Different time and what counts is that they did and now do object to that and what you typed later. BTW you are only avoiding what Bob Dole said, and the clear radicalization of the Republicans in congress that is at odds with what most of the people and sometimes times even against what republicans actually do think nowadays.
As for other examples you are only sounding ridiculous when you compare what many democrats did propose for immigration reform with the current environment were Republicans just want to reinstate things like Operation Wetback.
Would you characterize Obama’s deportation policy as more or less harsh than Operation Wetback? In terms of numbers, it’s more harsh. Therefore, centrist when Republicans do it.
Like I said it is not my problem that your statements sound less coherent.
The deportations do show BTW how insane the complaints of immigration policy against Obama (“He is not deporting illegals!”) really are. The deportations are geared mostly to people that even immigrants would agree should not be here, as in the ones that get involved in crimes and people caught just inside the border trying to get into the USA. Pointing to the more effective control of the border and to yet another very dumb talking point that many republican congress critters like to trot around (We need a fence now! The border is not protected!).
By contrast Operation Wetback was found by many Hispanics to be more close to cleaning an ethnic group en masse. Not by killing them, although there were incidents of many Hispanics dumped in the middle of the Mexican deserts and dying there, but many Hispanics realized later how unjust that operation was, and racist too. The fact that you do not know the difference is why you are indeed not noticing how different the current crop of republicans that like to be in bed with people like Arpaio are.
That’s an unnecessarily antagonistic tone. No need to get upset, we’re only sharing opinions.
Evangelicals tend to be Religious Conformists (pre-modern) and not be fans of Scientific Rationalism (modern).
I don’t really know enough about HRC to adequately classify her. If you say she’s post-modern I won’t doubt you. She seems a bit hawkish though,
Once again, why the hostile tone? Can’t we just discuss this as nice and polite people?
My point is that the left/right scale is not nuanced enough. I don’t see what the big issue is with suggesting another perspective than the binary left/right, more perspectives means more insight. Your argument makes no sense to me really and you seem to have misunderstood me completely, since you seem to think that I am unaware of the attack on post-modern and modern policies from the pre-modern crowd.
I use the definitions from Spiral Dynamics, Integral Theory and AQAL.
Half the people in US does not believe in evolution. More than a quarter thinks the bible is the literal truth transmitted by god. AGW is still not accepted. That’s three examples where I think education is the solution.
Now you’re putting weird words in my mouth. Where did you get ”utopia” from? The Netherlands is probably the most progressive country in the world, as is Sweden. Of course that doesn’t mean that the pre-modern part of the population has gone extinct, only that they are no longer controlling the nations evolution.
Yes, the US is a lot better at integration than Europe in general. Also, the EU is a lot more diverse than the US. Some nations are really backwards, others are really progressive. This is not a ”US vs EU” thing for me at least, sorry if something I said made you think it was,
Once again you seem to think that this is some sort of polemic about which country is better than which other country. That sort of discourse is not my intention and I am not really interested in it.
But I do agree that there are weaknesses to the post-modern societies, mainly stemming from them becoming overly relativistic, not being able to accept any hierarchies (like that one culture might be better than another) etc etc. Post-modernism is a step in evolution as I see it, not the end of the road. There are plenty of weaknesses with it that needs to be addressed.
Yes when you go from pre-modern to modern of course you use the ”Good vs Evil” of pre-modernism and the ”Right vs Wrong” of modernism. But that sort of language isn’t appropriate when going from modern to post-modern. Tomorrows revolution does not use the same language or tools as yesterdays revolution.
I have no idea what you’re on about here to be honest, especially not how Israel suddenly ended up in the discussion. But once again you are really going full out loading up with words like ”unwashed masses” and other stuff that I don’t really find constructive or appropriate. The reason I mentioned they will die off is because they are old, and old people tend to die. You make it out like I want them to die, which is very weird and un-cool. The fact that people tend to change their mind when they get access to education is also something that you wanted to turn into something else… I don’t understand why. Also, I’m not very familiar with Sam Harris (I didn’t even know he was politically active until a few weeks ago, thought he was a neuroscientist and philosopher, and the only political thing I have heard from him I didn’t agree with (I was on the side of Chomsky).
I didn’t really read the rest of your post since it didn’t seem to apply to what we were talking about, sorry about that. I’d love to continue the discussion but (and sorry for setting an ultimatum) only if you can chill out a bit and decide to have a discussion in good faith, I’m not interested in hostility or conflict at all. I respect your opinions and perspectives and only ask that you in turn don’t try to paint me as something I am not and stop putting words in my mouth. If you google AQAL and check the images/maps you can get a quick overview of where I am coming from in a couple of minutes. Hope you have a nice evening.
I apologize if I seemed to be antagonistic and bellicose, although in my defence I’d like to say all of it was directed towards your ideas and not you as a person. Nonetheless, I’ll do my best to refrain from such a tone in this post and any further ones.
Given the capitalizations I assume these are used in the Wilberite sense.
I don’t think its helpful, imo, to classify politicians along these lines (I’ll respond further to the theory when you directly bring it up) especially since these terms aren’t commonly used in relation to political discourse. At the least, I think it’d have been better had you given some reasoning for these distinctions.
If you mean an extremely simplistic, 2 dimensional left/right binary I agree. However, I think for modern politics, the generally accepted ideological labels (“conservative”, “liberal”, “social democrat”) are the most straightforward in describing a person’s political views.
Having more perspectives isn’t always more insightful, especially if as I believe the distinctions are false and thus lead people down a rabbit trail
I wasn’t giving criticisms of “post-modern” and “modern” policies in that segment of the post but rather demonstrating why traditional political labels are as relevant as ever.
These theories by one Ken Wilber seem to be the linchpin of your post. While I won’t go into a deep critique, having only examined these theories cursorily let me just say that I’m deeply sceptical of these theories. In general any theory that claims to explain the past, present, and future of human history-be it those of Auguste Comte or Karl Marx-gets the same treatment from me as do the psychological “stages” and “archetypes” of Freud and Jung, especially since this theory in particular seems to have lots of mystical underpinnings.
So what sort of education do you suggest? In terms of pure quantity, Americans are just as educated as anyone else in the world as I pointed out so this isn’t a problem of “low education level” as opposed to the nature of religious culture in these differing societies. At the same time, even secularity sometimes merely means the exchange of other pseudoscientific beliefs for young earth creationism and denial of climate change-the anti-vaccination movement is strongest among well-educated and prosperous people in the United States and several European countries have abandoned or prohibited nuclear power
I was admittedly being somewhat derisive, but its clear from the overall tenor of your post you have a high view of postmodernism and of societies that approach that philosophy/framework. And saying that a country is very progressive is different from saying its “post-modern” as opposed to “modern”-what is the criteria for distinguishing between these two stages?
And as I pointed out throughout the post, there is no reason to think “pre-moderns” have been so thoroughly maraginalized.
You may have not have intended a “US vs. EU” thing but your positive view of “modernism” and “post-modernism” as I noted above plus your characterization of the United States as being the most “pre-modern” of any advanced country, gave mean impression otherwise. I apologize for misunderstanding.
Or perhaps this evolution is something that is not particularly desirable at all and should be prevented as much as possible. I fail to see any advantage of what you describe as post-modernism that can’t be done by simply expanding the bounds of our current paradigm.
There is no reason to think that “Good vs. Evil” or “Right vs. Wrong” are dead as concepts as opposed to what exactly is “good” or “right”. Plenty of preachers, politicians, polemicists, and others use such rhetoric all the time. Take a look at Bernie Sanders for example-he clearly sees the plutocrats in the wrong and the common people as in the right. Even the most advanced people will have issues that they are going to see in such black and white lenses-just ask your average philosophy student at Lund or Berkeley what they think of Donald Trump’s immigration policies.
I should have explained this but in Israeli politics, the left-wing parties tend to be supported by the fairly wealth and well-educated Ashkenazi Jews while the right-wing parties tend to be supported by poorer and working-class Jews from other Middle Eastern countries or Russia as well as the religious voters. This in turn, has rendered the Israeli left largely impotent and unable to acquire a majority and its something I wish to avoid in my country.
I apologize again for being belligerent in that way but considering your sentence was as follows: “Hopefully the US will relatively quickly be able to get rid of its pre-modern contingent as they die off or get access to better education (they are mainly old or uneducated).”, I to a certain extent saw the implication of the sentence as otherwise if not explicitly stated.
I wasn’t referring to Sam Harris’s politics but rather his prominence in the New Atheist movement.
Well if you outright dismiss the meta-theory that I suggested we use as a lens to look through, as well as all developmental psychological stages, that doesn’t really leave any room for discussion. The way I see it there are many different lenses, maps and perspectives to look at any phenomena through, and I was suggesting we look at it through this one. Perhaps that was inappropriate for a thread that has a another theme. I might start a new thread and invite a discussion about the merits of different perspectives.
But before I drop out of the conversation I’ll address some of the points you made, and also thank you for clarifying your meaning as well as changing the tone of the discussion.
I think the Good vs Evil duality is inherently very unhealthy, since it leaves no room for discussion, sharing or agreement. If you designate someone as “evil” that’s pretty much the end of the discussion. The only reasonable action against “evil” is to destroy it. When you advance to Right vs Wrong you at least have room for discussion, and you can use facts or neutral mediators as a way to influence each other and reach a conclusion. So it opens up for the possibility of reaching a consensus through rational discourse. My own preferred dualism is more along the lines of Healthy vs Unhealty, Successful vs Unsucessful etc.
My own criticism of post-modernism (or the GREEN level if we look at Spiral Dynamics) is that it’s inherently false in it’s refusal to accept any values (except it’s own hidden ones) and it’s undifferentiated attack on everything that precedes it. The post-modernists tend to simply reduce and destroy everything that came before it, leading to some very unhealthy nihilism. It can also destroy a societies ability to handle aggression and exploitation from lower levels as it dismantles the systems put in place by modernists to handle pre-modern issues.
For example post-modernists can’t effectively handle religious extremism or unhealthy cultural expressions because it insists that every perspective is equally valid (unhealthy pluralism in my opinion). Basically post-modernists tend to claim that there are no universal truths, and while doing so seem unable to grasp that what they just did was to claim just that (that it would be a universal truth that there is no universal truth). Silly things like that.
So my own position would be that yes, post-modernism is “better” than the previous stages, but only as far as it includes the healthy bits and transcends the unhealthy ones of the previous ones. As you said, it is more about continuously expanding the paradigm to include more than to switch from one partial perspective to another partial perspective.
As a final note I’d just like to point out that although I’m a big fan of Ken Wilber, I don’t think he can be awarded with the credit for this. He’s simply collected the works of a lot of brilliant thinkers from many different areas and put it together in a coherent meta system. He’s not responsible for generating much of the content, and I think he would agree with that. Don Beck and Clare W. Graves are the ones responsible for Spiral Dynamics, which is the foundation of the perspective that I was hoping to apply here.
Emphasis mine. Perhaps the question should be whether you’d recognize centrist politics when you saw it, because that’s an utterly bizarre characterization of the Democratic Party, and because …
Exactly – except for the things he’s done that have been downright right-wing conservative, like the Trans Pacific Partnership that Obama is pushing like a personal pet project, with cheering from Republicans and a lot of opposition from progressives. Bernie Sanders is a liberal. Obama is a moderate conservative.
Both parties can’t be extremes, that huge hole in the middle has to be filled by someone because that’s where the grand majority of voters are. Right now the Democratic party is sitting right there in the middle and setting up camp for the long haul, no matter how hard some segments of the base try to pull to the left. The big problem with the establishment GOP is that they sort of have to agree with Democrats on a lot of things and that pisses the hell out of their base.
The notion that the Democratic Party has been taken over by extremists is very confused.
Certain liberal social issues, especially gay rights and legalized marijuana, have advanced greatly. These are issues the powers on the right care little about (except as they can be used as wedges to get socially conservative voters to vote against their own interests). For the specific points OP mentions:
– “pacifist” – Obama has come under attack for drone strikes, and pursuing national security aggressively. Um … make up your minds? Some say Obama is a bloodthirsty killer; others that he’s a scaredy-cat pacifist. About the only agreement is that his middle name is Hussein and he’s from Kenya.
– "PC"what does this mean, OP? That the Democratic Party embraces blacks, women, Asians, Hispanics, gays, immigrants? I’ll admit to not studying OP; is there some particularly detestable “PC” position of the Democrats besides gay rights?
The most important issues facing the country are economic. How do we address the high economic cost of healthcare? How do we address various other looming economic crises? What do we do about rising inequality?
Despite a large hike a few years ago, minimum wage as a share of the pie has been steadily falling since it was first passed, except for during the 1950’s and 60’s. Regulation has become a joke, with almost all the regulaters captured by those they’re supposed to regulate. Taxes are effectively lower now than at any time since the Roaring Twenties. That Wall Street runs the country is tangible.
The view that “MoveOn.org extremism” is ascendant is wildly [checks forum] … incorrect.
I already mentioned that the Democrats may lose thanks to the fear mongering that you also approve of. However, I have seen this movie in the historical records before, thanks to that fear mongering we will get more Republican incompetents elected to office and then like Al Smith the Democrats will have a drink later to celebrate the complete collapse of the Republicans.
The fact that anyone would deliberately and willfully perpetuate lies, that they know are lies, in order to advance and agenda that is ultimately hurtful to the people they are elected to represent is… well… I don’t even have a word for it. But I’d rather they be in prison than hold elected office. That this kind of stuff is somehow accepted, or even thought of as normal is also mind boggling.
MoveOn.org wing: sees America as the problem instead of the world’s natural leader, and supports “Palestine” and dislikes Israel more than normal Americans. Refuses to blame Radical Islam for anything, and is OK if Islam grows as a religion in America.
PC: the kind of people who think government should be dealing in sports team names (or sports at all, like football being too “tough and manly”), the kind who can’t fathom that maybe, Zimmerman wasn’t in the wrong. The forensic path at the trial was compelling. The kind who won’t call out that too many in the black community, while rightfully fearing racist cops, still teach their kids not to at least respect the institution of the police
pacifist: the people who think America shouldn’t lead the world, shouldn’t use serveillance to keep America safe, who think the US should just unilaterally disarm nukes
The political reality is that criticizing Israel does not mean that when a shotting war starts that we will not support Israel, in reality the military support of Israel was increased under Obama.
The “Radical Islam” item is just a Republican talking point that ignores that we are still bombing the terrorists, regardless of labels.
Well, he is not helping.
And so on; really, your points are just coming from unreliable sources of information.
Have these people gone through the formality of actually existing in real life as humans, or are they (as I suspect) a new life form made almost entirely from straw rather than flesh.
ever heard of a Scoop Jackson Democrat? Or Bill Maher (tho not a registered one, he votes it since 2004 and has supported them for Prez since), who on religion (and he’s not a hypocrite about Islam), I agree with.
It makes no sense why liberals, who rightfully don’t like religion so much, protect a religion in which its host societies punish gay rights, women’s rights, religious minority rights orders of magnitudes worse than in non-Muslim societies. Some ultra-Muslim societies regulate what kind of music is legal. Do liberals really want that religion to spread in America so politicians can pander to them? Gays are thrown off buildings in many of those societies, others imprisoned (and were long before “western colonialism.” Abortion can get you serious jail time in some of those places.
Also, not every liberal thinks the world is just gonna get together and smile on their brother and love everyone right now. There’s always gonna be country’s trying to be superpowers, so why not us? I don’t think America is God’s country; I just think its the best damn choice on balance.
What I wanna see return is how Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan worked with the other party to get legislation, and find common ground.
Some say Obama is a bloodthirsty killer; others that he’s a scaredy-cat pacifist. About the only agreement is that his middle name is Hussein and he’s from Kenya.