Missing the old “Early Bird” . . . . What’s a good news source these days?

[taxi1]

This is an unpopular opinion, but I don't think that we should have direct elections of either the President or Senators. Roll back to legislatures voting for Senators and governors should elect the President.

My one huge issue with this is gerrymandering and the legislatures. With the access to data and the algorithms, super easy to slice and dice the geography and keep control in spite of the will of the people.

But that example also gets at another dynamic that should be reformed- gerrymandering.

Amen

 

[Random8145]

I do wonder about whether the state legislatures should vote for senators but I am very skeptical of having governors vote for the President. Not sure how to fix gerrymandering, as undoing what one side has done in a state leads to accusations you are gerrymandering for the other side.

 

[Spekkio]

I do wonder about whether the state legislatures should vote for senators but I am very skeptical of having governors vote for the President. Not sure how to fix gerrymandering, as undoing what one side has done in a state leads to accusations you are gerrymandering for the other side.

My take is based on the fact that, at a fundamental level, the President (and federal government writ large) isn't supposed to represent or advocate for the people, but for the security of the several states.

 

[Spekkio]

My one huge issue with this is gerrymandering and the legislatures. With the access to data and the algorithms, super easy to slice and dice the geography and keep control in spite of the will of the people.

First, gerrymandering is a feature, not a bug, to ensure people are fully represented in the House. We do not want districts where there are 52 / 48 votes going for one party or another because it means the 48% is not represented in the federal government.

Second, it would be state legislatures voting for Senators, not the House.

 

[JTS11]

First, gerrymandering is a feature, not a bug, to ensure people are fully represented in the House. We do not want districts where there are 52 / 48 votes going for one party or another because it means the 48% is not represented in the federal government.

That's not how it works in practice. Gerrymandering works to increase a political party's advantage in the House. House districts are carved up so you don't have the 52-48 scenario, and whoever runs to the far right/left in the primary is a shoe-in for the general. Plus, they are carved up in a manner that is oftentimes geographically illogical. It's dirty pool.

 

[taxi1]

First, gerrymandering is a feature, not a bug, to ensure people are fully represented in the House.

No, it ensures the party picks the voters and not the other way around.

It also gives you a bunch of districts where the only way you can lose is to be attacked from the right flank by some batshit crazy nationalist or on the left flank by (@Random8145 shudders) the commie pinko far left.

 

[number9]

Gerrymandering is stupid. Both parties do it, and everyone loses when they do.

 

[phrogdriver]

Oh I understand them very well. That BTW is actually a very oversimplified definition of fascism. Fascism, at its core, means a system where conformity is demanded, individual rights are suppressed, non-conformity is punished, and violence against those viewed as evil is (often) justified. The Soviet Union, for example, was extremely fascist by your above definition.

A major problem is the labeling of fascism as "far-right." By what definition? There are multiple definitions of "right-wing." There was the French Revolution definition which meant the establishment who wanted to preserve the monarchy, compared to those on left who wanted to limit it. There was the collectivist definition, in which "right" refers to collectivism ("socialism") based on nationalism and/or race. This was in contrast to left-wing collectivism, such as communism, which tended to be much more global ("Workers of the World unite!). The fascist systems of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc...were thoroughly right-wing in the above sense, hence the word "Nazi" being shorthand in German for the National Socialist Workers Party. The Nazis didn't call themselves that because they were doing what the communist countries liked to do, i.e. call yourself the exact opposite of what you were (North Korea calling itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for example), they used that name as a description of what they literally were, national socialists (the word "socialism" here also has multiple meanings, as by "socialist," the Nazis did not mean in the economic sense of the word, i.e. state ownership and/or control over everything).

The third meaning of right/left is the modern economic sense, with right referring to those who prefer limited government, individual rights, free enterprise, versus the left preferring more government control over the economy and collectivism. At the extremes are near anarchists on the right and socialists and communists on the left.

By this definition, no fascist system was right-wing. All were centrist to left-wing. In the case of the Nazis, they had different factions, with some being very socialist, while others were more pro-business and moderate. No Nazi could be thoroughly right-wing in the economic sense because state control in some form over the economy is required to maintain a dictatorship.

The current right-wing is very anti-militarism, which historically the right always was as militarism requires a powerful military and hence a powerful state, and major war often requires government control over the economy. It also is very pro-free speech and anti-federal power. It also is admiring of people like Putin who support none of these things. It is a weird dynamic.

That's your opinion, which I would dispute. All one need do is look at the arguments made by the leftists on the Supreme Court, which were themselves pushed for by leftists in the government, and the hand-wringing by the left over the conservatives stopping them.

Oh come on. Death cult? In what way? I would dispute the leadership tried to overthrow the government, more a group of idiots who staged a riot. And terminating the Constitution? A few things there: said leader "says" a lot of things, what you have to look at is what he actually does. And what he did when in power was to put very constructionist justices on the Supreme Court (and lower courts) who firmly believe in adhering to what the Constitution actually says. The main complaint about this from the political left is that these justices keep repeatedly saying to the federal government, "You can't do that, such a power is not granted to the federal government in the Constitution." It is the left who argue we can selectively ignore parts of the Constitution, or even that the whole thing should be scrapped.

The problem with this is that the media coverage from the left-leaning media during the Bush years and the Trump presidency was hysterical, the hellscape argument applying equally. I agree that the right-wing media sources are often nutty but the left ones equally so when the opposite side is in charge.

So, you've basically rewritten both the popular and academic definitions of terms in order to fit a worldview in which anything bad is "left wing." When your basis for that is a famously right-wing economist, it's built on a house of cards.

Whether a government is authoritarian or not does not necessarily affect the classification of its economic system. Either type of government can run either type of economy. By pairing them, you create this false premise that government being involved with the economy is the same thing as being left wing or authoritarian to some degree. It's just a fancy way to say "Everything I don't like is communism or left-wing."

You can have free market economics in an authoritarian regime. Just look at Russia. They have a right-wing oligarchy and a capitalist system. The fact that it's corrupt doesn't make it communist or Marxist--they aren't giving that money to the proletariat, or even pretending to.

Conversely, the economic goals of Marxism don't necessitate an authoritarian or repressive government, even though it might end up that way in practice.

Long story short, the left-right axis is too simplistic to categorize all policy options, whether socially, politically, or economically. Your attempt to wrap them all together is aggravating that simplification even further.

They all exist in a continuum. Rather than create this elaborate explanation to tie all of them together and make even the anti-left wing somehow left wing, we already have commonly understood definitions we can use...or at least we did, under the extra-chromosome crowd started calling everything to the left of Mussolini "socialist."

 

[Random8145]

It also gives you a bunch of districts where the only way you can lose is to be attacked from the right flank by some batshit crazy nationalist or on the left flank by (@Random8145 shudders) the commie pinko far left.

I don't like the extreme right or the extreme left in our politics.

 

[taxi1]

extra-chromisome crowd

Your spelling genome is mutated

 

[Random8145]

So, you've basically rewritten both the popular and academic definitions of terms in order to fit a worldview in which anything bad is "left wing." When your basis for that is a famously right-wing economist, it's built on a house of cards.

Popular definitions of things like this are meaningless. And no, I have not rewritten the academic definition. Academics who study fascism do not define it with the wording you use. And no, bad things can be right-wing or left-wing.

Whether a government is authoritarian or not does not necessarily affect the classification of its economic system. Either type of government can run either type of economy. By pairing them, you create this false premise that government being involved with the economy is the same thing as being left wing or authoritarian to some degree. It's just a fancy way to say "Everything I don't like is communism or left-wing."

Claiming government involvement in the economy is communism is an old right-wing trope. Whether such a thing is right or left people can debate, but it would ultimately come down to is the government trying to centrally direct the economy or just facilitate the free-market (BTW, some central direction can be good I would argue). But you are wrong that either type of government can run either type of economy.

Also, said famously right-wing economist was arguably one of the greatest research economists of the 20th century.

You can have free market economics in an authoritarian regime. Just look at Russia. They have a right-wing oligarchy and a capitalist system. The fact that it's corrupt doesn't make it communist or Marxist--they aren't giving that money to the proletariat, or even pretending to.

Conversely, the economic goals of Marxism don't necessitate an authoritarian or repressive government, even though it might end up that way in practice.

Long story short, the left-right axis is too simplistic to categorize all policy options, whether socially, politically, or economically. Your attempt to wrap them all together is aggravating that simplification even further.

Russia is not really a capitalist system, it has a private sector, but a very underdeveloped one. That's why the standard of living in Russia is so low. Ukraine has a higher standard of living, because it has been moving much more towards privatization. And Russia's oligarchy is not "right-wing" in the modern American sense, it is just nationalist, which the Russians always have been. Nationalism can be on either side. It is very difficult to have a mostly free-enterprise system and maintain a dictatorship.

I agree that the left-right axis is too simplistic, which is why I have repeatedly emphasized whether entities are economically right or left. It is yourself who was tossing out that "fascism is right-wing" without really explaining how or that Trump = fascist.

They all exist in a continuum. Rather than create this elaborate explanation to tie all of them together and make even the anti-left wing somehow left wing, we already have commonly understood definitions we can use...or at least we did, under the extra-chromisome crowd started calling everything to the left of Mussolini "socialist."

I agree that things exist on a continuum. But fascism was not the anti-left wing. Economically, it was neither explicitly left or right. It was just a different form of collectivism, one grounded in the national collective and (often) race, as opposed to the economic collectivism, which was grounded in class struggle. But both are forms of collectivism. Neither was "right-wing" in the modern American sense of the term. I have pointed however out in a prior post how the extreme right in America today very much has elements that are racist and anti-Semitic.

And Mussolini was not right-wing. He was originally an outright socialist, but his modification did not make him into a fired breathing adherent of Adam Smith.

 

[phrogdriver]

Popular definitions of things like this are meaningless. And no, I have not rewritten the academic definition. Academics who study fascism do not define it with the wording you use. And no, bad things can be right-wing or left-wing.

Claiming government involvement in the economy is communism is an old right-wing trope. Whether such a thing is right or left people can debate, but it would ultimately come down to is the government trying to centrally direct the economy or just facilitate the free-market (BTW, some central direction can be good I would argue). But you are wrong that either type of government can run either type of economy.

Also, said famously right-wing economist was arguably one of the greatest research economists of the 20th century.

Russia is not really a capitalist system, it has a private sector, but a very underdeveloped one. That's why the standard of living in Russia is so low. Ukraine has a higher standard of living, because it has been moving much more towards privatization. And Russia's oligarchy is not "right-wing" in the modern American sense, it is just nationalist, which the Russians always have been. Nationalism can be on either side. It is very difficult to have a mostly free-enterprise system and maintain a dictatorship.

I agree that the left-right axis is too simplistic, which is why I have repeatedly emphasized whether entities are economically right or left. It is yourself who was tossing out that "fascism is right-wing" without really explaining how or that Trump = fascist.

I agree that things exist on a continuum. But fascism was not the anti-left wing. Economically, it was neither explicitly left or right. It was just a different form of collectivism, one grounded in the national collective and (often) race, as opposed to the economic collectivism, which was grounded in class struggle. But both are forms of collectivism. Neither was "right-wing" in the modern American sense of the term. I have pointed however out in a prior post how the extreme right in America today very much has elements that are racist and anti-Semitic.

And Mussolini was not right-wing. He was originally an outright socialist, but his modification did not make him into a fired breathing adherent of Adam Smith.

I think we're talking past each other here.

You're reducing all differences to economics, when left and right have both political and sociological implications than go beyond that. You can have right-wing interference with the economy just as much as left. Making it all about involvement in the economy doesn't make the definitions any more clear. Now you've just created an infinite variety of leftist forms of government with nothing more in common than they like to interfere with commerce.

No system will check all the boxes in any direction, and it's all complicated by the horseshoe theory--left and right do indeed share characteristics. That doesn't mean that authoritarianism is left wing. Conversely, anarchism may be economically right wing, by your definition, but few anarchists would feel at home at the Heritage Foundation, because they have severe disagreements with the political and social parts of right wing ideology.

 

[HSMPBR]

Your spelling genome is mutated

 

[Spekkio]

Ukraine has a higher standard of living, because it has been moving much more towards privatization.

If I were a regular Joe, I'd rather be living in Russia than Ukraine right now. The people of St. Petersberg, for example, don't face life-threatening military action on a daily basis.

 

[Random8145]

I think we're talking past each other here.

You're reducing all differences to economics, when left and right have both political and sociological implications than go beyond that. You can have right-wing interference with the economy just as much as left. Making it all about involvement in the economy doesn't make the definitions any more clear. Now you've just created an infinite variety of leftist forms of government with nothing more in common than they like to interfere with commerce.

No system will check all the boxes in any direction, and it's all complicated by the horseshoe theory--left and right do indeed share characteristics. That doesn't mean that authoritarianism is left wing. Conversely, anarchism may be economically right wing, by your definition, but few anarchists would feel at home at the Heritage Foundation, because they have severe disagreements with the political and social parts of right wing ideology.

The reason I emphasize the economic is because by the American definition of "right" and "left," it generally goes by that. On the far right end of the spectrum, you have your anarcho-capitalism types. They want no central bank, barely any federal government, gold standard, etc...then on the far left end, you have your hardcore socialism types. In-between is a whole slew of mixtures.

But outside of that economic definition, right vs left becomes much more difficult to define:

Socially conservative? Can be left or right (the Soviet Union was very socially conservative for example).

Socially liberal? Can be left or right.

Nationalist? Can be either.

Internationalist? Can be either.

Racist or non-racist? Can be either.

Now in the world of collectivism, there are a variety of different kinds. "Socialism" is used to refer to government ownership and/or control over the means of production. It is not necessarily nationalist or racist (though those can exist in such a society, as the Soviet Union was very nationalist and had racism and anti-Semitism). But ideologically, its main gist is about the working class standing together in unity against their capitalist oppressors.

An alternative form of collectivism was grounded in the nation and race. Economically, this collectivism, most popularly known as fascism, could be left or right-leaning (to a degree), as its main focus is not on the economic but on the nation and the racial purity of the nation. Such nation and race-based collectivists often disdained the conventionally socialist ones as they saw them as sacrificing the nation and messing up the racial aspects of it.

A Marxist-Leninist socialist might want to kill you because of your being seen as a class traitor. You so much as set up a fruit stand and they'd want to shoot you. Race and nation per se weren't big issues to them from this. Whereas a fascist would want to kill you if they saw you as betraying your nation and in particular your race. Nazis argued amongst themselves about (economic) socialism vs capitalism, sometimes disdaining both.

Both being forms of collectivism,, there is nothing in either about the sanctity of the individual or the idea that the State exists to protect the pre-existing rights of the individual. In the one, you subordinate yourself to the collective in the name of economic equality. Everything will belong to everyone. In the other, you subordinate yourself to the national organism, in the name of national greatness and (in the case of the Nazis) racial domination.

Now the Nazi economy is confusing to many. The Nazis engaged in a large amount of privatization of industry and crushed labor unions,, but they also subjected said private economy to a heavy amount of state direction and control. This was partially due to rearmament and then the war, but also the Nazis, while not against private property and enterprise, would not hesitate to take over your company or nationalize it if you strayed too far from the party line. This also underlines my point about how dictatorships always require some degree of direct state intervention in the economy.