knowledgeable ones may even know the role capitalism has played in the four Asian Tigers' massive economic booms, and, like me, want to move to Hong Kong because international law requires it to remain free-market until 2047. However, these are few and far between.

This is one of the two axis on the graph I was talking about: economic liberalism vs regulation. Conservatives believe in economic liberalism. The other axis is social regulation vs social permissivism (forgive me for not knowing the correct form of that word). On this axis, Conservatives are restrictive rather than permissive. Here's why:

Conservatism is tied to "the way things were" (hence the name). The conservative movement, as a whole, is a response to changing standards and beliefs of society; it is conservative to think that a woman showing her midriff in public is being scandalous, just as two centuries ago it was conservative to think that a woman showing a bit of skin on her ankle in public was scandalous. Conservatism is often associated in the public mind with religion, because religion is credited for setting many of the standards conservatives wish to uphold--traditionally, it was organized religion that taught, regulated, and enforced moral precepts. In reality, although religion is still a frequent influence in composing people's ethical precepts, it is not what conservatism's stance on the social regulation/permissveness scale is about.

Conservatives believe that the government has the right and the duty to make sure people act morally within society. They refer to a great many ways to justify this, again many of which are religious. However, some atheists think it is wrong to kill. It is entirely plausible that an atheist thinks it is immoral to teach little children swear words, and that the government should prevent this in school. This is social regulation: the government making it illegal to perform some sort of activity not necessarily because that activity leads to harm (who can't imagine a child running around, joyfully shouting the word "ass!" because he just learned it and it embarasses his mother, without intending to insult, seriously harm, or create sexual innuendo by it?) but because they think it is just wrong. The reason this social regulation is frequently associated with religion is that a.) morals are traditionally taught and enforced by the church, which taught people not to steal, kill, lie, covet, or commit adultery) and b.) people who are religiously active are most emphatic about public morality, from the extremists like the Westboro Baptists who are incredibly socially repressive to the hippies who, at the other end of the spectrum, promote the use of drugs and go to nudist colonies because it feels good and so what if some stuffy old man thinks it's "inappropriate"?

Ok, so, not the most scientific explanation, but hopefully you get what I'm talking about. A conservative thinks the government doesn't have the right to order around the economy and your use of money, but it does and should make laws preventing cussing in school, or abortion and gay marriage (which most conservatives view as immoral; this isn't to say a liberal, or Democrat, can't think the government shouldn't make a law keeping a kid from cussing in school, and a law saying homosexuals should be allowed to marry--which is, again, repressive on the social axis--just that it's not what the ideal of liberalism supposedly embraces, freedom on the social ladder).

So...uhm...that's conservatives. I could just say that Democrats are the opposite, but that's not really true. It is true to say that, theoretically, the Democrats are liberal on the social axis and repressive on the economic axis, but that's not really all there is to it. Plus I haven't told you what makes socialism Socialism.

Since we're still on the issue of morality, and I'm feeling good about it, I'm going to explain what the American Democrat party actually endorses. In reality, they are more permissive socially than Republicans, and in many cases because of their ideology that says the government should not be enforcing moral values held by some people upon other people...or even upon other people who hold and endorse the same moral values, if those people fail to live up to them, arguing simply that it's not the government's place to do so. Mostly, however, the Democrats I know don't want cussing in elementary schools, think serving high schoolers alcohol and marijuana is immoral, and aren't about to start any crusades to defend the rights of necrophiles.

(NOTE: Yes, yes, it can be argued that letting high schoolers drink and smoke marijuana is less about morality than about preventing public destruction and loss of life, but only unsuccessfully: in Europe, where kids are taught to drink at a young age, teenagers are more likely to know how to drink responsibly, and you don't hear about drunk European teenagers--or high Dutch teenagers--contributing to a significantly higher rate of public crime.)

Democrats, however, have usually moved past accepting the church's standards for morality, and insist on defining it themselves. Many use reason to determine what is moral, using theories promoted by people like Kant or Sartre (can't remember the names of the theories, though). They believe that "the right thing" is whatever causes the most social good, most happiness, etc. etc. In most cases, they generally accept societal definitions of good and bad, agreeing that killing a person against his will is evil or whatever. Specific nuances, things that don't necessarily have quite such dire consequences or such great personal relevance, like homosexuality, however, are harder to condemn logically. In these cases, public opinion is ruled by which public figure is most persuasive in preventing his argument for or against a specific idea, and individual consideration of each issue. This is why, when freed of the idea that God says gay sex is a sin, most people come to the conclusion that there really isn't anything wrong with two members of the same sex getting married. It is, after all, logical. Obviously, there are some views people continue to hold illogically, simply due to overwhelming societal belief, pressure, teaching, and the fact that it hasn't been challenged, yet, like letting your kids drink or letting people with odd fetishes have sex with the corpse of people who'd consented to posthumous sex while alive.

(NOTE 2: Yes, yes, I know, dead people rot, and having sex with them is unsanitary and a public health hazard. Ever heard of formaldehyde?)

So Democrats don't really necessarily act on the ideology of social permisivism--they believe that the morals that should be enforced are simply morals which recognize other humans natural rights logically. However, this assumption in many ways correlates to that position. And some Democrats are most definitely of the opinion that the government doesn't have the right to interfere in people's private lives, and should be making laws about morals, regardless, and genuinely are liberal on that social axis. So that's that axis.

s***. It's almost 1 am again here. I was supposed to get sleep tonight. Maybe I'll do Socialism tomorrow. If I actually feel like it and genuinely think someone (anyone!) will read all of this.[/b]

[P3+J3^u!]

*yay! double post*

DISCLAIMER NO. 2: This is mostly about socialism. American Democrats/liberals usually aren't full-blown socialists; they don't think they want America to become a socialist economy, like the U.S.S.R. was, or they're not aware of how programs like Social Security or requiring government advisors on company boards is inherently socialist. However, understanding socialism is necessary to fully understand the philosophy behind most Democrat economic stands.

And hmmm....don't think I'm going to really explain how socialism works very well at all. I'll freely admit, I've never been taught how it works, only picked up impressions from various incomplete descriptions of this socialism or that socialism or some particular socialist ideal. Obviously, school textbooks provide a five-sentence summary which you can usually sum up by saying: "The government controls the economy and redistributes the wealth evenly, except it never works because of corruption so there's still always uneven distribution of wealth."

Suffice it to say that in a socialist system, the government controls the economy directly, and owns all businesses and the like. It manages these institutions with the intention of distributing the wealth of the society as evenly as possible, thus providing an equal amount of happiness for everyone. However, this is not the most efficient economic system, because people are not being optimized for production capacity in their position at work. As a result, although all of the people in a socialist society receive (ideally) equal amounts of wealth, they do not necessarily receive more wealth than the poor do in a capitalist society, because their society produces less net wealth.

Exactly how much less net wealth is an important argument when capitalists and socialists try to prove their system better than the other--capitalists say that the majority of people in a capitalist society live better than anyone would in a socialist society, whereas socialists say that everyone lives better in a socialist society than many or at least someone would in a capitalist society.

Because all businesses are owned by the government, there can be no business ownership or growth. This prohibits the economic Darwinism of capitalism; regardless of the successfulness or usefulness of a business model, the government can and does continue to run it as it deems that business important to society: thus, if the majority of consumers would not be willing to pay to buy a certain technological advancement, even though everyone would be better off if that technology were developed, the government can keep it running and make sure society receives the fruits of that line of research. This government ownership of businesses also helps prevent unemployment due to business failure--if you're working your best at a company that's doing poorly, the government keeps it running anyway, or makes sure the employees are re-allocated to another company, or whatever, and the misfortune of working for an unfit company is not reflected in your ability to maintain an income. In this way, everyone is fairly given the opportunity to work. Some positions may have higher pay, but those are generally (supposed to be) accessible to anyone who puts forth effort; there is no venture capitalism, you (theoretically) cannot use wealth to make wealth in an exponential fashion, as in capitalism. The most wealth that can (supposedly) be built up is the result of saving the money you earn from your salary, and salaries are supposed to be much more relatively even than in a capitalism (ranging from like $45k a year to like $145k a year, rather than $15k a year to obscene number of hundreds of thousands a year). Even if they're not, though, and you have some people earning 10 or 20 times their poorer brethren, the wealth they make can only be saved (and lost to inflation) or spent on excessive or luxury living, and once spent is gone.

To continue providing examples with attached dollar amounts, a cheap house where I live is about $70k; I've seen expensive ones go for 3-15 million. However, 20 * 70,000 is still only 1.4 million, so even if someone has a salary 20 times that of his poor neighbor, he is limited in how much nicer a house he can afford, how much nicer a car he can afford, etc. And if that 20 times the lowest income is the highest achievable income, then nobody can afford more than a $1.4 mil house. Uneven, but not as much so, and not unfairly or unobtainably (theoretically) for the average man who devotes himself and works hard and is recognized for it. And even the hardest-working or most successful can't necessarily dream of having everything, because that kind of wealth can't be built in a socialist society--thus it keeps him humble, like the man in the $70k house.

And, of course, if salaries don't range that much--instead from just $45k a year to $145k a year--then no one could afford to live in more than a $255k house. Much more even.

I have to admit to having taken a negative view on this, presenting it not as a way to share wealth, but rather than a method for limiting it. Both ways of presenting it are true, but as someone determined to build wealth I see the system for how it limits me, not how it empowers others. Having just realized how I presented it, I will try to expound on socialism's sharing of wealth and how that is intended to better society, beyond just encouraging economic equality.

In a socialism, the government controls the economy to make sure the necessary goods are produced for everyone to live comfortably--food, for instance, which is hard to grow in Russia's climate and thus made it difficult for Russia not to depend on purchasing imports from other countries in the world's ultimate laissez-faire economy between nations (this, along with corruption, was a large part of why socialism was "proven not to work" by the U.S.S.R.). The government makes sure all needs are met, then allows allocation of labor towards production of luxuries. If someone cannot normally afford a need (food), the government will make sure it is provided for him, because the government owns the businesses and the food and can change the price to sell it expensively to those who make lots of money ($145k a year) in order to have the money to provide it free for those who can't afford it. This may suck for the man making $145k, but the reward of living in a socialism is that you'll always know that if something terrible does happen and you lose your job, the government will take care of you. Plus, many people, especially those following contemporary moral philosophers, feel a nice warm fuzzy glow when they know that they're helping other people, and that's a reward in itself (unless the philosopher you've chosen is Kant, of course); and, fundamentally, it is justified on the basis of providing equality.

So...umm...that's socialism as best I understand it. I'm sure other people can offer better clarification, and the wiki article probably does a better job as well.

As I said in the disclaimer, most American Democrats aren't actually socialists, I don't think (Obama, notably, is a socialist, in policy even if he doesn't admit it), but they do favor welfare, medicare, medicaid, etc. These programs, along with increasing tax percentages at higher tax brackets, are government redistribution of wealth: the rich lose a lot more of their wealth than the poor to the government, and the government takes this wealth to provide equal opportunity to all citizens regardless of wealth, or else even biases it to make government assistance available only to those who economically need it. Although the government doesn't actually own the businesses, regulation of the economy in this manner (selectively taxing some and funding others) is socialist in principle. In addition to these social benefit programs, liberals frequently believe that left unchecked, wealthy and powerful companies can and will exploit the economically disadvantaged, or do other undesirable things, and so the government should regulate what activities companies are allowed to perform, through laws, putting government advisers on the company board, etc.

The historic truth to this, of course, is the exploitation of child labor and the incredibly poor wages which required every member of a family, even the youngest, to work nearly all of his/her waking hours in order to keep the family fed that happened in late 19th century/early 20th century America, and scares from things like The Jungle about what corporations were doing but not telling consumers about.

Historically, people have viewed politics as a spectrum:
Conservatism<-------------------->Liberalism
With Republicans being conservative and Democrats liberal, Republicans in favor of the status quo of yesterday and Democrats wanting more change, faster.

However, recently people have come to recognize it more like this:
Economic Regulation<------------------->Economic Freedom
Social-Moral Regulation<------------------>Social-Moral Freedom

This is sometimes plotted on a 2-D plot graph, like in the diagram I sent you. Republicans are in favor of economic freedom, but social and moral regulation; on the opposite side of the graph, Democrats favor social-moral freedom, but economic regulation. Obviously, the two axis divide the chart into four quadrants; in each quadrant, a given Republican or Democrat can be very close to the origin in ideology (near the center, very or close to in-between on each of the two scales above), near the corner (close to extreme on both scales above) or at the four points where the axis hit the centers of sides of the square (near the extreme of one scale but near the middle of another ). Also obviously, there are two other quadrants.

In the economic regulation/social-moral regulation corner is populism (like our President); in the economic freedom/social-moral freedom corner is libertarianism. Both of these movements are growing in popularity, and people have only started hearing about them recently (people are more likely to have heard of libertarianism, I think, because it actually has an organized--if small--political party). From the descriptions I've provided above, I'll assume you can figure out what their stances would mostly be.

I say libertarianism goes all the way to one corner, but most social theorists or whatever they're called actually say that near the corner, at the extreme, it's becomes anarchism. Some specific part of the populist quadrant is Communism/Socialism, and a different bit is Fascism. Some charts I've seen subdivide various bits of the four quadrants, and show where each of these (and more) various specific ideologies lie; I wish I knew where that was, 'cause it's very helpful once you understand the axis of the graph.

Always remember, of course, that most people who call themselves Republicans or Democrats and vote Republican or Democrat are doing so because of their stance on abortion, gay marriage, our destruction of the environment, etc. or else their parents' ingrained party loyalty, not because they actually understand at least a quarter of what I just talked about.

...I think I'm done now...

[mr_thebrain]

locke, that person isn't from wisconsin, apparently.

in wisconsin, the only "balanced" radio network is NPR. because of out high rate of republicans in our state there are a LOT more rush limbaughs (and believe it or not, worse) on our radio waves. so in comparison NPR is VERY liberal. trust me, i've had to listen to A LOT of both right wing and left wing radio. personally i'm in the middle with leanings to the liberal., so i tend to listen to both sides. and after listening to so much conservative radio, even i tend to think npr can come off as being a liberal network rather than balanced.

truth is no station either on TV or on the radio will ever be balanced. they're too busy being sensationalists because that's what sells, left or right. truth isn't even on their agenda. Local tv news is even slanted because they are partnered with the big networks. and yes the big networks DO lean one way or the other. Fox isn't the only one. just the most overt.

CezeN, the only thing anyone can do is listen to it all and interpret the information into something you can form your own perspective from. The main thing to remember is that you need both sides of an argument to get the whole picture. don't listen to any one of us.

[locke]

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php

Hi Alaska, I appreciate speaking directly to you, the people I serve, as your Governor.

People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing's more important to me than our beloved Alaska. Serving her people is the greatest honor I could imagine.

I want Alaskans to grasp what can be in store for our state. We were purchased as a territory because a member of President Abe Lincoln's cabinet, William Seward, providentially saw in this great land, vast riches, beauty, strategic placement on the globe, and opportunity. He boldly looked "North to the Future". But he endured such ridicule and mocking for his vision for Alaska, remember the adversaries scoffed, calling this "Seward's Folly". Seward withstood such disdain as he chose the uncomfortable, unconventional, but right path to secure Alaska, so Alaska could help secure the United States.

Alaska’s mission – to contribute to America. We’re strategic in the world as the air crossroads of the world, as a gatekeeper of the continent. Bold visionaries knew this - Alaska would be part of America's great destiny.

Our destiny to be reached by responsibly developing our natural resources. This land, blessed with clean air, water, wildlife, minerals, and oil and gas. It's energy! God gave us energy.

So to serve the state is a humbling responsibility, because I know in my soul that Alaska is of such import, for America’s security, in our very volatile world. And you know me by now, I promised even four years ago to show my independence… no more conventional “politics as usual”.

And we are doing well! My administration's accomplishments speak for themselves. We work tirelessly for Alaskans.

We aggressively and responsibly develop our resources because they were created to be used to better our world... to help people... and we protect the environment and Alaskans (the resource owners) foremost with our policies.

Here’s some of the things we’ve done:

We created a petroleum integrity office to oversee safe development. We held the line for Alaskans on Point Thomson – and finally for the first time in decades – they’re drilling for oil and gas.

We have AGIA, the gasline project – a massive bi-partisan victory (the vote was 58 to 1!) – also succeeding as intended - protecting Alaskans as our clean natural gas will flow to energize us, and America, through a competitive, pro-private sector project. This is the largest private sector energy project, ever. This is energy independence.

And ACES – another bipartisan effort – is working as intended and industry is publicly acknowledging its success. Our new oil and gas “clear and equitable formula” is so Alaskans will no longer be taken advantage of. ACES incentivizes new exploration and development and jobs that were previously not going to happen with a monopolized North Slope oil basin.

We cleaned up previously accepted unethical actions; we ushered in bi-partisan Ethics Reform.

We also slowed the rate of government growth, we worked with the Legislature to save billions of dollars for the future, and I made no lobbyist friends with my hundreds of millions of dollars in budget vetoes... but living beyond our means today is irresponsible for tomorrow.

We took government out of the dairy business and put it back into private-sector hands – where it should be.

We provided unprecedented support for education initiatives, and with the right leadership, finally filled long-vacant public safety positions. We built a sub-Cabinet on Climate Change and took heat from Outside special interests for our biologically-sound wildlife management for abundance.

We broke ground on the new prison.

And we made common sense conservative choices to eliminate personal luxuries like the jet, the chef, the junkets... the entourage.

And the Lt. Governor and I said "no" to our pay raises.

So much success in this first term – and with this success I am proud to take credit... for hiring the right people! Our goal was to achieve a gasline project, more fair oil and gas valuation, and ethics reform in four years. We did it in two. It’s because of the people… good public servants surrounding the Governor's office, with servants' hearts and astounding work ethic... they are Alaska's success!

We are doing well! I wish you'd hear more from the media of your state's progress and how we tackle Outside interests - daily - special interests that would stymie our state. Even those debt-ridden stimulus dollars that would force the heavy hand of federal government into our communities with an “all-knowing attitude” – I have taken the slings and arrows with that unpopular move to veto because I know being right is better than being popular. Some of those dollars would harm Alaska and harm America – I resisted those dollars because of the obscene national debt we’re forcing our children to pay, because of today’s Big Government spending; it’s immoral and doesn’t even make economic sense!

Another accomplishment – our Law Department protected states’ rights – two huge U.S. Supreme Court reversals came down against that liberal Ninth Circuit, deciding in our state’s favor over the last two weeks. We’re protectors of our Constitution – federalists protect states’ rights as mandated in 10th amendment.

But you don’t hear much of the good stuff in the press anymore, do you?

Some say things changed for me on August 29th last year – the day John McCain tapped me to be his running-mate – I say others changed.

Let me speak to that for a minute.

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I've been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations – such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.

Every one – all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won! But it hasn't been cheap - the State has wasted thousands of hours of your time and shelled out some two million of your dollars to respond to “opposition research” – that’s money not going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction” … Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game.

It’s pretty insane – my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with this instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more “politics as usual,” but this isn’t what anyone had in mind for Alaska.

If I have learned one thing: life is about choices!

And one chooses how to react to circumstances. You can choose to engage in things that tear down, or build up. I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and productivity. I choose not to tear down and waste precious time; but to build up this state and our country, and her industrious, generous, patriotic, free people!

Life is too short to compromise time and resources... it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: "Sit down and shut up", but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and “go with the flow”.

Nah, only dead fish "go with the flow".

No. Productive, fulfilled people determine where to put their efforts, choosing to wisely utilize precious time... to build up.

And there is such a need to build up and fight for our state and our country. I choose to fight for it! And I'll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and life... I'll work for and campaign for those proud to be American, and those who are inspired by our ideals and won't deride them.

I will support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the right reasons, and I don't care what party they're in or no party at all. Inside Alaska – or Outside Alaska.

But I won’t do it from the Governor’s desk.

I've never believed that I, nor anyone else, needs a title to do this - to make a difference... to help people. So I choose, for my State and my family, more "freedom" to progress, all the way around... so that Alaska may progress... I will not seek re-election as Governor.

And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks… travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade – as so many politicians do. And then I thought – that’s what’s wrong – many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and “milk it”. I’m not putting Alaska through that – I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! That’s not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old “politics as usual.” I promised that four years ago – and I meant it.

It’s not what is best for Alaska.

I am determined to take the right path for Alaska even though it is unconventional and not so comfortable.

With this announcement that I am not seeking re-election… I’ve determined it’s best to transfer the authority of governor to Lieutenant Governor Parnell; and I am willing to do so, so that this administration – with its positive agenda, its accomplishments, and its successful road to an incredible future – can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success.

My choice is to take a stand and effect change – not hit our heads against the wall and watch valuable state time and money, millions of your dollars, go down the drain in this new environment. Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities – and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans.

Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me – sports… basketball. I use it because you’re naïve if you don’t see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket… and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can win. And I’m doing that – keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities – smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it’s time to pass the ball – for victory.

I have given my reasons candidly and truthfully… and my last day won’t be for another few weeks so the transition will be very smooth. In fact, we will look to swear Sean in – in Fairbanks at the conclusion of our Governor’s picnics.

I do not want to disappoint anyone with my decision; all I can ask is that you trust me with this decision – but it’s no more “politics as usual”.

Some Alaskans don’t mind wasting public dollars and state time. I do. I cannot stand here as your Governor and allow millions upon millions of our dollars go to waste just so I can hold the title of Governor. And my children won’t allow it either.

Some will question the timing. Let’s just say, this decision has been in the works for awhile…

In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous... well, in response to asking: "Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children's future from outside the Governor's office?" It was four "yes's" and one "hell yeah!" The "hell yeah" sealed it - and someday I'll talk about the details of that... I think much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently.) Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we all could learn so much from someone like Trig - I know he needs me, but I need him even more... what a child can offer to set priorities right – that time is precious... the world needs more "Trigs", not fewer.

My decision was also fortified during this most recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas, those who sacrifice themselves in war for our freedom and security… we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops… they’re bold, they don’t give up, they take a stand and know that life is short so they choose to not waste time. They choose to be productive and to serve something greater than self... and to build up their families, their states, our country. These Troops and their important missions – those are truly the worthy causes in this world and should be the public priority with time and resources and not this local / superficial wasteful political bloodsport.

May we all learn from them!

*((Gotta put First Things First))*

First things first: as Governor, I love my job and I love Alaska. It hurts to make this choice but I am doing what’s best for Alaska. I’ve explained why… though I think of the saying on my parents’ refrigerator that says “Don’t explain: your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe you anyway.”

But I have given my reasons… no more “politics as usual” and I am taking my fight for what’s right – for Alaska – in a new direction.

Now, despite this, I don’t want any Alaskan dissuaded from entering politics after seeing this real “climate change” that began in August… no, we need hardworking, average Americans fighting for what’s right! And I will support you because we need you and you can effect change, and I can too on the outside.

We need those who will respect our Constitution where government’s supposed to serve from the bottom up, not move toward this top down big government take-over… but rather, will be protectors of individual rights - who also have enough common sense to acknowledge when conditions have drastically changed and are willing to call an audible and pass the ball when it’s time so the team can win! And that is what I’m doing!

Remember Alaska… America is now, more than ever, looking North to the Future. It'll be good. So God bless you, and from me and my family - to all Alaska - you have my heart.

And we will be in the capable hands of our Lieutenant Governor, Sean Parnell. And Lieutenant General Craig Campbell will assume the role of Lieutenant Governor. And it is my promise to you that I will always be standing by, ready to assist. We have a good, positive agenda for Alaska.

In the words of General MacArthur said, “We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”

Priceless.

ETA: KOS turned it into poetry, powerful stuff

[CezeN]

P3+J3^u! I will tackle reading your two huge post, after I look up terms like liberal, conservative, right wing, and left wing.
I read like five paragraphs, then I couldn't go on.

Any other words I should look up, before attempting to analyze all this information?

[P3+J3^u!]

uhmm....only the ones you don't know? Later in the post I elaborate more on what "liberal" and "conservative" are (right wing is synonymous with conservative, left wing with liberal). In fact, I periodically use terms in the post before explaining them, only to familiarize you with the names.

Might be faster just to read it all, and see what you haven't gotten sorted out by the end, then look that up.

Then again, maybe not. Your call.

[Janus%TheDoorman]

In America, at least, you can broadly define people's political positions based on three axes.

I only skimmed P3+J3*u!'s post, and he mentioned the two that are most relevant in most elections/issues, but especially now, the third is very important as well. They are, trying to not use political terms:

Economic:
Heavy Government Intervention<----D-|---R-->Zero Government Intervention

Moral:
Government Should Base Legislation on Morality<--R---|----D->Government Should Have No Say in People's Behavior

Foreign Policy:
Interventionist Foreign Policy*<-D/R----|----->Isolationist Foreign Policy


I've tried to pin the Democrats and Republicans on the slider. As you'll notice, neither party is classically liberal or conservative, as defined by the Moral/Economic sliders, and the Foreign Policy Slider, which has really only become relevant Post-WWII, they are both towards an active, involved foreign policy, though Democrats tend to argue for humanitarian missions, and Republicans tend to argue for US-interest oriented missions, but they tend to overlap a lot, and so both parties get a lot of what they want on that front, so there isn't much debate. I'll get into more detail in the next post, which will probably be after I've slept.

[Janus%TheDoorman]

Eh, forget sleeping. Hokay, here we go, starting with the Classics:

There are several political philosophies which are relevant to the modern discourse, and I believe it's easiest to go through, historically and show the evolution, based on the three-axes model. To simplify they will be called:

Econ: HGI/LGI (Heavy/ Low Government Influence)
Morals: Morals/Liberty
FP: Active/Isolated; later US/Global

This is being done from memory, at 3:30 AM, so there are likely to be fallacies, but as best as I can reproduce - The first two major parties were:

Democrat-Republicans (LGI, Liberty, Isolated), and the Whigs (HGI, Liberty, Isolated)

Fresh off the revolution, the debate here was largely about the power of the individual states, versus the power of the federal government, something the three-axes doesn't account for, but it is evidenced in their different approaches to economic policy. The Whigs were fiscal conservative by our modern standards, but argued for a central, national bank, and IIRC, looser standards on printed money, to facilitate the growth of the new economy. Those proposals have become part and parcel of modern America, but the Whigs died out, leading into the start of the modern political landscape:

Democrats (HGI, Liberty, Isolated) vs Republicans (LGI, Morals, Isolated)

This battle is centered around Lincoln and the Civil War - it's the fulcrum of American politics. In the early 19th century, the Democrats became the party of labor, gaining a lot of grassroots backing. They get the HGI tag for promoting government programs to help farmers and others expanding to the frontier.

The Republicans of this era, IMO, are more interesting. The get the LGI tag, not because they were less for central banking and greenback currency than the Whigs were, but because Democrats had shifted the issue, and repeated bubble-burst cycles made their economic platform look more like common sense than federalized oppression.

They were, of course, to begin with, an Anti-Slavery party, and began the idea in America that politics should be as much about our ideals and morals as about practical government, at least in the popular mind.

Most importantly, though, Lincoln's consolidation of the Union during and after the Civil War put a permanent end to the Federal vs State Power debate. It's from here on that the Three Axes Model becomes more accurate, as the issues begin to take on their modern form.

Democrats (HGI, Liberty, Active) vs Republicans (LGI, Liberty, Isolated)

The next major shift comes with FDR, and the Democrats take on their modern form. HGI tag because they have been since this period very much in favor of social programs for the poor, higher than historical taxes, and stiffer regulation. Republicans had taken the time since the Civil War to reorganize as the Pro-Business party they still are today.
Obviously even today this is a hot, heavily debated issue.

The Liberty vs Morals debate wasn't very hot at the time. Lincoln has consolidated a national identity, but it wasn't for several more decades that national cultured began to develop and that issue heated up again.

It's at this time that the Republicans most resemble Conservatives, or Libertarians, and Democrats most resemble Socialists.

Beginnings of Modern History

Because issues post WWII are still relevant today, it's tough to find completely objective analysis of the parties. For a time, the entire nation was focused solely on how best to fight communism, and so, they could all be largely classified as HGI (Ironic, but the GI Bill and other New Deal social programs were still active), Liberty, Active.

Democrats (HGI, Liberty, Global) vs Neo-Conservative Republicans (LGI, Morals, US)

This is the Modern Debate, so I'll probably step on some toes, but here goes.

The Democrats remain largely the party of FDR - social programs, hands off of morality legislation, and a foreign policy centered on helping build a global community.

The Republicans, in the 70s were.... hijacked, and this is where the 3rd axes was transformed. Very influential, long time Democrats (I could get specific names with a few minutes, but it's late) moved the the Republican side of the isle. They were those who believed that the US, which had been pouring out money into the word first with the Marshall Plan to rebuild after WWII, and later to help prop up countries to fend off Communism, should begin to try and promote US ideals "Democracy, Free Trade, etc." around the world, and take a more prominent place as a super-power and a world leader.

This movement caught on with the "Christian Right", a group characterized by a strong desire to see Christian morals legislated, as a method of promoting their agenda both domestically and overseas. These two groups, along with the Republicans traditional Pro-Business economic policy, constitute, to my understanding, the modern Republican party, specifically that backing Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

***

Obviously, the two positions of the major parties at any given time are not the only possible ones. Even counting just parties that support extremes one way or the others, with no moderate parties on each issue, there are 8 possible combinations, just of ideology parties like the Libertarians (LGI, Liberty, Isolated). There are also single-issue parties like the Green Party which might be labeled (HGI, Morals, Active), but would need more nuance than the 3-axes provides to be distinguished from Communists, who would be labeled the same way.

Covering every possible issue or position is impossible, but I hope I've given you more ability to understand what ideologies people are gauging the issues against.

[Jebus]

I'm currently open to any influence.

I know of many cults that would be happy to have you.

Haha, I like it.

[Jebus]

P3+J3^u! I will tackle reading your two huge post, after I look up terms like liberal, conservative, right wing, and left wing.
I read like five paragraphs, then I couldn't go on.

Any other words I should look up, before attempting to analyze all this information?

People like you should be kept in boxes until they're willing to learn this stuff.

[P3+J3^u!]

P3+J3^u! I will tackle reading your two huge post, after I look up terms like liberal, conservative, right wing, and left wing.
I read like five paragraphs, then I couldn't go on.

Any other words I should look up, before attempting to analyze all this information?

People like you should be kept in boxes until they're willing to learn this stuff.

Where do you think they found me?

[CezeN]

P3+J3^u!: Just read your first post. I don't really have enough time to read all of the second, but just wanted to let you know that I'm actually reading them - your posts.
(Then I'll get to everyone elses, too much information at one time )

P3+J3^u! I will tackle reading your two huge post, after I look up terms like liberal, conservative, right wing, and left wing.
I read like five paragraphs, then I couldn't go on.

Any other words I should look up, before attempting to analyze all this information?

People like you should be kept in boxes until they're willing to learn this stuff.

Ummm....that's good to know. People like what?

[locke]

*insert link from Tropic Thunder, "what do you mean, "You People?"!" here*

--
Also, reading/listening to the biography of Alexander hamilton by Ron Chernow and once again Jefferson is really pissing me off. He was such a hypocritical a******, a populist only in the sense that playing the populist demagogue could bring him power and influence--right now I'm inclined to think of him as something of an American Danton that was luckily restrained, but that's just cause I'm biased from first reading John Adams and now reading Hamilton. next up will be the recent Jefferson bio, which will hopefully mollfy my nasty opinion of him and give me a more balanced perspective.

and Hamilton is akin to a real life Bean in a lot of respects. What an incredible story and personality. Such a shame he succumbed to an affair and gave our country our first great sex scandal, but damn the man was highly brilliant in a way few men of history can lay claim to. He also had a rather accurate perception of humanity, probably due to the fact that he was a bastard (literally, illegitimate) and something of a scrappy street kid from the West Indies :-p

[Jebus]

P3+J3^u!: Just read your first post. I don't really have enough time to read all of the second, but just wanted to let you know that I'm actually reading them - your posts.
(Then I'll get to everyone elses, too much information at one time )

P3+J3^u! I will tackle reading your two huge post, after I look up terms like liberal, conservative, right wing, and left wing.
I read like five paragraphs, then I couldn't go on.

Any other words I should look up, before attempting to analyze all this information?

People like you should be kept in boxes until they're willing to learn this stuff.

Ummm....that's good to know. People like what?

People who lack an understanding of even the most basic of political concepts. You should be kept in boxes until you're willing to learn. It would solve many problems.

[CezeN]

So, all kids should be kept in boxes? Most people - generalization - 16 and under?

Glad that it doesn't apply to me, since I'm willing to learn. =D

[locke]

arguing with Jebus is like arguing with water, you may think you can tell water it cannot fill that odd shaped container full of misshapen rocks, but fill it up it does.

[Jebus]

Jebus is like a lotus leaf that floats on the wind and whispers softly into your ear an incomprehensible noise that evokes all your innermost desires and weaves them into a dream-like tapestry of colours that wraps around you proudly like a cocoon and turns you into a butterfly of fulfillment.

Then you someone touches your wings and you die.

[buckshot]

Keeping people in boxes could be fun!