- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SamBee wrote:
Liberal isn’t “left”, it’s the soggy center!!!👿 👿 👿 Why do Americans think “liberalism” is leftist?
Because McCarthyism did for anything left of center? Probably…
I apologize for the use of ambiguous terminology. I can see that it is acting as a stumbling block for you SamBee
:wtf: . I think most Americans don’t understand the wider political spectrum (think politicalComass.org) as it doesn’t have much applied relevance in our politics. So when we talk about left/right it’s relative to the majority of what politicians believe/practice. Since 99% of US politicians actually fall in the right and vary only slightly, it would be confusing to talk only of right and less right. Is it ideal? No. But neither is a 2 party system but that’s what we have for now. I don’t know how accurate the political compass is as I fall in the ACTUAL left:shifty: (further “less right” than Obama!?) but it’s nice for entertainment purposes.I’ve evolved into a Libertarian as I’ve aged and matured and transitioned through faith crises. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I think a lot of countries (not just the USA) suffer from two party systems. The parties converge and do not represent the wider spectrum of political opinion. I also feel that what happens when you get corporate funding of political parties that the parties reflect the wishes of their big donors, and not those of the electorate. With a two party system, it is extremely easy for parties to be bought off.
The worst example of this is the Republic of Ireland, where the two main parties are Fianna Fail (“fee-anna foil”) and Fine Gael (Feenuh Gael). Their chief division was over whether or not to accept the British partition of Ireland into two parts. Unfortunately, this means that in other issues, they are practically identical, and even closer than the republicans and democrats in the States.
But spare a thought for the Japanese. They have had almost constant one party government since WWII, under the so called Liberal Democrats. This is despite being a democracy! Other parties are represented in the Japanese diet (parliament), but factions within the Liberal Democrats are more important than other parties.
In contrast, the Israelis have an extremely complex political system with twelve political parties. All governments there are essentially coalitions.
Being always a bit of a “black sheep” – starting my faith crisis at a predominantly anti-Mormon forum (NOM) – helped me see that many were continuing the cult/herd mentality – just changing the “mormon cult” for the “liberal cult” – and motivated me to find a middle way. There are some things that seem obviously true to me – some are “conservative ideas” and some are “liberal ideas”:
-Most people try to run their own households conservatively – it makes sense to apply the same practical financial principles govenrmentally as well.
-Human Life should be respected. Children (developing human beings) should not be discriminated based on age and killed through abortion.
-Each person on this planet is living testimony of the natural law of procreation via heterosexuality. Basing laws on sexual fetishes is potentially harmful.
-The US, along with other powerful countries is using too many resources. Many don’t realize how they are indirectly contributing to extreme poverty.
SamBee wrote:I think a lot of countries (not just the USA) suffer from two party systems. The parties converge and do not represent the wider spectrum of political opinion.
I also feel that what happens when you get corporate funding of political parties that the parties reflect the wishes of their big donors, and not those of the electorate. With a two party system, it is extremely easy for parties to be bought off.
The worst example of this is the Republic of Ireland, where the two main parties are Fianna Fail (“fee-anna foil”) and Fine Gael (Feenuh Gael). Their chief division was over whether or not to accept the British partition of Ireland into two parts. Unfortunately, this means that in other issues, they are practically identical, and even closer than the republicans and democrats in the States.
But spare a thought for the Japanese. They have had almost constant one party government since WWII, under the so called Liberal Democrats. This is despite being a democracy! Other parties are represented in the Japanese diet (parliament), but factions within the Liberal Democrats are more important than other parties.
In contrast, the Israelis have an extremely complex political system with twelve political parties. All governments there are essentially coalitions.
Good points, Sam.In the US, a couple of years ago, a new law was established basically so that corporations could contribute as much as they want to elections, so essentially these “super pacs” are buying the elections, making this a country less for the people and more for those with money.
It seems that as far as political ideologies, there is also a “middle way” – if you have too few parties – too many thinking the same and less diversity, less open mindedness to better possibilities. Yet, if you have too many parties – then you have chaos and nothing gets done.
Thank you for the OP as this has provided an interesting opportunity for self reflection. I believe that my political leanings began to evolve before my faith crisis. I don’t believe that I was ever a rabid conservative. I enjoyed talking to individuals of other thought processes, not to persuade but to share und understand each other. But I remember my position as being the more conservative and trying to understand the more liberal positions. I remember in the Bush vs. Kerry election – seeing a pro-Kerry sticker on my sister’s car. DW and I asked her to explain the appeal of Kerry. It was mostly about Bush going to war under false pretenses etc. 4 years later and BEFORE my faith crisis, I voted for now President Obama. There are many things that contributed to this.
1) The economy had imploded. This brought the current fiscal policy very close to home as I was “underwater” in our home.
2) It was an exciting time of Hope and Change. If nothing else, Pres. Obama would be the first black president and I wanted to be a part of that historical event.
3) As a Mormon I had followed the Republican primaries and was turned off by the types of attacks that were leveled against Mitt Romney for his faith. I found it hard to identify with a group that seemed so closed minded to my group. If they can be wrong about the Mormons, what else can they be wrong about?
The stillbirth of my daughter Emory one year after that election cycle was the catalyst for my faith crisis. I know that I’m not the only one that has experienced tragedy and I have been fascinated to see how various LDS people cope with such events. I had wondered if my reaction (of doubting) had been because in my moment of need, I was so far away from LDS resources that non-LDS resources had been used to fill in gap. (We were the only LDS in our grief group and formed close friendships with some other couples there, I also went to EAP counseling with a non-LDS counselor, etc).
Answering this question also makes me wonder – If a similar tragedy had happened at an earlier time, might I have reacted in a more faithful fashion? Interesting to ponder…
It would seem that my catalyst event happened at the near precise moment and place to have the effect that it did. That my life up to that point might have been preparatory and given a sort of context to form the interpretive meaning of the tragedy itself. I’m not saying that my life was pre-destined, but more of a natural evolution with each step being predicated on what came before combined with what is.
I have also found it interesting that during an assumptive world collapse, (where all the structures fall and only the bedrock remains) that different people find that bedrock at different locations. Regarding the LDS church one may find his bedrock in the fulfillment of Moroni’s promise, another in the authority of the priesthood, a third in the unconditional love of God. So how far, How deep must an assumptive world collapse go? As deep as it takes to find solid footing!
IOW, given the complex interplay between who I am, where I have been (which also forms part of who I am), and the given events, environment, and surroundings of the present – It is perfectly reasonable that I should metaphorically be where I am and that it is enough,
I am enough. I feel that my loving Heavenly Father accepts and receives me for who I am under the circumstances. I lean more for the independant party now. SamBee, what do you mean you’re a left-winger? Ilovechrist77 wrote:what do you mean you’re a left-winger?
I don’t agree with plutocracy (rule by the rich), which is what most Western countries have now. The rich have enough say through their corporate structures and their wage structures. Political parties which are funded by big business will serve big business, and do its bidding. Even if that means discriminating against small businesses and employees.
So called “liberalism” assumes that you can ask for everything nicely and the other side will concede. The biggest issue in society is that of the majority, not of the minorities, another thing that “liberalism” gets wrong. Having a black or female president won’t make poor blacks or women* any better off. Creating a middle class, or rich mandarins, from minority X won’t benefit that minority, any more than having a white male president benefits poor white male “trash”. By raising the living standards of the majority,
then the minorities all benefit, and then their own individual problems can be properly addressed. If you look at the Forbes 200 list, you’ll notice that a considerable number of the rich people inherited that wealth. In France the figure is even higher… 2/3 of wealth is inherited. The idea that most of them worked for it is wrong. A lot of them were born to it. The USA is obviously evolving towards an aristocratic structure, like that of the Old World, but because it’s a younger country, it’s not so entrenched yet.
* Women are, of course, not a minority, but “liberalism” thinks of them as one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.