Does this Crisis echo the Glorious Revolutuon?

[Marypoza]

(02-18-2019, 03:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-17-2019, 06:48 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Yes there is political polarisation, but BOTH sides are rotten.

The "right" side, Republicans in the US and Brexiteers in the UK, used to stand for Christian morality but now only stands for tribalism, selfishness and toxic masculinity. They even use phrases like "low testosterone" as insults.

The "left" side stands for cultural relativism and nature worship in domestic policy, as well as appeasement of enemies of civilization in foreign policy.

A third side, one devoted to civilized values, would be necessary. Such a party would combine the moral sensitivity of old Christian right and economic policies of better sort of centre-left. It's not going to arise before the end of the millennial cycle, since there are few people with such views. Thus my preferred outcome is that the worst aspects of the right and the left cancel each other.

There are crazies on the left. But that is where a salvageable civilization lies for the future.

I don't know what you mean by nature worship in domestic policy, but the need to change our energy system and live in harmony with Nature, and see it as sacred in all ways, is job one if civilization is to have a future at all. Many moderate centrists also understand the need for action by the government against pollution and climate change and the creation of a civilization that is sustainable. Most of the world's nations are on board with this. Opposition to such actions as the Paris 2015 agreement is extreme right-wing destruction, and is rotten to the core!

"Relativism" has its pitfalls in many respects. "Social justice warriors" can be annoying, especially when they are reverse tribalists of left-identity politics who only care about the "rights" of their own group. But on a broader-based level, the left is correct that all people deserve their rights. As you implied, the alternative is right-wing tribalism.

If cultural relativism reduces the perceived value of fine arts to the lowest common denominator, for material gain or for some distorted sense that everyone's taste, imagination and craftsmanship are "equal," or that the value of art is to be decided by its ethnic identity, then I dissent from this sort of relativism.

However, all cultures and their peoples have their right to exist in peace as long as they don't break the laws, which are based on moral values. I dissent from any idea that such moral values are relative to time, evolution or culture. Their articulation in specific lists and rules may change, but not their essence.

But I don't think that such aesthetic or moral relativism is a prominent feature of the Left in politics. So I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think you adwvocate culture-war religious-right efforts, but I agree with the Left of course on such issues as gay rights and government-sponsored religion in public places. Abortion is an issue that can be compromised, but that doesn't seem to be possible just now.

The USA ought not to be involved in wars of choice for regime change. It does not have the right to overthrow other governments. But working in concert with other nations, the USA can exert its influence to protect allies, defend itself when attacked, and support movements for liberation financially, if and when asked by those movements and not otherwise, and only if this support can be distinguished from US goals of economic or corporate gain. I think that's a good balance between intervention and isolationism, with a preference for the latter in accordance with the belief that wars are inherently evil and outdated, and that we should move in the direction of world peace and balanced local and global governance, but without naivete or closeted isolationist nationalism.

-- Eric, l think that as the Millies bcome more & more influential in the Govt & the Silents & then Boomers die off, this neolib crap will die off with them