See http://heartlandspirituality.org/movies/SD-OP.114.png for reference.

So here's my latest "take" on the political spectrum with some "labels" to go with the cast of characters. I'll put it on a continuum from A to E. The percentages are "guestimates."

A. Right-wingers -- God and country. Early Blue coming out of Red. Legalistic, and tending toward theocratic.
- Ex. Some Biblical Fundamentalists.
10% of Americans.

B. Conservatives -- Generally religious and patriotic, but accepting of secular nature of society. Strong emphasis on small government, individual responsibility, free enterprise. Blue opening to Orange.
- Ex. Radio talk-show hosts: Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. National Review, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times. Evangelicals. Many Catholics.
30% of Americans.

C. Moderates -- Open to religious influence in government and culture, but cognizant of multi-cultural issues. Open to government intervention in social affairs, but protective of private sector as well. Orange opening to Green.
- Ex. John McCain, Joe Lieberman. Most Catholics.
25% of Americans.

D. Liberals -- Secular progressives. Religion should be a private matter, having little influence in government policies. Emphasizes strong role of government in society, especially to address injustices and to level the playing field for all. Green.
- Ex. John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Jim Wallis, mainstream media, university professors, mainline Protestant, etc.
25% of Americans.

E. Leftists -- Cynical reformists. The U.S. is basically corrupt and is the source of most of what's wrong in the world. Bush is the devil. Mean Green Meme.
- Ex. Michael Moore, MoveOn.org
10% of Americans

_________________________

Then you have the blendings.

George W. Bush: B/C
Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy: D/E
Bill Clinton: C/D
- and so forth.

Personally, I find myself pretty squarely in the C camp -- a Moderate. Rush Limbaugh would say that's really a Liberal in sheep's clothing, but . . . oh well. The "Yellow" development I've experienced has me strongly cognizant of the need to protect our culture from E and its corrosive influence on Blue, so I tend to side with Conservatives rather than Liberals on most issues.

During the past four decades, Democrats have gravitated to the Liberal side while Republicans to the Conservative. Both vie for Moderate votes, but a split gives the vote to Republicans. Conservatives generally care little about Right Wingers, as it's unlikely they'll vote for Democrats, and if they don't vote, who cares? Democrats, however, have to make sure they don't look too Moderate for Leftists, and need to encourage them to vote. So the Democratic Party drifts more and more to the Left while the Republican Party sits more squarely in the Conservative - Moderate zone, where the majority of voters also reside. And as Democrats drift to the Left, they lose more and more Moderate voters. The attempt to paint Conservative candidates as wild-eyed, theocratic Rightists (a favorite tactic of Kennedy) backfires badly, as intelligent Moderates see right through it and distance themselves even moreso from these extreme positions.

Hence, the Democratic Party, because of its dependence on the Left to win elections, is slowly fading to obscurity, with the idea of a "healthy Liberalism" becoming more and more something of an oxymoron.

I'm tending to remain in "C", but here is a view off
to the libertarian right, where I have been researching fascism right along with some left wing views of same:

http://www.financialsense.com/...ltberg/2003/0527.htm

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0891b.asp

We have not had a political collapse for awhile, not since the 1930s. This should be interesting, and perhaps we shall ride it out together. Those elites will flee the country. Some conservatives are paying their defense lawyers with bars of gold. Now doesn't that inspire confidence?

http://www.hillnews.com/thehil...Marshall/072105.html

peace! -mm

mm, I couldn't get past the first sentence of your bottom link (will check out the others later). These guys just don't "get it," however. They don't make distinctions between the "Religious Right" and Conservatives, and don't seem to recognize that most Moderates and even a few Liberals thought John Roberts was superbly qualified to be Supreme Court Justice. Also, it was people like Richard Perle moreso than James Dobson who de-railed Harriet Meyers -- and that from staunch conservative principles.

- - -

Peggy Noonan is no slouch when it comes to political analysis. Check out her review of Bush's State of the Union address. She wasn't exactly impressed, to say the least, and I mostly agree with her reasons. But then she goes on to lambast the moral vacuity of the Democratic Party.

quote:

It was the first State of the Union Mr. Bush has given in which Congress seemed utterly pre-9/11 in terms of battle lines drawn. Exactly half the chamber repeatedly leapt to its feet to applaud this banality or that. The other half remained resolutely glued to its widely cushioned seats. It seemed a metaphor for the Democratic Party: We don't know where to stand or what to stand for, and in fact we're not good at standing for anything anyway, but at least we know we can't stand Republicans.

. . .

Republicans have crazies. All parties do. But in the case of the Democrats--the leader of their party, after all, is the unhinged Howard Dean--the lunatics seem increasingly to be taking over the long-term health-care facility. Great parties die this way, or show that they are dying.

quote:

Civil rights activist and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a blistering partisan speech at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina last night, equating the Republican Party with the Nazi Party and characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, as "tokens."

"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side," he charged.

Calling President Bush a liar, Bond told the audience at the historically black institution that this White House's lies are more serious than the lies of his predecessor's because Clinton's lies didn't kill people.

NAACP Chairman, Julian Bond
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48635

That's Leftist speech, and the American people generally want nothing to do with it. The problem for Democrats, however is they've now got this smelly Albatros hanging around their necks, along with a few others, and they don't dare throw it off as they don't want to alienate their "base." If they were truly fair-minded, they'd denounce this as hate speech, which it really is.

This topic is now "featured" (sticky at the top of the list) to serve as a reference for the way I hope we will use terminology on this forum.

Just fyi.

This amounts to rank stupidity, and is as good an indicator of the Democratic Party's degeneration as any:

http://www.discoverthenetwork....ds%20Venezuelan.html


Harkin defends Venezuelan President's U-N speech against Bush

by Darwin Danielson
Thursday, September 21, 2006, 10:34 AM

Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a democrat, today defended Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's United Nations speech in which Chavez called President George Bush the devil. Harkin said the comments were "incendiary", then went on to say, "Let me put it this way, I can understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies." Harkin continued what has been frequent criticism of the president's foreign policy.

Harkin says Bush came to office saying he wanted a new humility in foreign policy in reaching out to other countries, but Harkin says Bush's actual policy has been heavy handed. Harkin says the anger against Bush is generated from the Iraq war, which Harkin says was "unnecessary."

Harkin says, "We tend to forget that a few days after 9-1-1 thousands, thousands of Iranians marched in a candlelight procession in Teheran in support of the United States. Every Muslim country was basically on our side. Just think, in five years, President Bush has squandered all that." Harkin says the U.S. has put billions of dollars into the Iraq war, when it could be helping poor countries with things like clean water, medical aid and education."

______________________________________

No mention of Israel's toils, Clinton's failure to persuade Arafat, the first World Trade Center bombing, rampant honor-killing in cultures endemically incompatible with democratic precepts, Moslem nation-heads funding Islamic radicalism in U.S. mosques over the past 15-20 years.

But then Harkins is speaking to his constinuency -those on the left who are absolutely devoted to anti-establishment vitriole so as to appease their lost causes - or as Bill O'Reilly contends: the Left is motivated by the notion that the United States is fundamentally flawed, rather than noble at base.

. . . President Bush has squandered all that. . .

Typical leftist tripe. Before the Afghanistan campaign even started, Democrats started to wake up, realizing that to stand with Bush was to stand with a . . . umm . . . Republican! And so the backbiting began, and has continued to this day.

Harkin's and Chavez's comments are as good examples of Mean Green Meme behavior as you'll find anywhere.

"But then Harkins is speaking to his constinuency -those on the left who are absolutely devoted to anti-establishment vitriole so as to appease their lost causes - or as Bill O'Reilly contends: the Left is motivated by the notion that the United States is fundamentally flawed, rather than noble at base."


Phil:

I repeat this because it just astounds how adolescent the anti-establishment Left is in its commitment to a vision of the U.S. as fundamentally flawed, thereby casting itself as bed-fellows of radical Islamists. Not unlike what this bunch did with Communism and the Soviet Union, inspite of the gulags (they wouldn't accept that state-imposed equality resulted in such labor camps), which is just too compelling a case not to make the blatant charge of immaturity via summary dismissal of adult-like intelligence. Think back to your kids during their most intense years of rebellion, where they really needed to be different from you even if it meant practically soiling themselves, and then imagine them staying that way the rest of their lives!! Leftists don't really give a rat's ass they're destroying the Democratic Party, as there's no end to the satisfaction of destroying authority - even a legitimate one - for its own sake. But at least it fates them to a growing irrelevance at the polls (which just further inflates their notion of U.S. corruption ad infinitum). Eventually Islamism will have to be confronted with equal fervor to that given the assault on Communism, except it won't involve a Cold War as long as such a suicidal, retrograde culture can arm itself with nuclear capability for its fantasy.


So cast me B/C, as the multi-cultural trends in the universities and Europe perpetuating Islamism are simply too strong and blind to be counter-balanced with a pure C orientation, e.g, the need for the Patriot Act, which is a purely B-driven notion. These idiots never woke up to the internal failure of Communism, and so their agendas will be endlessly re-tooled as ideologies of hate that capture the imaginations of adolescents in universities still working out mommmy and daddy issues.

That's only natural, w.c. A strong Leftist uproar naturally moves moderates to the conservative side.

In Spiral Dynamics language, Leftism is the Mean Green Meme, which is Green minus healthy Blue and Orange, allowing Red to bleed through. Hence, the strong Red in MGMs tends to be antagonistic toward Blue and Orange, rather than valuing what's good about them . . . even how they're necessary for egalitarian Green to have enough goods to re-distribute. Keeping Red in line is what Blue does best, which is why we see such a strong Blue/Orange contingency empowered to oppose the left. All of which proves to the left how rigid, authoritarian and capitalistic conservatives are. Round and round the mullberry bush we go, but you simply can't allow MGMs to rule the day, as they open the door to all sorts of vermin.

Clearly, people wanted change, and in a two-party environment, you vote the other guy into power. IMO, the silver lining is that a number of the newly elected Dems seem to be moderate relative to the more-liberal faction of the party.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227961,00.html

quote:

FOX News exit polls of five key states � Arizona, Maryland, Ohio, Rhode Island and Virginia � released at 6 p.m. ET Tuesday, gave an early indication of voter sentiment.

Those polls of about 12,000 voters indicated 41 percent who cast their ballots approved of Bush's job performance, while 58 percent disapproved.

Of the 37 percent in the survey who said the war in Iraq was an extremely important issue in how they voted, 61 percent indicated they voted Democrat, while 37 percent said they voted for the Republican.

Meanwhile, of the 42 percent of those polled who said corruption and scandal in government was extremely important in their vote, 61 percent said they voted for the Democrat, while 36 percent went Republican.

One of the big questions in this campaign is whether it turns out to be a referendum on national issues or hundreds of separate races on local issues.

Thirty-three percent of voters said local matters counted most, while 62 percent focused on national affairs, according to the exit polls.

fallout from the election....

(Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the face of U.S. war policy and a lightning rod for critics worldwide, will step down, a U.S. defense official said on Wednesday.
The imminent announcement by U.S. President George W. Bush, follows dramatic victories by Democrats in Tuesday elections fueled by public anger over the Iraq war in which Democrats seized control of the House of Representatives and were close to taking the Senate

http://flprogressive.blogspot....dead-but-its-on.html
Question: Are all U.S. Presidential candidates saving Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel right-authoritarians? shalom

Spoon's in the house!

I read the article and saw the grid matrix; Interesting, but I think they are wrong on a bunch of these. Ron Paul is clearly a right leaning Libertarian, and they have him as authoritarian? Edwards and Hillary are authoritarian, but clearly to the left side.

From the Weekly Standard:

"The Horror! The Horror!
The paranoid style of the American left."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...000/014/024nesep.asp

quote:

The fascists are coming! Or rather, they're already here, installed in the White House, planning like mad to subvert the Constitution and extend their reign in perpetuity, having first suppressed and eviscerated all opposition and put all of their critics in jail. Thus goes the rant of America's increasingly unhinged left.

and,

quote:

Naomi Wolf--last heard from in 2000 advising Al Gore to dress in earth tones--is looking back to a real past in Europe, and seeing troubling parallels. In 4,600 overwrought words, she explained to the readers of the Guardian that there are ten steps to "Fascist America" and Bush is taking them all. He has whipped up a menace (the war on terror); created "a prison system outside the rule of law" (Guant�namo, to which public dissidents, including "clergy and journalists" will be sent "soon enough"); developed "a thug caste .  .  . groups of scary young men out to terrorize citizens" (young Republican staffers who supposedly "menaced poll workers" during the 2000 recount in Florida); set up an "internal surveillance system" (NSA scanning for phone calls to and from terrorists). An airtight case, this, and leading to just one conclusion: "Beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable .  .  . that it can happen here."

Well, this explains many things. It explains why poor Cindy Sheehan is now sitting in prison; why Bush critics like CIA retiree Valerie Plame have been ostracized by the corporate media and are wasting away in anonymity; why no critic of Bush can get a hearing, why no book complaining about him can ever get published, and why our multiplexes are filled with one pro-Bush propaganda movie after another, glorifying the Iraq war and rallying the nation behind its leader.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth , Cindy Sheehan is running for Congress; Valerie Plame is rich and famous; the young Republican "thugs" made all of one appearance seven years ago--chanting "Let us in!" when Miami-Dade County vote counters planned to move to a small inner room with no observers present; and press censorship is now so far-reaching that you can't even expose a legal, effective, and top-secret plan to trace terrorists without getting a Pulitzer Prize. "What if the publisher of a major U.S. newspaper were charged with treason or espionage?" Wolf asks breathlessly. "What if he or she got 10 years in jail?" Well, journalists have been harassed, pressed for their sources, and threatened with prison, but not by George W. Bush and his people. Back in the real world, only one prominent journalist has been jailed by the federal government in recent memory, and that was Judith Miller, imprisoned for 80-plus days for contempt by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the great hero of the anti-Bush forces for having indicted Vice President Cheney's chief of staff.

I found this as a bit of a surprise:
"Pat Robertson Endorses Rudy Giuliani"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308997,00.html

I'm not too surprised, as Giuliani really does have a lot going that would appeal to most conservatives. His pro-choice stance is problematic for many, but his judicial philosophy seems more disposed to a Scalia type than a Breyer.

---------

On the political landscape . . . great analysis from this blogger, who was referred to me by one of my spiritual directees. He has deep insight into the growing divide between conservatives and liberals, Europe and America . . . E.g.

quote:

For example, marriage is better then living together? Prove it. A fetus is a human being? Prove it. Beethoven is better than rap? Prove it. Heterosexuality is preferable to homosexuality? Prove it. Men and women are fundamentally different? Prove it. One is obligated to tell the truth? Prove it. Etc., etc. In each case, the moral truth is accessible to human beings, but not through the application of mere reason.

This kind of nihilistic thought eventually overcame continental Europe (e.g., communism, fascism, nazism, deconstruction, multiculturalism, moral relativism, etc.), but not the Anglo-American sphere, where there was "an alogical reluctance to pursue the accepted philosophic premises to their ultimate conclusions." In turn, this reluctance seemed to be rooted in "the distinctive religious character of Anglo-American liberalism" (or what is now confusingly called conservatism).

But on the Continent, there were no such restraints against unalloyed skepticism. Rather, "the movement there was antireligious from the start.... When a feudal society, dominated by religious authority, was attacked by radical skepticism, there emerged a liberalism unprotected by either a religious or civic tradition against destruction by a logical extension of the philosophic skepticism to which it owed its origin." In short, in old Europe, universal standards of reason could not be reconciled with their radical skepticism, whereas Anglo-American liberalism maintained a balance between reason and tradition.

This dichotomy is still present today in the vast differences between conservatism (i.e., real liberalism) and liberalism (i.e., illiberal leftism). Leftism continues to be riddled with contradictions that are rooted in its initial philosophical error. For example, one of their rock-bottom beliefs is that there is no rational or universal way to arbitrate between the values of one culture or nation and another. Therefore, it is wrong to stand in the way of any nation that wishes to realize its powers, say Iran. But when America exercises its power, there is universal condemnation from the left. How can this be?

Once again it has to do with the unhinged morality of the left. Being that their skepticism bars them from the spiritual dimension, they are unable to reliably distinguish between good and evil -- i.e., these are simply arbitrary categories. Reduced to flatland materialism, they instead divide the world into visible, empirical categories such as have and have-nots. As such, they conceive a material explanation onto which they graft their unhinged moral passion. They do the same thing with other material categories, such as race, gender and "sexual orientation." As such, all of the moral energy which, in a spiritually normal person, is reserved for distinguishing between good and evil, decent and indecent, is ruthlessly, even sadistically, applied to these meaningless substitute categories.

This explains the grotesque and perverse moral passion of the left, for example, the condemnation of the Duke lacrosse team by dozens of leftist professors who do not see good and evil, only "white and black" (and they still haven't apologized, since the "narrative" or template they imposed on the situation cannot be falsified). Likewise, in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the left obviously cannot see the moral gulf between Israel and her barbarous enemies. Rather, they only see "whiteness and indigenous-ness," or something along those lines.

This guy is good!

You're right, Phil - good insight! This reminds me of an article I read some time ago on First Things:

http://www.apologetics.org/mod...ticle.php?storyid=15

quote:

Yale Law Professor Arthur Leff expressed the bewilderment of an agnostic
culture that yearns for enduring values in a brilliant lecture delivered
at Duke University in 1979, a few years before his untimely death from
cancer. The published lecture titled "Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law"
is frequently quoted in law review articles, but it is little known outside
the world of legal scholarship. It happens to be one of the best statements
of the modernist impasse that I know. As Leff put it..........

The heart of the problem, according to Leff, is that any normative statement
implies the existence of an authoritative evaluator. But with God out of
the picture, every human becomes a "godlet" with as much authority to set
standards as any other godlet or combination of godlets. For example, if
a human moralist says "Thou shalt not commit adultery," he invites "the
formal intellectual equivalent of what is known in barrooms and schoolyards
as `the grand sez who?'" Persons who want to commit adultery, or who sympathize
with those who do, can offer the crushing rejoinder: What gives you
the authority to prescribe what is good for me? As Leff explained,

Good article.

I think you can articulate a very noble ethical system without the assistance of divine revelation. It's when even "reason" is debunked and made equivalent to emotion and imagination in formulating moral principles that the weirdness begins in earnest. Then there's no way to affirm what the classical deists and Catholic theologians called the "philosophy of nature." Without at least this minimalist acknowledgement of some kind of objective order in the universe, everything ultimately collapses into subjectivism. Nevertheless, we suffer consequences for our behavior, and I wonder if the subjectivist has a clue why that should be.

hi phil,

im not certain that i would classify all leftists as cynical, mean green meme etc. as you have here. we might agree on one point: an indictation of any healthy, functional democracy is many, often divergent viewpoints. there are leftists who speak from a self-reflexive even religious position. for example, thomas merton was consistently against the vietnam war, but i certainly wouldn't define him as cynical. would you? the exception may not prove to be the rule, but-in the least-it helps us to see that a general law can be put into question. this is why i generally distrust spiral dynamics/yungian schema which box people into 'types.'
--
if we take pakistan, as one example (because it has been in the news), you can see how american intervention during the history of the country and contributed to the atrocious conditions that we today, both in Pakistani leadership, and in the political process.

to cite one example, america was involved in instituting zia, an islamist, in the 1980s, which led to the assasination of a democratically elected leader, supported by the voting public.

zufikar bhutto was probably the only democratically elected leader in the country who had popular support, and his leadership brought about several foundational changes in pakistani society, including the building of civil society, educational reform etc.

-

personally, i dont care for political discourse that deny agency for the oppressed. i.e. blame America.

yet, it is also important to think through the psychological impacts on the relationship between oppressor and oppressed, and how that has impacted this historical moment. without taking this historical relationship into consideration (i am speaking both a broad range of history, not simply leftist), im not sure one can enter into genuine dialogue.

the cyncism on the left that you speak of has tended to emerge after the fall of communism. there was a cultural turn to politics -- underlying that was often a nihilistic position towards agency. political agency was put into question. power was seen as all pervasive, both in oppressor and in oppressed. there is certainly a psychological truth in this, and these thinkers were attempting to work against a strain of utopian political theology where the working class is seen to be the liberators. in this sense, the whole notion of even a 'group,' or a class with a singular intention was put into question. these were reasonable, somewhat reactive questions.

some of this has led to the fragmentation of the anti-globalization movement and many of the movements emerging from below. one could argue that this vaccum led to some of resurgence of fundamentalism that we see today.

however, we have to examine how that was achieved and who were the actors - right across the political spectrum. in the uk, we could look at the politics of thatcher. she endorsed culture as a form of politics. this displaced some of the questions which were situated in class, 'race,' and gender onto this rather arbitary category.

at the same time, it created a kind of struggle between marginalized groups.

in order to understand these complex issues, it is necessary to turn to history.

i basically situate myself on the far left, with no agenda for one group of people that is based on mythology. as such, i am interested in history and what it can tell us about the past. if america stopped interfering and policing the world, i think these countries would actually move towards democracy. unfortunately, it will probably not be achieved through the ways that it is being done now. it can only be achieved by building civil society and education that is anti colonial.

-

j

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] See http://heartlandspirituality.org/movies/SD-OP.114.png for reference.

So here's my latest "take" on the political spectrum with some "labels" to go with the cast of characters. I'll put it on a continuum from A to E. The percentages are "guestimates."

A. Right-wingers -- God and country. Early Blue coming out of Red. Legalistic, and tending toward theocratic.
- Ex. Some Biblical Fundamentalists.
10% of Americans.

B. Conservatives -- Generally religious and patriotic, but accepting of secular nature of society. Strong emphasis on small government, individual responsibility, free enterprise. Blue opening to Orange.
- Ex. Radio talk-show hosts: Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. National Review, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times. Evangelicals. Many Catholics.
30% of Americans.

C. Moderates -- Open to religious influence in government and culture, but cognizant of multi-cultural issues. Open to government intervention in social affairs, but protective of private sector as well. Orange opening to Green.
- Ex. John McCain, Joe Lieberman. Most Catholics.
25% of Americans.

D. Liberals -- Secular progressives. Religion should be a private matter, having little influence in government policies. Emphasizes strong role of government in society, especially to address injustices and to level the playing field for all. Green.
- Ex. John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Jim Wallis, mainstream media, university professors, mainline Protestant, etc.
25% of Americans.

E. Leftists -- Cynical reformists. The U.S. is basically corrupt and is the source of most of what's wrong in the world. Bush is the devil. Mean Green Meme.
- Ex. Michael Moore, MoveOn.org
10% of Americans

_________________________

Then you have the blendings.

George W. Bush: B/C
Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy: D/E
Bill Clinton: C/D
- and so forth.

Personally, I find myself pretty squarely in the C camp -- a Moderate. Rush Limbaugh would say that's really a Liberal in sheep's clothing, but . . . oh well. The "Yellow" development I've experienced has me strongly cognizant of the need to protect our culture from E and its corrosive influence on Blue, so I tend to side with Conservatives rather than Liberals on most issues.

During the past four decades, Democrats have gravitated to the Liberal side while Republicans to the Conservative. Both vie for Moderate votes, but a split gives the vote to Republicans. Conservatives generally care little about Right Wingers, as it's unlikely they'll vote for Democrats, and if they don't vote, who cares? Democrats, however, have to make sure they don't look too Moderate for Leftists, and need to encourage them to vote. So the Democratic Party drifts more and more to the Left while the Republican Party sits more squarely in the Conservative - Moderate zone, where the majority of voters also reside. And as Democrats drift to the Left, they lose more and more Moderate voters. The attempt to paint Conservative candidates as wild-eyed, theocratic Rightists (a favorite tactic of Kennedy) backfires badly, as intelligent Moderates see right through it and distance themselves even moreso from these extreme positions.

Hence, the Democratic Party, because of its dependence on the Left to win elections, is slowly fading to obscurity, with the idea of a "healthy Liberalism" becoming more and more something of an oxymoron. [/qb]

Just in case I am misunderstood. By anti-colonial, I am not thinking madrassa education.
It is so strange that in the current landscape, one has to make this clear!

The Pakistani state has to take full responsibity for the lower classes/education. This should be of primary importance. Unfort. the PPP does not do speak for the lower classes, and Musharaff is more often a spokesperson for Washington than his own people. If you read his biography, he makes it clear that the Bush administration called him and said: if you are not with us, we will bomb you to the middle ages. Now how can I find humanity in that?
-
My main point in posting here is to at least think through the possibility that health in democracy, lots of opinion and debate.

Personally, Im never certain that a left, or right position is ultimately 'right.' My opinions are more often context driven. I am attempting to read a lot of history.


-

I have been thinking through this in relationship to my own spirtual process. This has led me to believe that every thing is in its right place, yet I still play a 'role' to play in it.

-

So my other question is how does one reconcile ones political opinion (b/c opinion is all it amounts to) to the notion that ultimately our beliefs are context driven.

-

I read a lot of conservative material, but unfortunately, I never see 'myself' in it, as a person of color. It doesn't speak my humanity, and so I cant really support it. Pretty much the same with democratic positions. So I often find myself drawn further left.

-

I'm going to chime in with Joe that the definition of Leftists is out of character with the other definitions on the list. if I may, I'd like to suggest he following modification:

Leftists: adamant reformists. Power corrupts, government is power, so vigilance and activism are a constant requirement to prevent tyranny and injustice. Tendencies towards socialistic or anarchistic thought.

I'll also add that I'm not sure this really fits on one dimension. for instance, I would tend to class myself as a non-secular progressive - I have very strong spiritual values and would love to see them reflected in governance, but I don't think my government's behavior reflects them at all. It seems to me that the concepts of religion and patriotism are thoroughly entwined here, as though a the less religious are always less patriotic, and vice-versa. I don't think I'd argue with those being correlated (particularly if we are discussing the Christian faith in the US, which has always had strong political interests), but this presentation feels a little cut-and-dried. I'm not sure what there is to do about that, though...

Hi tw, and welcome back, joe.

What I tried to do was to define how I use these terms on this forum. Granted that one can define them all in a variety of ways, but by referencing them to the emergent levels in Spiral Dynamics (search the web or this forum if you're new to this approach), I tried to present a standard that by means of which we might bring some clarity to the topic. For sure, there is mean Green, mean Orange, happy Green, rigid Blue, etc.

tw writes: I have very strong spiritual values and would love to see them reflected in governance, but I don't think my government's behavior reflects them at all.

Not at all? That's not cynical (see my definition of a Leftist)?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Hi tw, and welcome back, joe.

What I tried to do was to define how I use these terms on this forum. Granted that one can define them all in a variety of ways, but by referencing them to the emergent levels in Spiral Dynamics (search the web or this forum if you're new to this approach), I tried to present a standard that by means of which we might bring some clarity to the topic.
[/qb]

ah, ok... I'm familiar with Spiral Dynamics, and I see where you're coming from. that's useful. I think what concerned me was the apparent difference in mood between the first four definitions and the last: the former are analytical and fairly dry, while the last pulls in a bunch of juicy emotive words (cynical, corrupt, Devil, mean). I don't think it's necessarily wrong, just (as I said earlier) of a different character. subjective, possibly...

interesting thoughts about color distributions, though - it seems to me you'd have a narrower range of color levels in the extremes than in the center - reds and blues would be drawn to more defined policy positions, no?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]Not at all? That's not cynical (see my definition of a Leftist)? [/qb]

oh, yeah, I just couldn't decide from your definitions whether I fit better in the progressive or conservative camp. I have a lot of elements of each.

tw, that position A, Right-wingers, is also rather extreme.

It's fairly common for one to be spread among the various positions. Imagine you have 100 points to distribute among them, how would you do so? That would be a good exercise for anyone reading this.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] tw, that position A, Right-wingers, is also rather extreme. [/qb]

Legalistic, and tending toward theocratic. vs. Cynical reformists. Bush is the devil.?