All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[JackDaw]

One thing I’ve noticed on this thread over the years is that left/right are used as if synonyms for good/evil.

In UK politics we tend to use left as meaning belief that state should provide a wide range of supportive services, while right means state should provide relatively few services. That is one “axis” on which a persons politics could be judged.

Another “axis” would be liberal/ authoritarian...with liberals wanting to grant individuals a high degree of freedom, authoritarians wanting to exercise a high degree of control over individual freedom.

It’s quite possible for a right wing person to be a liberal I think...I see no overpowering reason why some one who thinks state should provide few services would also believe excessive laws are necessary to control individual behaviour.

My own bias..using these definitions...is that excessive authoritarianism is more evil than being right wing.

On other hand it’s quite possible for a left winger to be authoritarian...that is how some communist states have operated.

In general I think there are dangerous left wingers...but because of way US politics has developed over the centuries the USA has relatively few of them, and many, many more dangerous right wingers.

[Tami]

CDC zombie apocalypse preparedness guide rises from the dead

You may have noticed the chatter about the US Centers for Disease Control's online zombie preparedness guide. It's risen from internet obscurity to once again haunt the public consciousness, likely due to pandemic fatigue and a goofy alleged Nostradamus prediction.

The CDC isn't expecting a zombie armageddon in 2021. The guide has been on the government site for years. It's a tongue-in-cheek presentation designed to illustrate real disaster and emergency preparedness tips for a country that was obsessed with The Walking Dead. The last blog entry in the guide dates to 2011.

The CDC guide is full of useful advice beneath the zombie veneer. There's an entire section for educators, including a lesson plan on how to put together an emergency kit with bottled water, non-perishable food, a flashlight and a first-aid kit.

There's also a fun graphic novel that includes a sequence at the CDC where medical professionals are working on a zombie vaccine. There are some parallels with our current pandemic and virus screenings and vaccine distribution. The novel includes a preparedness checklist.

[PwrdOn]

Is it better to push incremental legislation that has a hope of passing or more progressive legislation that has no chance of passing? Which is a better use of limited time and resources?

At some point, labeling all progressive policies as unrealistic fantasies becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy more than anything else. We've been sold this message of incrementalism and moderation since the Clinton administration, and where has that gotten us?

One thing I’ve noticed on this thread over the years is that left/right are used as if synonyms for good/evil.

In UK politics we tend to use left as meaning belief that state should provide a wide range of supportive services, while right means state should provide relatively few services. That is one “axis” on which a persons politics could be judged.

Another “axis” would be liberal/ authoritarian...with liberals wanting to grant individuals a high degree of freedom, authoritarians wanting to exercise a high degree of control over individual freedom.

It’s quite possible for a right wing person to be a liberal I think...I see no overpowering reason why some one who thinks state should provide few services would also believe excessive laws are necessary to control individual behaviour.

My own bias..using these definitions...is that excessive authoritarianism is more evil than being right wing.

On other hand it’s quite possible for a left winger to be authoritarian...that is how some communist states have operated.

In general I think there are dangerous left wingers...but because of way US politics has developed over the centuries the USA has relatively few of them, and many, many more dangerous right wingers.

The reason it seems like that is because generally speaking the right tends to stand for traditional values and preserving existing hierarchies, and it seems like with every passing day we get even more information about how the past was even more horrific and cruel than we had imagined before. And the idea that conservatives stand for small government is a fairly absurd fiction when you look at their actual track record, particularly how they have often leaned on state power to suppress minorities, freedom and liberty are just words they like to throw around to try and muddle the reality that all they really care about is their right to screw other people over.

[DrNewGod]

One thing I’ve noticed on this thread over the years is that left/right are used as if synonyms for good/evil.

In UK politics we tend to use left as meaning belief that state should provide a wide range of supportive services, while right means state should provide relatively few services. That is one “axis” on which a persons politics could be judged.

Another “axis” would be liberal/ authoritarian...with liberals wanting to grant individuals a high degree of freedom, authoritarians wanting to exercise a high degree of control over individual freedom.

It’s quite possible for a right wing person to be a liberal I think...I see no overpowering reason why some one who thinks state should provide few services would also believe excessive laws are necessary to control individual behaviour.

My own bias..using these definitions...is that excessive authoritarianism is more evil than being right wing.

On other hand it’s quite possible for a left winger to be authoritarian...that is how some communist states have operated.

In general I think there are dangerous left wingers...but because of way US politics has developed over the centuries the USA has relatively few of them, and many, many more dangerous right wingers.

IMO, Americans have always been pretty bad about wanting their politics distilled down to simple, binary choices. Even tho the UK and Canada have two really dominant parties, as I understand it, there are other parties that manage to claim a consistent presence. We get the odd independent now and then, who almost always picks one of the two to parties with which to caucus, but not a realistic alternative.

[JackDaw]

At some point, labeling all progressive policies as unrealistic fantasies becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy more than anything else. We've been sold this message of incrementalism and moderation since the Clinton administration, and where has that gotten us?



The reason it seems like that is because generally speaking the right tends to stand for traditional values and preserving existing hierarchies, and it seems like with every passing day we get even more information about how the past was even more horrific and cruel than we had imagined before. And the idea that conservatives stand for small government is a fairly absurd fiction when you look at their actual track record, particularly how they have often leaned on state power to suppress minorities, freedom and liberty are just words they like to throw around to try and muddle the reality that all they really care about is their right to screw other people over.

There is I think a very substantial difference between the mindset of the typical UK right wing politician and a US right wing politician.

I do not... for example..think there is that much difference between a modern day UK Conservative and UK Labour politician in their support for LGBT rights, support for racial equality, tolerance for any lifestyle choice other than the pursuit of violence.

For example, when the 2013 Conservative led coalition government proposed legislation enabling same sex marriage, the legislation was supported by large majority of politicians from all parties. (Unusually a free vote was allowed, so Members of Parliament voted according to personal belief.)

I think in US same sex marriage was effectively brought about by court decisions rather than votes in the two Houses (please correct me if that is wrong). Suspect if it had been voted on by politicians there would have been a chasm between the views of Republican and Democratic politicians? There was not in the UK between Labour, Liberals and Conservatives..all supported it.

[Coin Biter]

There is I think a very substantial difference between the mindset of the typical UK right wing politician and a US right wing politician.

I do not... for example..think there is that much difference between a modern day UK Conservative and UK Labour politician in their support for LGBT rights, support for racial equality, tolerance for any lifestyle choice other than the pursuit of violence.

For example, when the 2013 Conservative led coalition government proposed legislation enabling same sex marriage, the legislation was supported by large majority of politicians from all parties. (Unusually a free vote was allowed, so Members of Parliament voted according to personal belief.)

That’s an over simplification. As you say, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was a free vote. 127 Conservative MPs were in favour. 35 did not vote. 5 abstained. And 136 voted against. All 8 of the DUP MPs naturally voted against. The Act still passed easily, because Labour and Lib Dem MPs overwhelmingly voted in favour.

Any political party represents a coalition of various interests and lobby groups. This is particularly true of the Conservative party, which is made up of social liberals who are economic conservatives, cultural conservatives who are economic conservatives, and even a variety of people who are not economic conservatives at all but are very culturally conservative indeed.

While the leaders since Cameron have not been openly culturally Conservative, it is dependent on the votes of many who are, and there are plenty of politicians within its ranks who will beat that drum. The modern Conservative party has many echoes with the politicians from across the Atlantic - as well as some exceedingly close actual ties. For example, the Conservative party has recently spoken of introducing voter ID laws, it has spoken of repealing the Human Rights Act, it inveighs regularly against the legal profession, the courts, and the media. Many of the Conservative ideas - voter ID laws in particular - have a pretty obvious route back to the Republican party in the US. While there are few prominent figures who would openly oppose LGBT rights I would introduce you to the inglorious careers of Philip Davies MP, who is sadly far from an isolated figure within the Conservative movement.

There are obvious differences with US politics, such as the diminished role of religion in political life (with the obvious exception of Northern Ireland) but in the “war on woke” and in the recent campaign by the government which seeks, in the name of free speech, to “defend our culture and history from the noisy minority of activists constantly trying to do Britain down” (Oliver Dowden, Culture Secretary), a US onlooker will find plenty of parallels.

[Mister Mets]

A living wage? Higher taxes on the rich? Health insurance for all! Crazy wackos!

These are not the most controversial positions held by mainstream Democrats, to say nothing of the more progressive elected officials.

[Jack Dracula]

At some point, labeling all progressive policies as unrealistic fantasies becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy more than anything else. We've been sold this message of incrementalism and moderation since the Clinton administration, and where has that gotten us?

You labeled them unrealistic fantasies. I simply asked a reasonable question, which you neglected to answer.

Nobody's selling you anything. With the GOP the way it is, any sort of progressive legislation is limited. You want to blame the Democrats for the situation created by the Republicans. If you want the situation to change, get out there and motivate progressives to get registered and vote. More progressive Democrats in Congress and the Senate will get us closer to the changes you want to see.

[babyblob]

One thing I’ve noticed on this thread over the years is that left/right are used as if synonyms for good/evil.

In UK politics we tend to use left as meaning belief that state should provide a wide range of supportive services, while right means state should provide relatively few services. That is one “axis” on which a persons politics could be judged.

Another “axis” would be liberal/ authoritarian...with liberals wanting to grant individuals a high degree of freedom, authoritarians wanting to exercise a high degree of control over individual freedom.

It’s quite possible for a right wing person to be a liberal I think...I see no overpowering reason why some one who thinks state should provide few services would also believe excessive laws are necessary to control individual behaviour.

My own bias..using these definitions...is that excessive authoritarianism is more evil than being right wing.

On other hand it’s quite possible for a left winger to be authoritarian...that is how some communist states have operated.

In general I think there are dangerous left wingers...but because of way US politics has developed over the centuries the USA has relatively few of them, and many, many more dangerous right wingers.

I havnt really followed Uk Politics much as I dont understand the whole, Brexit thing and that has been all I have heard about the UK for so long i just tuned out. But I did enjoy you description of right and left definitions in the UK.

[numberthirty]

You labeled them unrealistic fantasies. I simply asked a reasonable question, which you neglected to answer.

Nobody's selling you anything. With the GOP the way it is, any sort of progressive legislation is limited. You want to blame the Democrats for the situation created by the Republicans. If you want the situation to change, get out there and motivate progressives to get registered and vote. More progressive Democrats in Congress and the Senate will get us closer to the changes you want to see.

If you yell "Uncle..." before anyone has even laid a finger on your arm?

That is on you.

Not on the person that might eventually twist your arm.

[numberthirty]

Past that?

Where is the specific Republican responsibility for that Biden is essentially going to allow a Saudi prince to slide on something that was utterly unacceptable under Trump?

Not every progressive policy will be something you can try to leave Republicans holding the bag on.

[Jack Dracula]

If you yell "Uncle..." before anyone has even laid a finger on your arm?

That is on you.

Not on the person that might eventually twist your arm.

Ultimately, the blame can be laid at the feet of the electorate. Change will not happen without the right people in office. Those people won't get there unless they're voted in. It's pretty simple.

[numberthirty]

Ultimately, the blame can be laid at the feet of the electorate. Change will not happen without the right people in office. Those people won't get there unless they're voted in. It's pretty simple.

Honestly?

That's the sort of thing that folks say when they don't want to deal with who is actually to blame.

[Jack Dracula]

Past that?

Where is the specific Republican responsibility for that Biden is essentially going to allow a Saudi prince to slide on something that was utterly unacceptable under Trump?

Not every progressive policy will be something you can try to leave Republicans holding the bag on.

Are relations between the Saudis and the US progressive policy now? What does that have to do with Universal health care or immigration reform?

[Jack Dracula]

Honestly?

That's the sort of thing that folks say when they don't want to deal with who is actually to blame.

No, that's what they say when they think about what happened in 2010 when Democrats sat home for the midterms. We're still paying for that btw.