Haven't seen this, did a search...

Sad thing is, this is reality...

Sounds like one of those WHAT YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO BE A LIBERAL lists!

Bump!

BTTT

Bumty bumty bump.

Ping.

Right wing causes are generally characterized by glorification of the military, rigid familial and societal hierarchies (generally to the detriment of women and minorities), and a call for the return to traditional religious ideals, all hearkening to a mythological, utopian past.

I think if you look closely you will see that it is the collapse of traditional familial hierarchies that have done the damage to women and minorities. As to societal hierarchies, it was the Democrats who were against Civil Rights, not Republicans. Today the definition of Civil Rights has been twiseted to mean anything that keeps the minorities down while pretending to lift them up so they will continue voting for you. Who would be in favor of a shell game like that? (Oh, wait, the Democrats are. Sorry.)

As to the mythological utopian past, I'll take it over the theoretical utopian future any day.

Methinks you need a new set of glasses with out the rose tint.

Shalom.

"Some personal observations on the duplicity of the left"

**DUPLICITY**DUPLICITY**DUPLICITY**

What a great word to describe the deceitfulness of many on the left!!! It has an added implication, of a conscious intention to double-deal, which is missing from the word hypocrisy.

Some of the people on the left don't merely fail to live up to their announced intentions (as ordinary hypocrites would). Their deceitfulness is beyond hypocrisy. Some of the people on the left go beyond hypocrisy through their intentional attempts to tell others what they can and cannot do and think, all the while (purposely?) excusing themselves from following the same rules.

No wonder they don't step down from office when any of their evil actions are exposed. No wonder they hide behind the excuse that "everyone's doing it." People like that are NOT merely weak-willed hypocrites, like so many of us, but are strong and deliberate deceivers.

I realize I'm getting a little carried away with this insight. Some people on the left just don't think very logically and are probably not intentionally deceptive.

Thanks! Great thread! And sooooooo true!

Volley bump!

Right wing causes are generally characterized by glorification of the military, rigid familial and societal hierarchies (generally to the detriment of women and minorities), and a call for the return to traditional religious ideals, all hearkening to a mythological, utopian past.

Here we differ strongly.

1. First of all, why bring up the discussion of religion and connect it to the right wing? Religion doesn't even enter into the discussion of secular politics unless the government promotes one particular religion (eg, is a theocracy ) or persecutes religious believers. (Which raises the question, "Why are so-called "leftists or liberals" so obsessed with government involvement in religious practices or non-practices of their people? You'd think they'd leave people alone with their beliefs, wouldn't you?) It seems to me that religion comes into play as an issue, when someone is trying to change or control the balance of political power, as when the government is shaky or someone wants to shake it up. Left or right could use it as an issue.

2. A right wing party can sometimes simply be viewed as one that glorifies the government, and gives it power at the expense of the rights of the individual.

Sounds like the Taliban AND the Democrats have a lot in common, including an obsessive interest in religious beliefs of their citizens. At any rate, they both aim to have a government which strongly controls the details of their citizens' lives. "Left-right" labels don't change this oppressive reality.

Specious argument. The Democrats or the Republicans don't differ enough from each other to qualify as "left" or "right" in any significant way

While you may be right that there are positions more left than the Democrats and more right than the Republicans, you are wrong that they do not differ.

The evidence? Think of the following potential news headline.

(WARNING: READING THE NEXT LINE MAY GIVE YOU NIGHTMARES OR CAUSE YOU TO TOSS YOUR COOKIES ON YOUR KEYBOARD! PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!)

President Gore to hold press conference regarding the WTC attack!

If that doesn't cause you to recognize the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans then I take back my remark about the rose-colored glasses. I suggest you open your eyes.

BTW: I made specific points about liberal vs conservative approaches to issues. You decided not to address them. Feel free to correct the omission.

Shalom.

So true.

ernest de moniac:
Left wing groups tend to claim to be "forward looking" wheras right wing groups tend to claim to hearken to the "past," in either case we are not discussing the end result of either extreme (horrific) but the nature of their appeal.

This sounds similar to the over-generalized, overly-positive self-portrait that is often put out by left-wingers. I'll bet "right-wingers" look forward to GOOD changes as much as "left-wingers" do.

1. Which "expert" are you quoting?
2. Does the sheer number of new government tasks promoted by party leadership show how dedicated one party is to the future?
3. IF the left-wingers may have more changes in mind, does that prove that they look to the future in a more positive (or even realistic) way?

Not ALL change is positive. Not ALL possible futures are equally good. One could also say that the "left wing" groups are endeavoring, through change, to regress to the feudal era, with the government doling out rights of ownership and of use to its favorites. In bygone days in Europe, the government actually maintained ownership of the land and doled out land use and rights to the "favorites" of the government. That type of government power seems to have increased again under Clinton. In the same way, increasing government controls on gun ownership are promoted by "left"-wingers. Again, so-called 'liberalism" seems very similar to Bin Ladenism in this preference for government power, rather than for individual rights.

---

Syriacus: First of all, why bring up the discussion of religion and connect it to the right wing?

ernest de moniac:In the attempt to return to a mythical, past Utopia, right-wing groups virtually always wind-up promoting "one particular religion,"

And many leftists have a love affair with the Utopian, mythical idea that the best religion is "no religion". (Except for, perhaps, an otherwise unaccountable belief in reincarnation) --Ala communism, John Lennon's Imagine, Carl Sagan's Cosmos, etc. I see a greater obsession with government meddling in religion by the so-called "left wing," than on the part of the so-called "right wing." For example, it could be that more lawsuits regarding religion have been brought by people aligned with the "left" wing than by those aligned with the "right" wing since WWII. If this is true, the "left" wing might be viewed as having the greater obsession with religious practice in the United States.

bttt :)

A few more:

If teaching about condoms doesn't equal usage, why doesn't the same apply to guns?

If violence begets violence [according to madonna and the peacenik crows] why doesn't this same apply to abortion?