Do you think Wal-Mart is evil?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Sunday, November 27, 2005 20:12
VIEWED: 21084
PAGE 7 of 17
Sure it's corrupt, but mostly Clinton and Bush. Before that, and also in other offices, it is usually the case.
If your right is truly a warmonger, I don't know that much about british politics as I said, then it might explain why your country is more left.
The EU is an appalling idea. If you were to ask me for a referendum on the USA, there is no way I would vote for it. I don't think there's any way it would pass a vote by the general public. The independent nation of New York would be so vastly superior that there really would be no competition. Add to that the fact that support for a federal govt. which gives just about exactly nothing back and takes 1/2 of everyone's paycheck, I'd say it's no contest.
The situation for such a referendum in the great lake states would be just as bad, new england it would be worse, and pacific coast states worst of all. The strongest support would come from the red states, but the deep south is so heavily nationalistic, and that would be confederate nationalism, not American really, that it would fail there as well. It would definitely lose Florida and Texas, and thus the United States would come to an end. America would pretty much continue to function as it always had, only without a federal govt.
Given what a disaster it's been here, the idea the Europe would copy that boggles the mind. And that's a best case scenario, that the EU becomes like the US Federal govt. Worst case of course is that it becomes the new Soviet Union.
Here of course it's not so clear what's left and what's right.
At the moment, we have a supposedly conservative president who's instituting the largest social program of all time in him new medicare package, and he's following a liberal who slashed such programs across the board.
Our "conservative" president actually said in a recent speech that one of the reasons he's fighting this war is women's rights. Everything, lately is out the window.
So when I try to define conservatism, I have to look back at the pre-Reagan era, before neocons and corrupt corporates really got a hold on things Nixon, Eisenhower, Coolidge, T.Roosevelt, and so on back John Quincy Adams. Hoover is obviously a disaster and completely skipable :)
When I look at Bush, Clinton, I see nothing but liberals. It's possible I may be willing to compromise, as they aren't anything. There's a lot of corruption there. I think there's some genuine socialist intentions there in the PNAC crowd, I just disagree with the goal, but I don't think they're completely insincere. I'm not sure Clinton was completely insincere, I think he was just wrong. I think Bush is completely insincere.
Conservatives believe, in this country
1. Limited government
2. Free market capitalism. Pro-Business.
3. Isolationist foreign policy
4. Meritocracy
5. The right of every group to more or less set its own rules and live by them
Liberals believe
1. Big Govt. particularly for two purposes: Social support systems and public labor projects.
2. Restraints on free trade, tarriffs, taxes, generally things which might increase federal revenue at the expense of business.
3. Interventionist military policy, hopefully on the side of the downtrodden. Attempts to change other nations rules to fit a western model.
4. Economic Parity
5. A "correct" set of rules of social behavior that everyone should abide by.
In general, I would shorted these to a simple two lines
Liberals believe in universal equality
Conservatives believe in preservation of a way of life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A more cynical take could be:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Liberals believe in universal equality
Conservatives believe in preservation of a way of life.
Liberals want to set criminals free to rape and pillage
Conservatives want people killed so we can have coffee and oil
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Calling Wal-Mart Socialist is like saying my house is a dictatorship.
Also, the GUM store was state-owned, state-run and state-supplied. Wal-Mart is none of the above. And the GUM store was a bazaar of individual shops, as such it doesn’t even resemble Wal-Mart, instead it would look far more like a mall.
The distinction between the British and the American political parties is an interesting one. In general, the Tories loosely compare to the Republicans and Labour loosely compares to the Democrats, although Labour is generally, I think, much further to the Left then the Democrats generally appear, but I think that is changing. There has been considerable mix up lately and I wouldn’t care to try to figure it out where it stands.
As for the American parties, there is a common misconception with the characterizations of the two major American parties that they are almost intrinsically Right-wing or Left-wing as these terms are defined today. The terms Right and Left are simply a dichotomy. To describe a political party you have to be careful to define these terms, otherwise they are meaningless.
Republicans have not always, nor necessarily, been the party of American Conservatism, in fact prior to the 1960’s this was probably a description that would have more accurately characterized many Democrats. These Rockefeller Republicans, as they are sometimes called, referred to themselves as “liberals,” a term I still use and identify with today, but one that has become bastardized somewhat. A liberal was someone who believed in small decentralized government and private business, because these were ideas that were believed to facilitate a free or unregulated lifestyle. Liberals (lower case ‘L’) were likely to be somewhat socially liberal, but the Republican party had been socially liberal going all the way back to its creation on a anti-slavery platform. The social liberalism of Republicans was more a “couldn’t care as long as I get rich or no one bothers me” sort of philosophy. However, in spite of the apparent similarities the modern Left would have had a very hard time identifying with these Republicans. They would not have been likely to champion for the right to abortion or gay rights and generally held a somewhat realpolitick view on national defense and foreign policy.
Likewise prior to the 1960’s a Conservative was likely to be a Democrat. It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who opposed the Civil Rights Bill and most, if not all, proponents of segregation were Democrats. The pre-60s democrats were true social Conservatives holding strongly to the religious, aristocratic and nationalistic philosophies that characterized much of American thought during the 19th century. Although it would not have been accurate to characterize them as “Left-wing,” the Democrats did considered themselves to be the champions of the working class and poor. Not Marxist, but probably very Keynesian.
This shift in politics is sometimes attributed to Goldwater, but the truth is that it was probably a long time coming and much larger in scope then any one person could have affected. This realignment basically merged the two parties and created two new amalgamated parties. Pro-business but religion Republicans. Pro-government but liberal Democrats.
There is a new shift in politics that has affected the Democrats, so far. The Democrats of today have moved excruciatingly close to becoming a true Left-wing party in the flavor of those generally only seen in Europe. They seem to be adopting ideas about political and economic reform that would have been unimaginable even 20 years ago. Their absolutist support for a right to abortion is one example. This is sometimes characterized as the Postmodern Left, although this is perhaps misleading. It refers to the “re-emergence” of a 1960s style Left-wing intelligentsia. Although this is not a re-emergence per se, since the Democrats were never that far Left in the 1960s. In reality it is the maturing of the “hippy” movement, which has found roots
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn
Never been to your house, but if you say so.
No, the State is Walmart owned.
I didn't really see any shif tin the GOP until reagan, and then it was more of a corrupt global socialist shift, which has since inceased exponentially.
I don't think that issue switches in the GOP and Democratic parties represent total switches of position. FDR was pretty much the same kind of democrat as Carter, Coolidge was basically the same sort of Republican as Ford, so it's hard for me to credit that between 1925 and 1975 there was an essential reverse of parties.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As ever, very interesting, Finn.
You should get paid for this.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have mixed feelings about Wal-Mart, but I do not feel like it is any more evil than any other corporation. I come from a small town with a Wal-Mart. Literally two grocery stores, two drug stores, 3 or 4 small clothing stores, and a Dairy delite. Except for one of the clothing stores all of the others are still open, and the one that closed sold over priced clothing that small town folks couldn't afford anyway. There are many children wearing cute affordable Wal-Mart clothing in our school system that wouldn't have been able to afford the clothing from anywhere else. Living some ways from a city, the Wal-Mart was a godsend for many everyday things that a family needed. It was one of the major poviders of jobs for kids in the town. It provided scholarships opportunities for many kids that couldn't afford to go to school, as well as an opportunity to transfer jobs to a store close to a university if one needed work while getting an education. My sister worked at Wal-Mart briefly, and when she was in an accident the management came out to our house with plates, cups, soda, and supplies to help my family out. Besides educational donations, Wal-Mart has donated a large sum of money to such natural disasters as Katrina, etc. My local Wal-Mart is not a supercenter, but we have two supercenters in towns an hour to two hours away. They are heavily invested in finding missing children. Every year they fund workshops in their stores and local malls to educate parents and children about abduction and to give out id photos and fingerprints. When a local child went missing they provided fliers and other supplies to help in the search. I could probably go on naming more if I wanted to. These are just off the top of my head. Right now I live across from a supercenter in a bigger town while attending school. Although I don't like the supercenter as much as the regular Wal-Mart of my hometown, I don't think that it is evil. I'll shop there. It's affordable and convenient, and if it doesn't have a sauce or ice cream that I want (Wal-Mart does tend to stock a lot of one brand) I go to the Kroger. Just like I go to the Kroger if I don't want to wait in a long line. Or I will go to Target, K-Mart, or even Lowes. That is capitalism. There are choices out there. There are different stores. One doesn't have to go to Wal-Mart as many people on this topic have chosen not to do. It is a competative market. Wal-mart may lose customers as if becomes more impersonal (seems some people here would be in this category), and if so, it will have to change to compete with newer stores. So, do I think that Wal-Mart is evil? No. Nor do I think that it is the epitome of good. It's just a store to patronage as I feel best, and as I feel it's worth my time and money.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, Finn, I agree pretty much completely!
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
auxarc, I'm glad that your Wal-Mart experience is a good one. Midwest and small-towns definitly need that kind of store. Now if Wal-Mart would just try not to purchase their product from questionable sources, we'd (and they'd) have it made!
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, nice analysis.
DT, I think there are a few things that need to be understood.
First the opposite of conservative is not liberal but progressive. The opposite of liberal is not conservative but authoritarian. There are conservative libertarians that are also fiscal conservatives, there are progressives that are authoritarian.
Second, just because a UK party calls itself "Conservative" doesnt mean that they sign up for exactly the same policies that an American conservative would recognise. Like I said before a Russian conservative is a hard line communist who dreams of a return of the Soviet Union.
The way I see it is this. A conservative is someone who is either content with the current reality or who looks back at some past time as his country's heyday. You seem to like 1955 but I know other US conservatives that prefer 1905 (or any time before the Federal Income tax) there are others that favour that Jeffersonian rural ideal that never did exist. In any case they cherry pick their "ideal moment" from a country's good times, you wont find a conservative who really wants the days of the Depression back or thinks the US was perfect during the Civil War.
British Conservatives are not war mongers but they were the party of Empire. The often lampooned traditional Tory voter "angry of Surrey" is a retired Indian Army major who writes letters to the Telegraph complaining about long haired kids in the street and how a few years in the army will sort them out. To a British conservative the heyday was back in the 1920's sometime when teh Empire was at its height, people were more polite and reverential to their betters and the Royal Navy ruled the waves. It was never hard to justify enhanced defence spending to this group. We are an interventionist nation --- that is how you build an Empire -- so if someone messes with you then you deal with them by whatever means military or covert.
By contrast the British left distrusts the military because previous governments have used it against their own people. Traditionally they are anti colonial and of the belief that although you can help other countries solve their problems it is not your place to play world policeman.
Consequently in peace time Labour traditionally cuts defence in favour of social programs. When the Tory's get back in power they cut social programs for defence. Since both sides want to convince the voting public of the "wiseness" of these choices, Labour highlights the improvement in public services under their administration, Conservatives highlight advances in crime prevention and security. A good way to highlight the wiseness of defence spending is to actually use the military operationally.
Blair is a confusion. He's spent more on pure military R&D than any of his immediate predecessors of either party. He is happily planing the construction of career battle groups, giving Britain it's first big jet careers since the early 1970's it's likely he will replace the Trident nuclear submarine fleet which Labour opposed building back in the 1980's.
If you think that Bush goes against the standard Republican type towards the left (which I question but that's your opinion) Blair has moved harder to the right than any previous Labour leader. In fact he is to the right of Howard in a lot of instances.
Your comments about the Federal government and the EU. I assume you know that the State of New York was far from convinced about adopting the US Constitution precisely because of potential states rights issues. In fact the Federalist papers exist because the Federal consitition was such a hard sell in NY. If you read Federalist and then look at opinions over the EU constitution it is exactly the same arguments 200+ years later. The irony I find in all this is that some of teh more political boards I'm on have US Neocon types cat calling because the EU can't get it's act together, while most of the US conservatives I know would have been happier had the US stayed a looser confederation than it is now.
The problem with the EU is that it is
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch,
A couple things.
I'm kind of busy lately, so if you post too much in an argument, you win, because it might be a while before I have time to read it all.
Second, just because you say it, doesn't make it so. Progressive conservative movements have existed in the pass, there was for instand the Progressive party, in the early 20th c.
In recent years the term 'progressive' was co-opted by left wing fringe groups. This doesn't mean that it's correct. Often these groups represnt ideas which neither represent progress nor change.
There have been no end of liberal-authoritarian movements, so that counterpoint is out.
Since there was never a liberal-conservative movement, the two are fairly mutually exclusive. Pretty much the entire world views them as opposites.
Also, it's well known that the opposite of authoritarian is libertarian, which has no relation to liberal.
Here's the mistake many people make: Linguistic roots often share little meaning similarity, and generally are different applications of like qualities. Both words are derived from latin words that have distinct different meanings.
Libertarian is derived of course from liberty, which is derived from the latin word "Liber" meaning "Free."
Liberal is derived directly from the latin word "Liberalis" meaning "Generous."
The two are not related specifically to one another. Liberal, therefore is not directly related to freedom, as in personal rights, it is only related free in the context that generous means to give freely, or giving without restraint.
Everything in liberal philosophy today is very much in line with this concept of generosity.
Conservative is from conserve, which in turn is from the latin "conservare" meaning to keep or preserve. In relation to use, it is to give or use sparingly, to use with caution.
That which means, at it's core, to give or use sparingly is undeniably the opposite of to give generously.
By this base, it is totally correct to say "President Bush has a liberal energy policy."
Social Conservatism applies this concept of preservation to society, resisting social change.
Social liberalism by contrast would be to be generous with social change.
I am simply making these points to make sure that it understood. I, myself, am both a social conservative and a resource and fiscal conservative, but they are not the same thing.
Clinton was pretty much a fiscal conservative but social liberal. Bush is pretty much a fiscal liberal and a social conservative.
But these labels, which accurately describe key parts of their political character, do not define all of them. Cinton and Bush, are, for example, both social global militarists.
Many positions that politicians and their parties may take may not take aren't tied to this left/right dichotomy.
In America, during my lifetime, pro-police anti-crime has largely been a democratic party agenda. This is probably becuase policeman's unions are largely democratic party supporters, probably because they operate out of cities, and urban society is more pro-democrat. Rural society is more republican. A county by country map of the 2004 election strongly backs up this idea. Almost all cities are blue, almost all countryside is red, in America.
Your breakdown does make sense, and if such military spending isn't totally consistant with the ideas of conservatism, nobody's perfect.
I will concede something here.
Bush is, to me, not the issue. PNAC is the issue, and they are born of the political far left intellectual elite of a few ivy league left wing education political philosophical groups.
I use this to attack Bush as a left wing divergent, because it's ideologically easier. Consevatives are less likely to be afraid of someone being "too conservative" than of someone being a liberal mole.
I personally, don't think the Bush Admin is in any way conservative, really, in practice, except from a christian extremist perspective. But this is a voter draw. Bush's keystone policies are all pretty liberally based.
I would see B
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME