Sledding (Mis)Quotes by Marie

 

"I sled, therefore I am"  --Rene Daycart

"Climb every mountain... Then sled down." --Oscar Hammerstone

"Sometimes a sled is just a sled."  --Sigmund Fraud

"I came, I saw, I sledded."  --Julius Freezer

More Political Choices

    

     The 20th Century was, in many ways, a tug of war between far right (often fascist) and far left (communist/extreme socialist) movements in many parts of the world.  Each of these movements would justify what they did, saying "At least, I'm not those guys..."  "We just do what we do to keep those guys at bay..."

      Guess what?  They're both bad; they're both really bad. They both lead to autocracy.  Once autocracy is in place, it all becomes about propping up the autocrat's ego and/or greed.  Whatever the people who put the autocrat in place wanted, that fades in light of the autocrat keeping his position, no matter what.  Beware-- what you thought you'd get by supporting an autocrat will fail.              

 

The old adage that right & left bend around and meet in some weird spot.  Here it's backwards, in the past.  The center goes forward.

       As we move into the 21st century, this tug-of-war seems very active in the U.S.  If you listen closely to the loudest of the voices, they seem perfectly willing to cave in to autocracy to get what they want.  

      There are other combinations than hard right and hard left.   

      Besides the absolute Center, there are really 4 dimensions that combine differently in different voters:  liberal on social matters, liberal on economic matters, conservative on social matters, and conservative on economic matters.  

     One of these voices that truly exists but is almost completely unrepresented is the voice that is conservative on social matters (or at least wants to ensure that religious conservatives have an on-going place in society), yet economically liberal (not necessarily fully socialist; just more progressive taxes).   Some people who don't understand this position assume that it would be an autocratic one.  Not necessarily.  The positions defined as "Christian Democratic Parties" in much of Europe fall into this perspective.  These parties do not seek to exclude people who are socially liberal from the society nor to deny their rights. They just want to ensure that people who practice traditional or conservative religions (in ways where they are not discriminating again others in society) are not ostracized from society for their beliefs.  In addition, many European countries that are otherwise socially liberal do not have free and unrestricted abortion through all 40 weeks of pregnancy.  Some Americans who believe in this combination feel that better support for workers is a family matter (supporting something that's socially conservative); it might also reduce abortions. 

     The economically conservative yet socially liberal position is not officially represented by either major political party but is hugely represented in influence across society.  They are loosely defined as the "Libertarians."  This is the position a lot of businesses and business leaders like.  If you listen closely to what a lot of the media says about "moderates" they favor, they hold this position.  A fair amount of the Hollywood crowd is in this camp.  "Be nice to everyone on the surface.  But don't let everyone know that it's still much easier for the rich to get richer than people on lower rungs to climb any higher."

     The right & left are getting very polarized socially.  The economic area has many centrist thinkers.  Some of the center has shifted into liberal economic territory during the 45th presidential administration.  But the economic center is still larger than the economic left.  This 'territory', especially slightly left of center, is similar to the propositions discussed in the paragraph on European Christian Democrats.  This would be more of a repeal of Reaganomics, improving educational & training opportunities, improving a safety net for workers or the truly disabled, improving public works projects (some of which would also improve the environment). Price controls would not be a factor (except possibly in the area of medicine, such as prescription medicines and insurance costs); neither would be taking over industries, etc.  Private enterprise would continue.

     Though the Right & Left are becoming more polarized on social issues, this does not mean that the numbers are equal.  It does appear the Religious Right is shrinking and is maintaining its political clout is somewhat artificial ways. This is not helpful for anyone in the long term.

     If we had better representation, it would take the force of one vs. the other away.  It would be less likely that an eventual "victor" would pull everyone off the cliff with a huge tug.  We could get some of this through things like rank-choice voting and fully open primaries.