[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'B')eing "left" ( and I presume that means Marxist as opposed to variants of capitalism lite) is an objective as opposed to normative view of history. In other words, it's an understanding of what MUST be as a consequence of a set of facts, not what we would rather it be. No sooner do we impose our own expectations on a set of facts, no sooner is our understanding in the quicksand of reformism.

[BasilBoy]

I couldn't agree more with this commentary...that it's You vs. Corporations. However, that's precisely the Left/Right paradigm. The premise that Bush represents the Right and Obama represents the Left is a fallacy. They both belong to the corporate party...

Let's not forget how 'Left' and 'Right' originated. These terms were coined from the seating arrangement of French parliament in the 18th century. On the right sat the monarchy, the clergy, and the aristocracy...while the Third Estate, or the people, sat on the left. Although the terms have taken new meanings, I think the origins persist.

Today, a corporation is run exactly like a monarchy, where the CEO is the king. Since our economy, and hence our social construct, is fundamentally controlled by a few financial corporations...we the people have no real say in the process. If you support democracy, you have to be on the Left:

You = Left
Corporation = Right

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BasilBoy', 'O')bama represents the Left is a fallacy.

[PrestonSturges]

What the media describes as "the left" seems to represesnt 60-85% of the country if you poll them on the issues. The "right" seems to represent religious lunatics and backwoods Sons of the Confederacy.

The actual number of political "leftists" in the European sense would be about 0.5% in the US.

Peoplke who would have been "the left" 100 years ago, like coal miners, now seem absolutely determined to die for Massey Coal. But again, if you polled them on a specific issue, like sending their 8 year old children into the coal pitsto work 60 hour weeks, suddenly they'd be "leftists."

[americandream]

Which is why I took the time to qualify my post by drawing a distinction between those bogus ideologues with a subjective view of history and the overwhelming tendency for these forces to assume the characteristics of corporatists as soon as they are in power and those of a Marxist reading with an objective view of history and its fundamentals (admittedly the world is overrun with those who label themselves Marxist and yet suffer from this affliction).

An error which is overwhelmingly confirmed by the misinformed tendency in society at large with its propensity to mix the the anti-corporatist metaphors of the Marxist (and the common usage of the label "communist" as a pejorative) with the sentimentality of interventionist liberalism, with its empty and meaningless notions of natural, social and/or economic justice.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'B')eing "left" ( and I presume that means Marxist as opposed to variants of capitalism lite) is an objective as opposed to normative view of history. In other words, it's an understanding of what MUST be as a consequence of a set of facts, not what we would rather it be. No sooner do we impose our own expectations on a set of facts, no sooner is our understanding in the quicksand of reformism.

[PrestonSturges]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BasilBoy', 'O')bama represents the Left is a fallacy.

[Tyler_JC]

I don't think it's especially helpful to compare Eisenhower with Obama. The times are different and the problems we face are different.

Sometimes a general consensus changes and popular policy suddenly becomes unacceptable or vice versa.

Example: Almost no elected official in the first half of the 19th Century supported a woman's right to vote. No elected official in the second half of the 20th Century believed women should NOT be allowed to vote. The consensus shifted and those who did not fall in line were swept aside.

Comparing Lincoln and Reagan becomes rather difficult if you don't consider individuals in the context of their time.

Reagan opposed the equal rights amendment (rightwinger!) but supported universal suffrage (leftwinger!). Lincoln opposed universal suffrage (rightwinger!) but supported ending slavery (leftwinger!). Who was more Conservative? Who was more Liberal? Those questions become kind of meaningless if you ignore the context of their times.

Think about even just the past forty years.

Richard Nixon, a Republican president, imposed wage and price controls. At the time, many people believed it was good public policy to have the government dictating the price of cotton cloth and tooth brushes. You want to know who oversaw the program? Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld! I'm not making this up. Dick Cheney, the archetypal ultra right-winger, worked to impose price controls on the American economy. I challenge you to find a sitting congressional representative who would support price controls (other than symbolic ones on gasoline or executive pay).

Again, sometimes the consensus changes and politicians must change with it.

That's why I don't find the Left/Right paradigm particularly helpful. What the "Left" or "Right" position is keeps changing. You can judge someone in their time as a lefty or a rightwinger but you can't judge people across time.