Democrats please explain something for me.

[johnc]

...as corporate America ships everything else off shore.

 

As always, don't let election year political BS hide reality:

 

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83301/daniel-w-drezner/the-outsourcing-bogeyman.html

 

[Heavy Z]

Nice answer, A.G.

 

JMort, as for your charts:

 

This chart...

 

 

...and this chart...

 

 

...are not interchangeable.

 

Your original post came from using the first chart's left with the second chart's right. These two charts measure different variables. Thank you for showing where the confusion came from. BTW, The first chart would be long gone if you were right about it being just a scare tactic. Here's an expanded version that may be helpful:

 

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.html

 

 

JohnC, your link is published by the CFR, which as you probably know includes on its board many of the biggest business interests in the US. To think these guys are honest about the outsourcing answer is like putting a wolf in charge of a roomful of chickens. I'm in no way shocked or impressed by their assessment. Here's something short for you to check out on this week's rip-offs:

 

"...legislation enacted this week is worth $137 billion in tax cuts for corporations. One company alone -- General Electric -- will receive over $8 billion, despite earnings last year of over $15 billion. Many companies -- Microsoft, Oracle, Hewlett-Packard, Eli Lilly, among others -- have been parking profits overseas rather than bring them back to America where they are taxed. So Congress has now blessed them with a one-time "tax holiday" during which they can bring home the bacon at about one-seventh of the normal tax rates."

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1015-02.htm

[SHO-Z]

Wasn’t it Ronald Reagan who said that we “Cannot leave this debt to our grandchildren?†You cannot pay off the debt by cutting taxes. We are sending jobs overseas, our tax base overseas. The Republicans are stating this is good for business, profits are up. We are going to retrain our work force that is being outsourced with 2 years of college? A lot of these jobs that are being outsourced are high-tech, these people have college degrees. Most of these republicans that are pushing for cutting taxes call themselves Reagan Republicans, what about that debt? We need to look at cutting government; there is a lot of waste there. The democrats are tax and spend the republicans are spend and spend.

 

But with a war, with out planning after the country’s army was defeated, it is an open money pit. Watch some old WW II war movies about the French and Philippines resistance during their occupations. Same situation same results. How would you feel if we were invaded and occupied by some country, we would get our guns and fight a guerrilla war? They would call us Insurgents.

 

We only have one planet to live on. We need to leave this place to our children cleaner than it is now, or shall we let industry do whatever it wants. If it is cheaper to dump it to the environment than pay the cost to dispose of properly, profits dictate.

 

I am an Independent; I have both liberal views and conservative views. We need to stop all this unneeded litigation, people have to take responsibility not everything is perfectly safe. Our environment needs to be protected. We need to close our borders from illegal immigrants. The Republicans want the cheap labor the Democrats want the voting base.

 

Most politicians think the American public is stupid. Those so called debates were just a set up. They both knew the questions before hand. We have to read between the lines to find some type of truth.

[JMortensen]

I still think we should fire a couple million govt employees but that won't get anyone elected, so it will never happen.

 

Heavy, if you read that article it points out how the first chart is outdated and doesn't make sense, and why the second is more appropriate. And I agree with it's assessment. The old chart is just BS. So you can choose to agree with me or not, but I do not see the extreme right linked with totalitarianism. I see the extreme left linked with totalitarianism. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, etc, were all very similar in my book. Their motives, maybe not, but the end results...

 

From the article:

Well, clearly Communism and Fascism are not opposites in some political spectrum or continuum. That much is crystal clear. But before long, though, I discovered the reason why this political spectrum is so confusing. Moreover, I discovered two spectrums that really make sense out of political/economic ideologies! But first let me explain how the current left/right political spectrum came to be.

 

Seating in Parliaments

 

The left/right "yardstick" is the product of a lexicon of yesteryear that purports to "line-up" or measure political/economic philosophies on a continuum according to where political parties sat in Parliaments throughout Europe. Incredible as this may sound, it's absolutely true! The revolutionaries, usually the Communists, sat on the far left and the military dictatorship-type people who wanted to glorify the all-powerful state, like the Fascists, sat on the far right. Other parties, I presume, sat somewhere in the center.

 

To put it bluntly, this is crazy! The ideas of political parties change over time. Where they sit in Parliaments is irrelevant and immaterial, as Perry Mason would protest. Does this "yardstick" or spectrum really make it possible to compare political/economic ideas to one another? Of course not! It is hopelessly misleading and confusing.

 

More taxes and more government intervention pretty much go hand in hand unless W is in office. Govt involvement in our lives seems a much purer yardstick then "Nurture is the Primary Arbiter of Advancement" vs "Nature is the Primary Arbiter of Advancement". I know of nobody who considers themselves an arch-conservative that wants a totalitarian regime to take over here in the US. Not a one. I know LOTS of them who want LESS govt involvement. Maybe you can point me to a right wing totalitarian.

 

The funny part is you see these socialist lefties running around with Anarchy symbols on their hats or cars or whatever. What a joke!!!

[Heavy Z]

Heavy, if you read that article it points out how the first chart is outdated and doesn't make sense, and why the second is more appropriate. And I agree with it's assessment.

 

That's not what I took issue with you on.

 

In pure form the right end of the polital spectrum ends in anarchy, and the left end winds up as communism or socialism.

 

My point was that in the above you spliced two different theories together, like splicing a torque curve from 0-3000rpm with a hp curve from 3000-6000rpm. That's what prompted my response, not any doubts about a particular theory over another. As for your question, here's another chart:

 

[cyrus]

Thanks A. G. Olphart I finially got my answer. We disagree, but a least I can see where you are coming from. Cheers.

[johnc]

JohnC, your link is published by the CFR, which as you probably know includes on its board many of the biggest business interests in the US. To think these guys are honest about the outsourcing answer is like putting a wolf in charge of a roomful of chickens. I'm in no way shocked or impressed by their assessment.

 

So, you completely discount the content of the article based on the publisher of Foreign Affairs?

 

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

 

1. A makes claim B;

2. there is something objectionable about A,

3. therefore claim B is false.

 

The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statment is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Positive arguments to the person are discussed under appeal to authority.

 

Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse. As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its lack of subtlety.

 

Amazing...

[JMortensen]

My point was that in the above you spliced two different theories together, like splicing a torque curve from 0-3000rpm with a hp curve from 3000-6000rpm. That's what prompted my response, not any doubts about a particular theory over another. As for your question, here's another chart:

 

I realize that you want to misconstrue what I'm saying, but that's not it. I'm not comparing the social and economic on the same chart. I'm saying that ANY chart that shows the right ending in totalitarianism is wrong. Because it is the right that wants less govt involvement.

 

I sure hope these charts aren't teaching aids... I'd hate to think your students are being taught that Mussolini and Bush are of the same mold.

[Guest Z-rific]

Cyrus,

 

I think your original post started off on the wrong foot. It sounds like your mind is already made up to be pro Republican and anti Democrat, and unfortunately, you probably believe all the Republican spin about the Democrat party.

 

First, the whole notion that Democrats "want" bigger gvnt. isn't necessarily the case. Bush has increased the govt as much as anybody and has spent gvt money at a faster pace than any other President in history. In fact, the ultra conservatives aren't real pleased with this.

 

The Democrats are not for tax raises. Kerry just wants to repeal the tax cuts given to those making 120,000 or more. This isnt a tax raise (Republican spin) just going back to the regular tax code. He also wants to fix the loop holes allowing big business to outsource good jobs for large tax benefits.

 

What the Democrats DO support...

 

Equal rights for everybody.

Wealthiest bearing more financial burden.

Programs to help the underpriveledged.

Balancing the budget (Democrats were the last do do this).

Personal freedoms that do not infringe upon others rights.

Preserving the environment.

Access to health care by everybody.

 

I heard a good quote a while back...

"Democrats are for big governement, Republicans are for big business. Big government is big business' best client.

[johnc]

An external view of the current state of Democrat vs. Republican:

 

http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3286037

[Heavy Z]

I realize that you want to misconstrue what I'm saying

 

Not at all JMort, that is the last thing I'd want to do. Quite simply, you mixed parts of two different philosophies to make a statement and I called you on it. Your statement should've used totalitarianism rather than communism or socialism, so what is the beef here if I point out an error? As for the chart, no it isn't mine, I was trying to help answer your question. The first chart I linked should also help you in understanding how right-wing dictatorships come about.

 

An external view of the current state of Democrat vs. Republican:

 

http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3286037

 

Very good article John, thanks for the link. I stand behind my position on that CFR article. No matter how you slice it, getting something reliable from the CFR on outsourcing is as likely as finding a pro-Kerry message on Bush's website.

[JMortensen]

Your statement should've used totalitarianism rather than communism or socialism, so what is the beef here if I point out an error? As for the chart, no it isn't mine, I was trying to help answer your question.

As I said before, the right wants LESS government. My beef is that if I said that totalitarianism was on the left and anarchy is on the right as you suggest, you would have come back arguing against me that the extreme left is communism, and the extreme right is totalitarianism, which is still at the end of the day wrong. Doesn't matter if you're talking economics or social issues, it's wrong IME and not just IME.

 

Here's my original statement again.

In pure form the right end of the polital spectrum ends in anarchy, and the left end winds up as communism or socialism.

If it would please you I would agree to amend it to:

In pure form the right end of the polital spectrum ends in anarchy, and the left end winds up as communism or totalitarianism.

 

Somehow I just don't think that's going to satisfy you. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Anarchy on the right, servitude on the left. That's the way the spectrum goes, and you aren't going to convince me that anarchy and totalitarianism have much in common.

[katman]

The Democrats are not for tax raises. Kerry just wants to repeal the tax cuts given to those making 120,000 or more. This isnt a tax raise (Republican spin) just going back to the regular tax code.

 

If you make it higher than it is now, then it is a "raise". No spin.

 

Now, if it was "proposed" to lower taxes, and you repealed the proposal, then you could say you aren't raising taxes.

 

See the difference? (or, if Kerry wins, Viva Le Difference?)

[Heavy Z]

If it would please you I would agree to amend it to: Quote:

In pure form the right end of the polital spectrum ends in anarchy, and the left end winds up as communism or totalitarianism.

 

 

Somehow I just don't think that's going to satisfy you. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Let's look at your chart again...

 

 

Again, it's not about satisfying me. If I added my own intro to the Declaration of Independence, I'd expect you to call me on it. By that rationale, I don't see communism mentioned up there in the chart, do you? Do you think the person that made this chart would mind if it was arbitrarily added? Don't you think they might, since this chart is about power and not any particular governmental system, and furthermore that communism and totalitarianism are quite different? I thought my point was obvious, now it's a dead horse for sure.

[JMortensen]

tyranny:

 

n 1: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) [syn: dictatorship, absolutism, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, monocracy, one-man rule, shogunate, Stalinism, totalitarianism] 2: dominance through threat of punishment and violence [syn: absolutism, despotism]

 

 

Etymology: Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant

1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man -- Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>

2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

3 : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock -- Dixon Wecter>

4 : a tyrannical act

Tell me one more time that communism and totalitarianism aren't tyrannous and we'll be done...

 

I'd just like to point out that I wasn't USING that article's argument. I was using it to support MY argument.

[Heavy Z]

Nice definition. Stalin was a good example of a totalitarian, but his system was a perversion of Communism and not even close to what Marx envisioned.

 

Communism according to Marx advocated a people's revolution, culminating in a system where the people rule as equals. That is not dictatorship. On the other hand, the Vanguard established by Stalin was tyranny, which is why he was included in the definition you cited above.

[JMortensen]

Communism according to Marx advocated a people's revolution, culminating in a system where the people rule as equals.

OK OK... Now I see the problem!!!

 

I'm applying the REALITY of how these systems work and you are not!

 

As far as I can see you can add Nazi, Khmer Rouge, Viet Minh, Korean Workers' Party, Blackshirts, and probably a hundred others to the list of tyrannous regimes and parties and then it would be a little more complete.

 

Interesting DIRECT support to my argument that ties Mussolini directly to "Leftism" I just ran across:

http://geocities.com/jonjayray/musso.html

[johnc]

Stalin was a good example of a totalitarian, but his system was a perversion of Communism and not even close to what Marx envisioned.

 

Communism, as defined in Marxism, is the final, stateless stage of society that is reached after a long period of Socialism. All so called Communist states that have existed to date have referred to themselves as various forms of a "Socialist State" and did not use the term "Communisn" in their descriptions (Soviet Socialist Republic, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, etc.)

 

From history it looks like Marx's ideal (Communism) societal state is unobtainable because no state that has adopted Marxism has been able to progress very far beyond a revolutionary dictatorship. Although the People's Republic of China and Yugoslavia under Tito had came the closest.

 

Ultimately, history has proven Marx was wrong.

[Heavy Z]

Even though this is now beyond my original point, you're absolutely right about the problem.

 

Those charts are both hypothetical. I can't help but look at them as such, and that is why I thought we were talking about abstracts. Now you bring up reality as if it is some sort of key issue here. Do you think your chart deals with reality, honestly? Can you name a country that has pure anarchy as a form of government?

 

The real world does not follow our rules, and I never supposed the charts were any more than a tool to help understand trends. If you want to discuss reality, posting charts like these is a good way to go in the other direction, seeing as we both enjoy discussing the world we live in.

 

 

JohnC, I agree. the Soviet Union lacked the infastructure that Marx said was necessary, although as you indicated some have done better. History has proven that people can't just take over everything and expect it to work.

[johnc]

Can you name a country that has pure anarchy as a form of government?

 

Liberia consistently returns to this form of collective disorganization every few years and is probably the best "implementation" of anarchy. Somalia is another example. Countries that fall into a severe revolutionary pattern (France in the late 1700s, Cuba, Russia from 1917 through 1919, etc.) all have experienced anarchy.

 

But, its an unnatural and only temporary state for a country and for mankind. What most commonly rises out of anarchy is a dictatorship. From there, the form of government can go towards socialism, capitalism, totalitarianism, or back into anarchy (most likely) via another revolutionary process.

 

And no country has any "pure" form of any type of government. There's always some adaptations to local conditions. And to bring us back on topic, no individual has a "pure" form of any political leaning. There's no such thing as a "typical" Democrat or Republican.

 

Myself for example: I can be described as socially liberal, fiscally conservative, hawk.