nebuli, yeah, clearly there is a fine line that must be tread here. Indeed, one needs to research the costs and benefits; I don’t think too many thoughtful people deny that…Although, as I also understand it, this sort of language that we must do cost-benefit analyses on everything can be written into law in a way that is very effective in tying up the regulators hands to the point where things that should get done don’t get done. In fact, I believe that is precisely what some Republicans in Congress have tried to do.
bagkitty wrote:
Americans feel the same way about Europe’s political parties. In fact, we kind of feel that way about Europe’s actual countries, if you want to know the truth.
Hmmm…don’t believe that’s quite a fair assessment, Johnny. bagkitty’s central point seemed to be that the scope of mainstream political parties in many European countries encompasses a far broader ideological spectrum than in the United States (despite the U.S. being far more populous and ostensibly diverse). I don’t really think you can argue with that statement, and certainly your (somewhat snide) response doesn’t address the issue.
We may view European countries and slight and inconsequential relative to ourselves (a view which itself is more than a little myopic), but I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Americans view European politics as being monolithic and homogenous–usually the opposite, in fact, when we Americans bother to think of Europe at all.
Care to try again, or shall I subject you to a reading from the collected works of Arend Lijphart?
Gadarene: yep, that was pretty much the point I was making, my only caveat is that you can find that kind of diversity to the immediate north and south of you… ask matt_mcl.
What is that quote about the American Social Democratic Organizing Committee again? Oh yeah, “fraternal greetings from the largest democratic socialist party on the continent to the smallest…” 
My experience with junkscience.com supports this. The criterion that they use is that a study that might be used to argue for more government intervention is junk science, while one that could be used to argue for less govenment is not junk science.
For example, they dismissed as junk science a study that supported more gun control while endorsing a study that supported less gun control even though the reasons they gave for rejecting the first study applied equally well to the first study. Details at http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/node32.html
South? As in the country that suffered decades of single party rule (now thankfully ending – three cheers for the Fox.)
For that matter, looking only at the two major politicla parties give a flase impression of homogeneity in the American political dialogue. We have plenty of fringe parties and wackos. Hell, we have plaenty of them just on this board. 
I am not at all convinced that the inability of fringe parties to fragment the legislature sufficiently for radical ideas to gain an influence disproportional to their representation among the population is a good thing. Then again, I pretty much despise all political parties, major or minor. Groupthink factories the lot of 'em.
A false impression? Um. Our political spectrum may not be largely homogenous in this country, but the scope of national political dialogue certainly is…on particular issues, anyway. To give but a miniscule example: though there was strong support for a single-payer health care system among the general populace, the options presented six years ago in Washington and by the press corps ranged from HMO managed care to simple privatization. Not only that, but the debate was framed in such a way as to ostensibly represent the totality of legitimate alternatives. See my Overriding Rule of Politics thread for why this might be.
Well, sure, Spiritus, but it’s certainly possible to find a happy medium…at least in terms of legitimized political diversity. (Or, by “an influence disproportional to their representation among the population,” are you not referring to the nondemocratic mechanisms of our system which weight influence to the wealthy?) For example, it’d sure be nice to see a mainstream American political party which opposed the death penalty, gave some consideration to the ramifications of unfettered free trade, or paid serious attention to the problem of poverty in this country. None of those positions should be the sole province of fringe parties and wackos, I think–but if they’re extant in our diverse political dialogue, I wish you’d point them out to me. I seem to have missed 'em.
I’m with you, Gadarene. There certainly are a lot of other parties besides the one big one (Republocrats, I mean), but they have relatively little access to the media and are essentially marginalized. And as for the argument that parties representing alternative viewpoints are “fringe parties” that risk “fragmenting the legislature,” in such a way that they manage to achieve a “disproportionate representation,” well, I think in American politics one sees just the opposite: it’s the political midfield (admittedly very far to the right in the US) that is overly represented. Alternative parties are disproportionately underrepresented in the US political system.
The simple act of referring to alternative parties as “fringe parties” or “wackos” is exactly an example of the problem, Spiritus – you’re working off a tacit, underlying set of assumptions regarding what is “okay” or reasonable, and what is “wacko” or “fringe.” The fact is, a lot of these “wacko fringe parties” in the States would be pretty mainstream if they were transplanted into a European context. (In Gothenburg, Sweden, where I live, 20% of the population votes for the communist party in national elections.) Conversely, American mainstream politics seems pretty fringey-wacko from over here. (I know of no party in Sweden who’s social policies are as draconic as those of the Republicans, for example.)
One of my favorite left-wing skeptic publications is the Washington Monthly, an unabashedly liberal magazine that’s been dissecting sloppy thinking from all points in the political spectrum for decades. Charles Peters, its longtime editor, strongly believes that sloppy liberal thinking hurts liberalism. I think the first issue of the Washington Monthly that I ever saw had a wonderful article poking holes in both sides’ positions on the abortion issue. I’ve been a big fan ever since.
The Atlantic Monthly, which might not consider itself liberal but certainly isn’t conservative, publishes essays and articles from a wide range of points on the spectrum. One recent article, for instance, was an analysis of where vouchers might actually be helpful, and criticized the absolute refusal of many lefty organizations to even consider them.
I thought the irony behind my post was evident enough, but apparently not.
Yes, I understand that calling political parties whose views diverge from the mainstream “whackos” is a method of marginalizing thought. Yes, I understand that marginalizing fringe parties makes it much more difficult for them to gather mainstream support – vicious cycle, that. Yes, I understand that the political dialogue as expressed by the media is homogenized by the domination of the two major parties. Hence my use of the phrase “looking only at the two . . .”
The point I was trying to illustrate (with the example of this board immediately following an example of a truly homogenized political behemoth brought low by popular dissent, even) is that a diversity of opinion does exist, it is even available to the public, but you have to look for it in places other than pronouncements from Washington and talking heads on the network news.
I have to learn to be more blatant.
And Gadarene, I agree with you that wealth under our present system is also disproportionaly represented in the halls of government, but that is a separate thread. Recognize the one condition does not make the other (a fragmented legislature where radical minority parties gain influence far exceeding their demographic “weight”) more attractive. Then again, it might be more attractive. All I said was that I was not convinced. If someone wants to argue that coallition governments are a better thing, then go ahead: convince me.
But I am not at all sad that 20% of the American public does not vote Communist in federal elections. I find Communism no more attractive than Anarchy as a political philosophy, though I think both encompass concepts which are beneficial when not applied to the exclusion of common sense.
cheers all, for the many suggesions on liberal skeptic websites, I will be visiting them all in time. I will say that I have heard some dodgy things about one of them mentioned, the Union of Concerned Scientists, which seemed more interested in selling me literature than publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers (always a bad sign), but I will explore them in more detail. And as ever, there is no substitute for chasing down published articles and references and challenging them at the source.
BTW, the whole bi-partisan American politics issue? Surely a system where all registered political parties in a region are entitiled to the exact same media time, free of charge, would be a better means of representing all sides of a debate fairly and providing a voice across the entire political spectrum? And if that means coalition governments then fine. Until then, you will continue to have a system where the majority of those who could even be bothereed to vote will be voting against something (i.e. the Other Party) rather than for something (i.e. a party which represents their political viewpoints).
And by the paucity of disagreement on some major issues by those parties.
Fair enough. As long as we realize that it is the pronouncements from Washington and talking heads on the network news which largely shape perception, policy, and, subsequently, reality.
Agreed. I started an American plutocracy thread a while back; I believe it died a contentious death.
Yeah, I wasn’t positing that it did, but simply that the general conditions you described–disproportionate, enduring influence by minority groups–already exist in our system. I can see where I was unclear, though.
grin You’ve been pointing out false dichotomies for long enough now to recognize when you construct one yourself. An ideology to the left of the Democratic Leadership Council does not necessarily communism make. As I said, look at single-payer health care (a policy with which I am neither expressing approval nor disapproval, but merely using as an example of a marginalized viewpoint which isn’t “radical” in the slightest).
I was responding to Svinlesha who said:
Not everything’s about you, Gadarene.
grin back at ya
:D[sub]like this, even[/sub]
D’oh…
I’ll get you one day, Spiritus, and your little Yeats, too!
(My bad on the 20 percent Communist thing. Other than that, though…yes, everything is about me. Thankyouverymuch.)
LD: I will say that I have heard some dodgy things about one of them mentioned, the Union of Concerned Scientists, which seemed more interested in selling me literature than publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers
There may be a misunderstanding here, LD; the UCS is not actually a research institution or scientific journal, but an advocacy group composed largely of scientists. They do undertake some studies on scientific issues that are important to their mission, but AFAIK they aren’t funded in any way by the government or corporate research, so if you’re expecting them to produce research papers like a university science department you’re bound to be disappointed. Like any other advocacy group, their main focus is on convincing citizens and policymakers to agree with their views. What is unusual about them, though, and what I think you’ll especially like about them, is that so much of their membership is made up of professional scientists; as a result, they have much higher standards than most advocacy groups about what constitutes reliable evidence, and what amount of technical complexity is required for a real understanding of the issues.
Spiritus: A thousand and one pardons, O earth-bound spirit! You’re right, I didn’t realize you were being sarcastic. I was a bit suprised by that first post, which did not seem to live up to your usual standards of clarity and logical reasoning.
Also, for the record very quickly, let me state that I’ve over-simplified a bit: Sweden doesn’t have a communist party per se anymore. After the Wall came down, those crafty godless Pinkos updated their tech and changed their name to “Vänsterpartiet,” meaning “Party of the Left.” But the ideological basis is essentially the same.
Finally, with regard to:
I’d say that’s pretty self-evident. Penicillin is not particularly beneficial when applied to the exclusion of common sense, either. But even if you don’t like communism, you might nevertheless agree that the existence of a plurality of views within the American political mainstream can do nothing other than enrich the level political discourse there. Nationwide here, Vänsterpartiet has about 14% of the vote, hardly enough to dictate the state agenda, but certainly large enough to be felt, and act as a counterweight to the right. And to pull the government in a more humane direction, IMO.
I don’t really know you, but you seem a reasonably intelligent fellow. I do know Gadarene. When my intent swooshes by both of you in rapid succession I thikn it is pretty clear that I have not communicated clearly. Going beck and reading the post, I can certainly see that I blurrd the lines between sardoonicism and straightforward opinion. mea culpa
But really, I knew what I meant. My life would be so much easier if everyone else just thought the same way I do. Maybe I’ll form a political party.
how about martin gardner? from what i’ve read in his essays on politics, i think most people would peg him as on the left wing of the spectrum (i believe he calls himelf a democratic socialist), yet he’s famous for being a skeptic. one of his early books was the inspiration for CSICOP, the group that produces the skeptical inquirer.
-fh
And we can be your loyal, unthinking followers: “Megadittos to that, Spiritus!” “Spiritus is truth!” “You da man, Spiritus!”
one of the more skeptical and cynical left-wingers I know is Alexander Cockburn…
You can read him at http://www.counterpunch.org
He wrote a scathing essay on Julia “Butterfly” Hill.