RationalWiki's article on the Theory

[JasonBlack]

(12-08-2022, 01:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Brower may be right about this. These days left-wing idiotism does abound, I must admit. I don't know if I would say that far-left communism is idiocy though; it's just bad theory. But it could be said that arguments for it are as rational as for other ideologies. Any ideology can be suspect just because it's ideology. Communism is worse because it is bad ideology.
But there's lots of conspiracy theory that infects the left these days. Such folks as fanatical "Bernie Bro" supporters of Bernie Sanders (I am a non-fanatical supporter of Bernie Sanders, although I don't identify with any "socialist"label), or other left-wing candidates, subscribe to such conspiracy theories as those directed at Hillary Clinton and her campaign, most of which are false. They may also subscribe to the JFK theory, especially when his death is ascribed to the CIA, FBI, the LBJ administration, and such other government agencies that the Left often criticizes, especially regarding US war policies. Another false left theory is to blame the US for all wars, including especially the Syrian Civil War. Criticism of US support for Ukraine's war against the Russian invasion of their country tends to be wrong, but I would not consider it irrational idiocy; I just disagree with most of it. But I consider that other idiocy may involve looking upon all government officials except those whom they support as corporate stooges; that is just as bad as the Deep State theory on the right-wing. I also disagree with Israel's policies, as do many on the Left, but those who become antisemitic because of Israel's policies I would put under the heading of irrational idiocy.

I'm happy to hear you admit this. Tbh, I don't think the majority of our political differences have much to do with left vs right. Granted, we are drastically difference in terms of personal/emotional preferences (ex: you are a bleeding heart hippie, I'm an anti-feminist zealot), but our major differences in policy are basically
1) I am an ammosexual, you hate guns. Traditionally, leftists have loved guns going back to the works of Karl Marx. Being anti-gun is a recent, liberal development.
2) You're more of a universalist, I'm more in favor of deglobalization. This is probably more generational than based on right vs left. Boomers and Silent Gen tended to be more pro "spread democracy and make the world a better place" (conservatives being more hawkish, liberals more focused on foreign aid and global treaties), millennials on both the left and the right want to scale back overseas involvement and focus more on infrastructure and measures to improve the practical day to day standard of living for Americans.
3) We support fairly different strategies for tackling climate change.
4) You likely support somewhat higher taxes than I do, but nothing ridiculously extreme from what I've seen.

[pbrower2a]

(12-08-2022, 11:27 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(12-08-2022, 01:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Brower may be right about this. These days left-wing idiotism does abound, I must admit. I don't know if I would say that far-left communism is idiocy though; it's just bad theory. But it could be said that arguments for it are as rational as for other ideologies. Any ideology can be suspect just because it's ideology. Communism is worse because it is bad ideology.
But there's lots of conspiracy theory that infects the left these days. Such folks as fanatical "Bernie Bro" supporters of Bernie Sanders (I am a non-fanatical supporter of Bernie Sanders, although I don't identify with any "socialist"label), or other left-wing candidates, subscribe to such conspiracy theories as those directed at Hillary Clinton and her campaign, most of which are false. They may also subscribe to the JFK theory, especially when his death is ascribed to the CIA, FBI, the LBJ administration, and such other government agencies that the Left often criticizes, especially regarding US war policies. Another false left theory is to blame the US for all wars, including especially the Syrian Civil War. Criticism of US support for Ukraine's war against the Russian invasion of their country tends to be wrong, but I would not consider it irrational idiocy; I just disagree with most of it. But I consider that other idiocy may involve looking upon all government officials except those whom they support as corporate stooges; that is just as bad as the Deep State theory on the right-wing. I also disagree with Israel's policies, as do many on the Left, but those who become antisemitic because of Israel's policies I would put under the heading of irrational idiocy.

I'm happy to hear you admit this. Tbh, I don't think the majority of our political differences have much to do with left vs right. Granted, we are drastically difference in terms of personal/emotional preferences (ex: you are a bleeding heart hippie, I'm an anti-feminist zealot), but our major differences in policy are basically
1) I am an ammosexual, you hate guns. Traditionally, leftists have loved guns going back to the works of Karl Marx. Being anti-gun is a recent, liberal development.  
2) You're more of a universalist, I'm more in favor of deglobalization. This is probably more generational than based on right vs left. Boomers and Silent Gen tended to be more pro "spread democracy and make the world a better place" (conservatives being more hawkish, liberals more focused on foreign aid and global treaties), millennials on both the left and the right want to scale back overseas involvement and focus more on infrastructure and measures to improve the practical day to day standard of living for Americans.
3) We support fairly different strategies for tackling climate change.
4) You likely support somewhat higher taxes than I do, but nothing ridiculously extreme from what I've seen.

Crisis eras tend to reshape the political assumptions. As an example, the Right used to castigate the Left for being for Big Government. The difference is now what sort of Big Government one wants. Is it government that promotes economic growth as the economic elites understand growth (profits first at great cost of social equity, promotion of crony capitalism and the expansion of predatory lending that makes debt-thralls out of most people, wars for profit, and monopoly as efficiency) or a more democratic order that promotes the general welfare of the non-rich through streets, schools, sewers, and public health. Libertarian purists did get a big share of the discussion in the last few decades but they now seem very much on the outside. Marxism-Leninism has all but committed suicide. 

Habits that used to be associated with one part of the political spectrum can end up in another. The GOP used to reliably get the votes of the more educated part of the populace (Eisenhower got the majority of the high-school graduates and Stevenson got the majority of those with less than a high-school diploma in the 1950's; back then having only a high-school diploma was still above average in formal education; 52 to 60 years later, Obama got the majority of voters with more than a high-school education while his opponents won those with no college education. Democrats seem to have co-opted, perhaps in somewhat modified form, values that Republicans used to drub them for lacking. They have become more hawkish on national security; they have come to recognize tradition as a fallback when the avant-garde fails (although there might be multiple bases for tradition based on ethnic or religious differences that nobody wants to obliterate); they have extended "family values" to include LGBT rights while repressing domestic violence, homophobia, child molestation, and child porn. Even without a rollback of rights of contraception and abortion we have become more, and not less, loosey-goosey about S-E-X. The Obama family is as conservative in style as one gets. Democrats have become increasingly hostile to crime as they find that it is more a consequence of bad character than of economic deprivation. They are for law and order because they now recognize, if belatedly, that lawlessness rips civil liberties and prosperity. 

We need to stop global warming, but we cannot do so with crude deprivation. We Americans are as mobile as herdsmen, and stopping us from traveling and commuting, or packing us into Stalinist flats is likely to make us rebel. As usual we will seek technological solutions, which in the past have typically meant doing more with lesser inputs of labor and material. We may get our computer-driven electric cars to replace our carbon-belching gas buggies. If we are condemned to live in tower apartments, then we will also need land use that in its consolidation of land area gives us excellent park facilities. Figure that Manhattan would be unlivable without Central Park, that Boston would be unlivable without Boston Commons. We are likely at the end of the line for consumer schlock as a definition of prosperity. Figure that one can download books, video, and music without needing to print even one piece of paper for a "dead tree edition".