My dear 3rd Party,
There are sometimes subtle differences between blogging (articles of opinion, ideas and thoughts) and dissertations.
As most of us have 40-60 hr jobs and fams, I’ll try to digest and respond in smaller pieces.
I agree we label too quickly to make a point, that usually goes too far.
1st you assert that capitalism most leads to Nazism. That is patently misdirection. If you will look you will find Hitler came to power as a populist movement, not a business fat cat placement. He formed the Hitler youth advancement program. He the attacked “Big Business”, warned, then confiscated all citizen guns, and began assuming private business to “not be owned”, but be under the management of government for the better distribution of wealth to the populace, therefore a liberal populace movement.

In your diagram showing how the evil Republicans influence the public to be where they want by scarring them with extremes? I’d say they are trying to hold to the founders constitutional principles of moderation through free enterprise while warning what happens when that balance is lost.

Your x-y grids are obviously from a liberal college eco-poli book, and I am well familiar with your “Nolan Charts”. Further response will come as I have time to straighten the plate of intellectual spaghetti.

There are some far simpler works to help cut through the meal, The Constitution and Bill of Rights.
If your not looking for tricky old white guy loopholes, its really less confusing.
The works of Adams with the Federalist Papers are cool for deeper understanding of the unique society we are currently trying so hard to turn into something between Europe and Cube with better cars and cheaper cigars.

Laura Bramble October 16, 2009 at 7:37 am [edit]

J,

Adams did not write the Federalist Papers. Hamilton, Madison and Jay did. None were particular fans of John Adams.

I think what 3rd party is trying to say is that labels as a definition of anything when it comes to politics are bogus at best. Those who label Obama a socialist or communist do not have an understanding about what those things really are, especially in practice. They are simply labels used to spread fear and to intimidate.

3rd Party Blogger October 16, 2009 at 8:41 am [edit]

I have been getting this reaction from many people over this article. I tried to make it clear this was an open ended journey, but it’s necessary to go further. I see you noticed the liberal centric diagram, but you didn’t mention the second republican centric diagram or the Libertarian centric one. You seem only willing to defend conservative views which is understandable, but you should know I get identical attempts at academic condescension from the other side of the spectrum as well.

Laura was right, I am merely trying to show how these labels are wrong and misused in order to warp people’s minds. Propaganda. You are simply responding to part of my article as if I am trying to warp your mind, when I’m only pointing out that these labels must be used carefully and with a big grain of salt.

I’m also pretty sure I didn’t settle on the simple interpretation that conservatives lead to Fascism as the final word. That is not my opinion. I think I get that crap out of the way pretty early on, so I have no reason to defend that idea.

My opinion, obviously, is that both right and left are wrong. While the right defends free market capitalism and then lays down cultural restrictions on social freedom they miss that capitalism encourages social freedom and diversity (look at Vegas). So the right encourages the free market with one hand while holding back the social liberty that it creates. You can’t have it both ways.
Now the left encourages economic restrictions and controls on the free market, but attempts to protect social freedoms. Liberals are blind to the fact that their economic restrictions inevitable encroach on social freedoms in their own insidious way. The left can’t have it both ways either. They counteract their own behavior without knowing, just like the right.

I’m a Libertarian that supports free market capitalism as well as the social liberties it produces. The original definition of Liberal, which meant laissez faire; live and let live. As much economic freedom as possible AND as much social freedom as possible. Let the chips fall where they may in both spheres. The alternative is the government telling people how to earn money as well as how to live their lives (including who wants to marry who or have an abortion) If it don’t effect me then it’s not my business. We need enough government to stem Corporate anarchy and defend our nation. Notice I said DEFEND.

If your not comfortable with my interpretation of the right, then you can join those not comfortable with my interpretation of the left. You’re both wrong.

Outside the argument, however, I appreciate your comment and the time you spend discussing these issue for others to read.

J Byron October 16, 2009 at 10:20 am [edit]

Dear 3rd,

I’m impressed with your retort. Look foward to further time with your thoughts. We’re all here out of a passion for our political concerns. I meant no offense to your obvious “in depth” thoughts, only that I am so time restricted, I don ‘t like to speed read depth and comment. I’ve never really spent a lot of time on the Liberaterian path, a short coming (other than Jeffersons leanings).

Laure remove your shoulder chip, re-read, I said Adams with , not Fed Papers “by”.

3rd Party Blogger October 16, 2009 at 11:40 am [edit]

Thanks Byron. I think all of us are mistakenly getting caught up in the right-left battle in some way. It’s so difficult because both sides mean well while both sides so easily dismiss each other. I appreciate your passion for political thought and we all should understand the level of discourse we attempt here is the greatest expression of our country and its freedom.

The task now is to root out ideology for it’s own sake. Today’s world is so complex that we must take each issue one at a time and not let ourselves be corralled into a choice because it must fit our ideological perceptions. It really is amazing how much perception is the key. The propaganda battle between FOX and MSNBC is an expression of this. I believe in standing on principle and for ideals, but ideology just laid waste to the 20th century. Let’s not let it lay waste to the 21st century too.

Consti Tution October 16, 2009 at 12:48 pm [edit]

Well thought out and enlightening piece.

J Byron Swain October 18, 2009 at 1:27 pm [edit]

Dude! You have your ducks in a row. I would hate to be on the other side of a debate with the likes of you. I had to read this article 3 times and am very tempted to just copy Consti’s remark.

However, I will add my two cents, as I must.

The most difficult part of this VERY WELL done thought piece is titles and labels. I understand that to communicate an idea or ideas, they must be used.

Let me say this as an admin law guy. A contract can be written in laymens english on a cocktail napkin. Simple to the point hard to create wiggle room with great simplicity. It can also be written in legal jargon with heavy emphasis on exact technical phaseology, even more lack to wiggle, but then again if unequal sides have drawn the article of agreement, the more thoughtful can screw the hell out of the lesser by hiding huge areas of misgiving into apparhent mundane termonlolgy.

If I were one smater than you, and I assure you I am not, I could find many areas to drive a truck through, as is obviously done daily by our “smater or at least better equipped and enpowered” political teams.

Let me try a weird experiment. An answer, not an answer, a comment of your piece without ANY labels of any kind as far as it is possible.

It is noted a certain group is in favor of more government control, yet the one who claims not to be is actually far grew

J Byron Swain October 18, 2009 at 1:49 pm [edit]

Continued, sorry I hit the send button somehow, please ignore my misspellings, ect.

……more aggressive in that direction.
The real flame bearers for Liberators are considered the least likely. If you were to remove the state media and had honest publically heard debate, one party would soon be able to bring us back to our roots of import/export tariffs (no citizenry taxation) to support our national defense within our borders nationally, and the restoration of states rights for public services.

One problem of course is that the horses are out of the barn and a huge unstoppable central control has been firmly established.

It all starts with someone seeing a deaf/blind beggar on the side of a road. Being greedy or unable to help, they get others to be compelled to help the beggar. Sounds good until much later when those without housing, enough food, good enough clothes, the very best healthcare, better cars and microwaves get the same attention, as the caregivers get a slice by creating machines to achieve the noble cause. All the while keeping 50% for themselves, after all they don’t want to wind up like them.

The problem all societies have is not structure (Communism would be a paradise if run as originally intended), the problem is greed. Greed of the poor who desire more than the promise of “The Pursuit of happiness”, the greed of the rich who are addicted to self aggrandizement, and now mostly greed of the political machine who wants to be daddy to the poor and authority over the rich, they want it all, Corruption is a flaw within man, not machine.
No matter what road we chose (and I agree with you basically as to the best preference of systems), there will always be men. Men who seek power, men who seek Godhood.

3rd Party Blogger October 18, 2009 at 8:09 pm [edit]

I appreciate it J. We have to remember the 9th and 10th amendments were added for a reason. It should also be noticed that the right goes for the 10th amendment and the left goes for the 9th. It’s a good guide to look for the fault lines and ask why.

Your thoughts on greed hit an important point and one that is waving back and forth in front of our collective faces these days. Michael Moore is controversial, but the man has a nose for what’s going on, no matter how hard a slant he puts on it. His latest thing is capitalism: a love story, i.e. capitalism as evil. Many have praised Moore’s film, but many have pointed out that his indictment of Capitalism goes too far. In defense of capitalism, what Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall refer to as the “Moral Foundation of Capitalism” has been dusted off. Sounds thin, but it’s a unique part of America and humanity in general.

This morality is nothing that can be relied upon because it’s counterweighted by our eminently malleable survival instinct. That’s where the power-lust and blood-lust comes from. Fortunately, our morality springs from the same survival instinct, but the best part of it. Our success as a species at surviving communally has developed our capacity to care for each other. The practice of working communally to prey on other communities is slowing down in modern times both militarily and economically. The biggest insurance that this trend continues happens to be the proliferation of conversations like this all over the internet all over the world. So we can say we’re doing our part!

J Byron October 18, 2009 at 10:38 pm [edit]

Again you have me at an intellectual disadvantage. I had to look up the 9th and 10th.
(9) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So, even if the 4th Amendment didn’t enumerate an individual citizen’s right to privacy, or the 2nd Amendment didn’t protect the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, THE NINTH AMENDMENT DOES.

(10) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere in the Constitution is any police power or jurisdiction over criminal law other than that regarding treason and counterfeiting given to the federal government.

Without the 9th and 10th Amendments, many states would have refused to ratify the constitution or even to join the union.
Personally fell M Moore is a well educated fool. His arguments are slanted and his methods and so bent, no advantage or progress can be posited by less than societal destruction. You may also find with very little digging, he attempts to keep as much of his money as possible, partly by creating charities that in the end benefit his chauffer’s, just the same as those he attacks. His morality appears to be as or more self serving than those he smears (rightfully in many cases).

Capitalism is man doing his best to advance himself. Morality is to used such gain to enhance others. Both are good and essential. Both are polar opposites than can co-exist in a good world.

The destruction of capitalism is no more beneficial than the forced morality so often praised.

It’s gonna be an interesting next 3 1/2 years 3rd.

3rd Party Blogger October 18, 2009 at 11:17 pm [edit]

No defense of Michael Moore will come from me. He’s a propagandist and one of the best in history. Look into a newcomer named Phelim McAleer, recently directed “Not Evil, Just Wrong”. He’s another propagandist toeing the other line.

You may notice I walk a thin line here and pulling out someone like Moore to make a point can nominate me to be pigeon holed by anybody with right-left lenses on. Not saying that you see through such lenses, though. I agree with your assessment of him as well as the necessity of a free market.

A lot of the information involved in the article may be old news or not necessarily enlightening to some such as yourself or the other reader, but that makes it a little easy to ignore the use it does have in straightening out or even just temporarily getting through to someone that actually thinks W. Bush was a Nazi or Obama is a Commie or even Nazi. This article attempted to be neutral in how it described the many cons and few pros of such political science tools, but I hope the main point came across, which was that these kinds of charts and ideas are often dangerous and confusing, but learning this can better equip one to deal with the political world.

In other words, don’t be made a fool by complex and intellectual sounding forms of propaganda. Those in need of this information will most likely not leave a comment like you did. Maybe a hostile one, but not yet on this article.

Thanks for your comment Al

I have never met a politician or even seen an example of the most conservative thinker not taking large sums of money when the opportunity presented itself. Every self important politician makes the choice of money over ideals, unless the money is too small. Pork for you, social progress for me. Bobby Jindal is a great example, along with Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Orrin Hatch, the list goes on(Dems too) and we can’t forget campaign contributions (Max Baucus, Blue Dogs, etc).

So, any approximation of reality that does not factor in the real life behavior of the people involved is pointless.

This article is primarily aimed at those who are confused about the changing political map, in fact trying to change it themselves by hanging the Nazi/Commie label on anyone they oppose.

The strange mixture between the two party duopoly that controls the country, Republican & Democratic, Conservative & Liberal, that this discussion highlights is an example of the problem with these two camps.

Besides those that feel comfortable with economic freedom mixed with social restraint or economic restraint mixed with social freedom there are others that feel comfortable with economic AND social freedom or economic AND social restraint (God help us from them).

My leaning towards economic & social freedom stems from a belief in free market capitalism, which engenders classical laissez-faire liberalism in all forms; social and economic.

That’s actually the basis of a strong criticism of American conservatism I’ve come across from other sources. The promotion of Capitalism actually engenders social liberty. Before you know it, there are millions of consumers walking around with diverse and sometime perverse tastes. Look at Las Vegas!

Conservatives can’t have it both ways, but neither can Liberals.

We’ve all recently discovered that some regulation of capitalism is required, but Liberals (American definition) always take this too far and potentially choke their own social liberties.

A free market supports and nurtures a free society, although low to moderate government is needed to prevent anarcho-capitalism and or massive bubble-burst.

This was just a further clarification for anyone reading the above article.

Thanks