Right vs. Left in the Midwest

[ibx 2]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/right-vs-left-in-the-midwest.html

Who's going to tell me why this is bullshit?

[winsor 191]

ibx

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/right-vs-left-in-the-midwest.html

Who's going to tell me why this is bullshit?

Having spent time in various Socialist Workers' Paradises in my youth, I find the slant suspect.

Had he thrown in Vermont vs. New Hampshire as a control I suspect his results would not look the same, but I may be underestimating his capacity for spin.

[BIGUN 1,106]

The common view of political and economic systems holds that the various types of governments are best understood by placing them on a continuous, horizontal line with one end being the opposite of the other. This "political spectrum" is usually arranged from the "Far Right" to the "Far Left." Anchoring the "Far Right" is Nazism as it was practiced by Hitler's Germany. Next comes Fascism and other kinds of totalitarian regimes of lessening severity. Many of the military governments of South America as well as true monarchies could be classified as examples of this region of the spectrum. Democracies and capitalist countries such as the United States are placed somewhere in the middle. Moving farther to the Left, there are semi-socialist and fully socialist countries. Nations such as Sweden would fit in this region. Anchoring the Far Left end of the political spectrum are communist countries, the best representative of which has been the Soviet Union.

While this division of the world's political systems has had a great deal of impact on the thoughts and discussions of people in political circles as well as on those of everyday citizens, a focus on the basic principles which underlie these various governmental/economic systems reveals that the differences between the Far Left and the Far Right are more differences in surface details than in the essential nature of their attitudes, actions, and philosophies. A closer examination of the three best examples of the political spectrum -- Nazi Germany (the "Far Right"), capitalist United States (the "Middle"), and Communist Russia (the "Far Left") -- reveals that a truer layout of these political systems places the United States (an individualistic system) at one end and Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as variants of each other (that is, of collectivist political systems) at the other end.

Attempts are often made to justify the polar positioning of Nazism and communism by stating that in Nazism the "State" (or Nation) is all-powerful and is personified in the person of the leader (Führer) and that in communism it is the people in the form of the "Proletariat" which is the supreme governmental authority. In essence, however, these two terms are merely variations on the same fundamental theme. Whether called the "State" or the "Proletariat," it is the collective -- however it is defined -- which takes precedence over the individual. The individual's life belongs to that state or society of which he or she is a member. In collectivist political systems, when a conflict arises between the ends of the state or society and those of the individual, the needs of the collective always come first ("the greatest good for the greatest number"). Society and the state are viewed as capable of having desires and wants above, beyond, and separate from those of the individual citizens who must obey without question any edicts which are issued. The decision as to when a citizen's interests must be sacrificed for those of society or the state is made by a small number of rulers. In Nazi Germany, the person who decided what the State needed was Hitler. In the U.S.S.R., the elite who decided what was best for the Proletariat was the Supreme Soviet. If the individual disagreed with the actions of these dictatorial elites, he faced the real danger of imprisonment or death for his political opinions.

In contrast to this collectivist view of the relationship between the individual and government, capitalist democracies such as the United States hold that "majority rule, tolerance of dissenting views, freedom of thought, speech, and the press, (and the) equality of all men under the law" are essential for a healthy society. As opposed to collectivist societies, the government of the United States was established on the principle that the majority is not always right. The rights of minorities (and the individual citizen is the smallest minority there is!) are to be protected. The Constitution of the United States (and in particular the Bill of Rights) was established in order to accomplish "the subordination of society" to the individual and to protect the rights of the individual citizens against the possible abuses of the governing leaders. In this society, individual rights take precedence over any public or societal powers. "A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted."

Socialism and communism advocate that the ownership and control of the means of production be placed in the hands of society. Nazism and Fascism hold that ownership of property can be kept by private citizens but that the control of that property should be held by the State. In the latter case, however, when the State dictates what can be manufactured, how much can be manufactured, where the goods will be sold, and what the price for those items will be, ownership becomes ownership in name only and has no practical significance. Indeed, Nazism stands for the National Socialist Workers' Party even as the U.S.S.R. stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Under both political systems, the government decides what job an individual will be permitted to hold, when or if that individual will be permitted to change jobs, how much the individual will be paid, and even where the individual will be permitted to travel or live. The state or society has ultimate power over every aspect of the life of the individual citizen.

Hitler himself, perhaps, best expressed the similar spirit which underlies both Nazism and communism:

There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia.... I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will.

Hitler was, in fact, grateful to the Communists:

I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun.... I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.

The antagonism between the German Communists and the German Nazis was not a disagreement between basic philosophy or goals. Each group believed in the supremacy of the absolute state. The fighting between them was over the form which that absolute state was to take and which of their groups was to become the ruler of that state. For the individual citizens, there could be no significant difference in the nature of their lives under either type of totalitarian regime.

The capitalist democracy of the United States, however, was and is the antithesis of these principles. In this political system, the function of the government is the protection of individual rights and property. Citizens are free to work for any employer who will hire them; are free to live wherever their resources and desires take them; are free to manufacture what they want and to sell those products to whomever will purchase them and for whatever price those customers are willing to pay. Voluntary cooperation rather than governmental coercion describes the relationships among citizens. No one is to be deprived of his or her property without due process of law and then only for objectively defined reasons instead of arbitrary governmental decrees. In collectivist societies, the use of force against citizens or other nations is always an acceptable means of compelling them to follow a certain course of action. In this country, the use of force is to be avoided as much as possible and to be used only against those who initiate force against other citizens or the nation. Reasoned debate and persuasion is the preferred method of changing the direction of the country.

Even though the United States has strayed in some ways from its founding principles, it still stands in sharp contrast to the nations of the Far Right and the Far Left. The federal government of the United States has become much more powerful in the past two centuries. It often does pass laws restricting the private affairs of its citizens and issues regulations which interfere with the free exercise of its citizens' rights. These moves echo the actions of socialism of the fascist variety. Yet as long as there remains two-party rule, a ban on imprisonment or execution for political offenses, a respect for private property, and no governmental censorship, this political system remains free to alter its course and to adhere more closely to the principles of individual freedom and individual responsibility which made this nation the most free and most productive nation that this world has ever seen.

In essential principles then, the political spectrum runs not from Far Right to Far Left with democracies in the middle. Instead, a clearer, more accurate representation of this spectrum places on one end nations which respect individual rights and subordinate the nation and government to the individual citizens. On the other end of the spectrum are collectivist societies which hold to the fundamental principle that the individual must be subordinated to the collective or state and that any freedoms the citizens have are granted as favors rather than guaranteed as rights. The old view of political systems focused too much on surface details. This newer view recognizes that basic philosophies are much more important in revealing true similarities and differences among the governments of the world. The Right vs the Left: A = A by Russell Madden

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

ibx

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/right-vs-left-in-the-midwest.html

Who's going to tell me why this is bullshit?

It's BS because North Dakota which borders Minnesota on the West is solidly Republican leading to

1. A 3% unemployment rate versus Minnesota's 5.1%
2. 22,000 more jobs than people
3. 22 year old children with no experience getting jobs paying $100K/year

I'll refrain from mentioning that correlation does not imply causality, just like the New York Times opinion piece neglected that key point.

I'll also refrain from pointing out that two parties nearly alike are the inevitable result of first-past-the-post electoral systems and that both Democrats and Republicans are freedom-hating big government schmucks with minor differences.

To generalize

Democrats want to pay for growth in government with higher taxes on a minority of the population and control what sort of guns people can own.

Republicans want to pay for growth in government with inflation and control what people do with their crotches.

People whose money, guns, or genitals one of the parties is trying to control often vote the other way. Unfortunately that only matters when they live in a geographically defined district where voters political views are close enough to 50-50 that the election is up for grabs, where said districts are often Gerrymandered to preserve the incumbents' power.

[kallend 1,679]

DrewEckhardt

***http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/right-vs-left-in-the-midwest.html

Who's going to tell me why this is bullshit?

It's BS because North Dakota which borders Minnesota on the West is having an oil and gas boom leading to

1. A 3% unemployment rate versus Minnesota's 5.1%
2. 22,000 more jobs than people
3. 22 year old children with no experience getting jobs paying $100K/year

I'll refrain from mentioning that correlation does not imply causality, just like the New York Times opinion piece neglected that key point.


FIFY

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

kallend

******http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/right-vs-left-in-the-midwest.html

Who's going to tell me why this is bullshit?

It's BS because North Dakota which borders Minnesota on the West is having an oil and gas boom leading to

1. A 3% unemployment rate versus Minnesota's 5.1%
2. 22,000 more jobs than people
3. 22 year old children with no experience getting jobs paying $100K/year

I'll refrain from mentioning that correlation does not imply causality, just like the New York Times opinion piece neglected that key point.


FIFY

If a significant oil/gas deposit was found near the Twin Cities, 7 people would protest the environmental impact (prior to any complete and objective impact study would even be done) and the legislature would quickly mobilize to squash any development effort through new laws. The owner would still have his property taxes increased due to the land value change, but he wouldn't be allowed to develop the deposit. Within a year, he'd be forced to erect a wind farm instead. Somehow, excessive taxes on the citizens would be added to subsidize the wind farm - though the property owner would see none of it. It would then quickly lose money on a regular basis. this would be claimed as a huge victory.

Court cases would quickly be filed to protest the wind farm because the blades occasionally kill pigeons, and endangered mosquito species.

Finally, an increase in sales tax would fund 22% of a light rail line to the wind farm. It would only cost $20M/year to operate, but the 4 people that ride it twice a year will be interviewed on local news shows to state how great a success it is for the children and the economy.

(Unless the deposit was on publicly owned lands - at which point development would happen immediately, no profits would be announced such that a tax increase would be needed to develop it. and all the legislators would be driving luxury cars)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants